Posts from Actaea
Although, to be honest, I don't quite understand why the concept of artificial intelligence isn't identical to the ability to think creatively (that is, to solve creative problems, including the Turing test, which is also a creative task, just like everything else). Or does it mean that creative tasks can be solved not creatively, but with the help of pre-compiled algorithms and "by the book"?
1) Creative tasks are creative precisely because there is no clear analytical algorithm for them.
2) Thinking and successfully solving creative tasks are different things.
3) In most cases (and perhaps in all, I don't know), we are talking about self-learning systems. That is, the creator of such a system develops a heuristic algorithm, with which the system learns to solve problems in a specific area.
4) What are some examples of creative tasks?
Well, one of the most famous is:
"A doctor knows the symptoms; he must make a diagnosis."
As you understand, there are no exact methods. Such a task is traditionally solved only by a person. However, about ten years ago, systems were developed and implemented that can make a diagnosis with an accuracy of ~97%. First, such a system is trained on a given set of input data, then the correctness of the training is tested on other sets, and only then can it work.
Or other tasks.
For example, you need to recognize where a human face is in a photograph, or recognize text of poor quality.
All this is in the field of artificial intelligence.
This is in response to your question. The concept of thinking creatively is not identical to the ability to solve creative tasks. A program doesn't think, but it will successfully cope with tasks if it is taught.
5) Do you know anything about neural networks? This is also one of the rapidly developing areas. Well, this is just one of the implementation methods that allows you to teach a program something.

В тихой однообразной жизни всегда так бывает: каждый отдельный день бесконечно долог, но месяцы и годы мчатся с непостижимой быстротой.
I wanted to offer you some flowers, but a crown would suit a princess like you much better
Смысл жизни в том, что жизнь на тебе не заканчивается
The Issue
Qasardastan faces one of its most serious financial crises in history. Templia's stock market has been steadily falling for months, the markets are now divesting and a general sell out spree is feared by analysts.
The Debate
1."We've got to act decisively, and quickly," says Samuel Cruz, a columnist for the Financial Times. "Only a rush of public investment can save us from a depression. We need dams, roads, and absurdly large ships to inject new capital into the economy and put a bit of wind in the private sector's sails."
2."To spend government money saving unprofitable companies is ludicrous and in denial of the facts," objects Erica Rikkard, CFO of Chairs 'n' Stuff PLC. "They screwed up! They don't deserve to survive! What we need is a new round of tax breaks for the most effective enterprises, like good old Chairs 'n' Stuff - if you ever need your upholstery repaired, let us know won't you? Anyway, tax breaks will attract new investors and businesses. Trust me, large-scale investment in the middle of a recession is madness. We need to stop the deficit, not increase it."
3."Yes, let's just ignore the fact that thousands of people would lose their jobs while the remaining companies glorify in their newfound monopolies," snipes Marlon Longfellow, owner of an independent business. "The stock market's failing because it's abused and manipulated by greedy investors only out to make an easy profit. Who cares if you're lying and cheating to get it, right? Hmph! The financial market of Qasardastan's been riddled with insider trading and who knows what else for years! if the government doesn't put an end to it now then the economy will never bounce back."
4."It's not the corporations who are to blame! It's YOU," declares trade unionist Charles Goethe, pointing at you dramatically. "It's all of us. We've been indulging in a self-destructive economic system for too long, always taking and never giving back. Capitalism has failed. What we must do as concerned citizens is nationalise the entire economic infrastructure and control the inflation by giving the government authority to set commodity prices."
5."Deregulation isn't the problem - quite the opposite," suggests Rosalia Dubois, representative of a consortium of banks and major corporations. "Government checks and balances and competition laws have been the grasping stranglehold on the economy's throat for far too long. Do you really think corporations would allow the economy to suffer like this if it had full control? No, it would not. It is bad for business and what's bad for business needs to be removed. If you want this nation to survive, the market must be freed from these shackles."
As I understand it, the first one suggests that the state should spend a lot of money and resources to save the economy. Taxes will probably increase.
The second one suggests reducing taxes and not supporting failing businesses, which will lead to unemployment and monopolies in the market, right?
I chose the third one now, but I don't really understand what it's about and what the consequences might be, although it seems to be written reasonably.
The fourth one is about introducing socialism, and the fifth one seems to be similar to the second one, giving everything to monopolies and corporations, right?
In general, please explain at least the third option, and if you wish, the first and second, I don't quite understand them.
In general, the point here is the problem of terminology...
Only a rush of public investment can save us from a depression.
The maximum income tax rate was increased from 25% to 63%.
use a new calendar system