In a message dated 4/4/09 3:25:14 PM, [email protected] writes:
> Here's a remarkable statement: > > "A laboratory robot called Adam has been hailed as the first machine > in history to have discovered new scientific knowledge independently > of its human creators." > > Story at: > > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f2b97d9a-1f96-11de-a7a5-00144feabdc0.html > > Imagine what this portends for such things as aesthetic judgment, > perceptions and taste. > > Not much, say I. Notice the piece was in the Financial Times, not Nature or a philosophical journal. Consider: Computers have have generated prime numbers far bigger than any human ever did. Would we cry with shock and awe, "My God, the machine is DISCOVERING things a man never could. I's a sure thing the Robot in the FT story came up with lots of data that was already known -- and the Robot, because it had received incomplete input, would never "know" the difference. It just mechanically ground out mechanical implications. The nearest comparison is chess-playing computers. My chess-experts friends tell me they have damn near ruined the game. But the computer is programmed with a decision-procedure for "recognizing" when a game is over, won. I do not believe anyone will write a program that will distinguish future, unprecedented arrangements -- of words, paint, musical notes, dance moves -- into those that are aesthetically pleasing and those that aren't. That last phrase of mine may well draw a rapid orison of fire from listers -- which I think only supports my point. ************** Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003 )
