>>51278143
Why use a tractor to plow a field when you can use a horse? Modern technologies eventually become old and redundant and the same will happen with programming a computer.
Eventually an AI could just replace the concept artist because the AI knows exactly what we want.

I sure hope the AI could spell better than you. Well, it could happen but it is not that likely. This sounds like the whole virus that can program itself. It just can't happen anon. Humans have deeper, detailed, and more powerful brains than AI. An AI only has what the programmer added, but they could give it the option to learn. That means you would have to teach it like a child. It's easier just to hire programmers.

>>51278601
>That means you would have to teach it like a child.

But wouldn't that mean, once you've taught one AI everything, it can then copy that knowledge endlessly to create an army of AI programmers?

>>51278643
Yeah but you're thinking too into that gay SciFi shit. It's not likely.

>>51278643
> AIndia

What a promising future!

>>51278643
if such an advanced AI would exists, what would stop it from at least trying to take over the world? You cant bribe it with anything. If it wanted to screw its creators, it would just self destruct and make them lose the money.

If you somehow add a preservation instinct, it wouldnt want to work but rather enjoy life thinking about silly unmarketable things.

The only answer is limited AI, as in making a codemonkey's job faster. You'd still need the human input not because it is unique and valuable but because society has proven ways to control them.

>>51278143
A real AI will render human labor obsolete. We will be lucky if we survive. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Recursive_self-improvement

real AI will never exist so don't sweat it

>>51278601
Once we start making more complex artificial brains, we can start using them to solve problems such as programming. It would be an interface between the code and the designer, creating what they want in an efficient manner.

We're probably a decade or two from that though, I think the furthest we've gotten is creating an artificial worm brain.

>>51278765
You wouldn't create something that advanced simply for programming. By the time we're creating AI advanced enough to mimic humans, we'll probably be able to create ones without ambition, greed or lust.

>>51278643
>teaching one AI everything
Pretty sure noone's gonna let you do that.

>>51278776
>creating strong AI with anything but verbal/textual output and an inherent inability to lie
shiggy fuckin diggy

>>51278839
That's a classic mistake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_box

>>51278867
yeah the latter part is VERY important if you don't want it to manipulate the entire human rance

Another fool that doesn't know what AI is.

AI won't even eliminate regular jobs, unless those jobs are so monotonous you won't want to do them anyway.

The development of AI would essentially eliminate the need for literally all work. Capitalism will fail, and humans will have pretty much no use in the development of society anymore, resulting in lifelong leisure time... though that would actually kind of suck

Perhaps the most important undecidable problem for a TM is known as the halting problem. A universal Turing machine (UTM) cannot always accurately predict whether a given TM will halt or run forever on a given input. Clever programming of the UTM can sometimes predict the answer, but the only solution for all problems is to emulate the machine on the input. Unfortunately, if the emulated machine runs forever, so will the UTM, and will never halt and reject. It has been proven that no TM can be written that can decide the halting problem, so the language consisting of stringified TMs with input strings, where the machine halts on that input string is a Turing recognizable language, but is not decidable.