Mike A: Surely you'd have to concede that there are some rules which persist over time and are static?
Absolutely. All mathematical and logical and algorithmic systems (in themselves) are completely, eternally non-creative, non-generative. They are all dead recipes with rigid rules that have never and could never produce a single new ingredient or element - because quite obviously they are not designed to be creative. They are recipes with set, exclusive mixtures of ingredients.
(This is the crux of creativity - the capacity to add new hitherto unknown elements to a course of action or its product).
If you add new unknown elements to a recipe, the recipe collapses and could get v. nasty. If you allow a building algorithm that produces lego block structures, to introduce any new building blocks - rocks, say, or chunks of mud, - its buildings could literally collapse. And no one tries this. These systems are designed to produce precisely predetermined results with precisely predetermined mixes of known elements.
These systems are wonderful if you want to be a narrow AI cook who can cook one specialist dish or set of dishes. They're useless if you want to be a creative cook, who can endlessly generate new dishes, as humans can.
Now surely you can concede that no one anywhere in the entire history of the world has produced a single exception to this general rule of the non-generativity of formulaic, rulebound, set-ingredients systems? There are no algorithms, formulae or logics that are creative. No one has ever produced an example here. No one ever will.... And there are zillions of possible examples.
What we do have is the most amazing amount of logical gobbledygook that argues how these systems might be creative - but neither a) explains how they can introduce new elements or b) provides a single instance of a program etc that ever has.
Nada. But an awful lot of shameful assertions that of course there are such systems - and of course people have produced millions of examples of them in the past - and how could you, Mike, be so stupid as to think there are not - and ROFL at you - oh absolutely ridiculous - but now, right now, the speaker is just too busy, you understand, to produce a single example. Oh of course he could produce *so many* examples, and he will, he will, but now right now, he can't. (Basically all people who argue thus are lying gits).
If you or Ben can grasp this simple obvious truth of the non-generativity, non-new-element-ality of formulaic, rulebound systems with set mixtures of ingredients, I will indeed be your saviour.
What you et al are trying to maintain is a scientific, material absurdity - and something of which you will come to be v. v. ashamed. Produce ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE. Or admit you can't.
P.S. And I've heard all the shit about sophisticated, evolving systems and GA's etc - they cannot and never have introduced a single new hitherto unknown element They have no novelty. Demonstrably. They are mindblowingly narrow in their products except to AGI suckers who actually half believe their own hype - and AGI is nothing but failed hype.
------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
