[whiplash451]

I't even worse than this. If you ask recent AIs the same question all over again, you might get different answers (with some degree of diversity).

But none of them is novel to human kind. It's novel to you, but not to our species.

AI is nailing us to the manifold that we created at the first place.

[dpe82]

Is that really a problem though? Almost nobody does anything "novel to humankind" - besides the odd research professor here and there, we're all just remixing existing stuff in new-to-us ways.

[Antibabelic]

There's a deliberateness to human creativity that goes beyond simply "remixing existing stuff", even if it's a significant part of it. Think about how you'd write a piece of software. The process behind writing a book or making a painting isn't fundamentally dissimilar. There's a reason why people use the word "derivative" pejoratively.

[whiplash451]

The "odd research professor here and there" invented vaccine and quantum mechanics and discovered radioactivity.

None of them would have achieved that with the help of a machine telling them "you're absolutely right!" whenever they'd be asking deep questions to it.

[TeMPOraL]

Where "invented" really means "had the right set of skills, knowledge and experience, and was paying attention at the exact right moment when all the pieces of the puzzle were collected together on the table".

Scientific and technological progress is inherently incremental. It takes a lot of hard work, dedication and specialization to spot the pieces ready to be connected - but the final act of putting them together is relatively simple, and most importantly, it requires all the puzzles to be there.

Which is why, historically, ~all scientific discoveries have been made by multiple researchers (or teams) independently, at roughly the same time - until all prerequisites are made, the next step is ~impossible, but the moment all are met, it becomes almost obvious to those in the know.

[Antibabelic]

> Which is why, historically, ~all scientific discoveries have been made by multiple researchers (or teams) independently, at roughly the same time

This is quite a big claim. All of them? I know there are many discoveries that fit the pattern you're pointing out, but I wouldn't go as far as to say all, or even the majority of them do.

[TeMPOraL]

> All of them?

"~all" stands for approximately all, but maybe this mnemonic is less known than I thought. I'll try to avoid using it in the future.

> I know there are many discoveries that fit the pattern you're pointing out, but I wouldn't go as far as to say all I wouldn't go as far as to say all, or even the majority of them do.

I'm yet to encounter one that does not fit this pattern. As far as I can recall, for every discovery I've learned about, eventually[0] I've also learned it was made independently by others within few years; in some cases, the well-known case wasn't even the first of many, just the one that coined the name for some reason. Politics, geography, better formulation, better promotion, etc.

Related, but not the same - I'm also yet to encounter a discovery that took a great conceptual leap to arrive at. In every case I can think of, the core insight was quite obvious once enough prerequisite information was available[1], and pretty much happened on schedule. Sometimes the same person was involved in discovering the last missing pieces and then connecting them, but that's still a case of research being iterative.

It goes beyond science, too. You've probably seen Burke's Connections[2] (if not, I very strongly recommend it); it demonstrates clearly that technological advancement only happens[3] when all necessary pieces are there: scientific knowledge, necessary technology and right socioeconomic conditions.

--

[0] - Sometimes it would be immediately, like in my teenage years, when reading a book about some mathematicians that went into the drama of who stole who's proof or took credit for the others' work (quite dramatic that book was). Sometimes it would be later on - years, even a decade later - when a book or a Wikipedia article about some breakthrough gave me more historical context than I expected. I eventually noticed the pattern; since then, I sometimes search for extra context immediately upon learning something.

[1] - Hindsight is 20/20, I know.

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(British_TV_series...

[3] - I.e. actually sticks around - think steam engine in ancient Rome vs. Industrial Revolution.