The machines invented so far haven't done "highly innovative things" all by themselves, and yet people doing innovative things often find their machines useful. I expect organizations consisting of both humans and machines will still be pretty important for a while.
> The machines invented so far haven't done "highly innovative things" all by themselves, and yet people doing innovative things often find their machines useful.
This statement is near to being tautological. The central test is rather whether people who do "highly innovative things" become more productive in doing so not just by the mere fact that the AI removes some yak shaving from their work.
Otherwise, you could simply argue that people who do "highly innovative things" also find
- a housecleaner
- a personal secretary
- using a word processing program instead of a typewriter
But they do find them useful. Personal computers were a pretty important invention, too. More recently, the web and "smart" phones (which aren't actually smart) resulted in major changes to organizations. We work differently now.
I'm not actually sure what argument you're making, though? It seems like you're saying that only a certain kind of technological innovation would count for some purpose, but I don't know what purpose you're interested in.
In my answer to your answer (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36937760), I argued that the fact that people doing innovative things often find their machines useful says nothing about that AIs are capable of doing innovative things.
Yes, I read that, but it's unclear what your assumptions are or what you value. I guess having AI that is "highly innovative" in the same way that some people can be innovative is something you value, but it's not that clear to me why that's important.
