Implications of Automating Science: The Possibility of Artificial Creativity and the Future of Science

Journal of Philosophy of Life 13 (1):44-63 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are used in various domains of human activities, and one of these domains is scientific research. Now, researchers in many scientific areas try to apply AI technologies to their research and automate it. These researchers claim that the ‘automation of science’ will liberate people from non-creative tasks in scientific research, and radically change the overall state of science and technology so that large-scale innovation results. As I see it, the automation of science is remarkable in another respect: since science is one of the most distinctive human activities, the tendency of automating it prompts us to reconsider the aspects of our humanity itself. One of these aspects is concerned with human creativity, on which this article focuses. In this article, I address two questions concerning the automation of science: first, ‘Can AI makes creative discovery?’; second, ‘What implications may the automation of science have on science and society?’. Scientific discovery is said to be one of the most creative phases of scientific research. I show that, though there are no reasons in principle why AI could not make creative discovery, we do not at present have enough knowledge how to realize it. If the automation of science nevertheless proceeds, the cultural values science as a creative activity has might be reduced, and it might alter the state of scientific community and its relationship with society in some undesirable way. Therefore, I conclude, we need to specify desirable ways of introducing AI technologies into science and devise measures against demerits of automating science.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Teaching scientific creativity through philosophy of science.Rasmus Jaksland - 2021 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (4):1-17.
Creativity and Discovery.Matti Sintonen - 1999 - The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 4:239-247.
Explaining Creativity.Maria Kronfeldner - 2018 - In Berys Gaut & Matthew Kieran (eds.), Routledge Handbook on Creativity and Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 213-29.
Moral creativity in science and engineering.Mike W. Martin - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):421-433.
Creativity in Science and the ‘Anthropological Turn’ in Virtue Theory.Ian James Kidd - 2020 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (1):1-16.
Measuring creativity: an account of natural and artificial creativity.Caterina Moruzzi - 2020 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (1):1-20.
Two Kinds of Knowledge in Scientific Discovery.Will Bridewell & Pat Langley - 2010 - Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (1):36-52.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-12-16

Downloads
163 (#113,375)

6 months
73 (#57,834)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Makoto Kureha
Yamaguchi University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Minds, brains, and programs.John Searle - 1980 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3):417-57.
The Philosophy of Creativity.Berys Gaut - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (12):1034-1046.

View all 8 references / Add more references