As an engineer and a musician I want to push back on some of this.
Missing a bolt on a bridge is hyperbolic. Your simulation should catch that long before the bridge is ever built.
Engineering is also all about approximation. Art and Engineering both build models - the differences are the granularity and the constraints. Engineering is constrained by physics and requires infinitesimal calculus to make good predictions.
AI today is inadequate for engineering (and I might say for "great" art as well), but given my understanding of the maths and software underlying these models there is zero reason to believe that AI will not be absolutely adequate in the coming decades.
In my opinion (based on my experiences), Art is just the set of processes that we haven't rigorously defined. There is a duality to Science and Art, where it seems that empiricism and quantifiable data convert Art >into< Science.
Missing a bolt on a bridge is hyperbolic. Your simulation should catch that long before the bridge is ever built.
Engineering is also all about approximation. Art and Engineering both build models - the differences are the granularity and the constraints. Engineering is constrained by physics and requires infinitesimal calculus to make good predictions.
AI today is inadequate for engineering (and I might say for "great" art as well), but given my understanding of the maths and software underlying these models there is zero reason to believe that AI will not be absolutely adequate in the coming decades.
In my opinion (based on my experiences), Art is just the set of processes that we haven't rigorously defined. There is a duality to Science and Art, where it seems that empiricism and quantifiable data convert Art >into< Science.