But Mike T, You have no argument in favor of your assertion that: complex algorithmic processes, controlling an agent interacting with a complex enviroment, cannot produce results that will be interpreted by humans or other intelligent agents as fundamentally creative and novel.
You simply repeat this assertion as if others should find it as intuitively obvious as you do ;p I agree that simple algorithmic processes, which can be written down in a few lines of text, cannot give rise to results that humans will perceive as fundamentally creative and novel -- except perhaps occasionally by chance, or after extraordinarily large run-times on extraordinarily powerful computers. But this limitation of simple algorithmic processes says nothing about complex ones. You don't **feel**, intuitively, like the apparently creative, novel things humans have created could have come out of complex algorithmic processes (controlling agents interacting with environments). But you don't have the ability to see the human unconscious in detail, nor do you have technical understanding of complex algorithmic processes. As an aside, note that an algorithmic process interacting with an environment, can in principle use its manipulation of the environment to modify the hardware on which it runs. This means its behavior in the long run may become quite unpredictable, to someone who knows only about the algorithmic process and doesn't have full knowledge of the environment. -- Ben On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > I’ve already covered it. GA’s do not produce *new elements*. They > permutate a very limited set of given elements. So a GA can produce > variations on an electric circuit. But that’s it. That’s all it can do. > Electric circuits. It can’t produce a new system of water piping. Or oil > piping. Or aquifers. Or an irrigation system. > > And even then, you need the guidance of a human programmer. > > Creativity is *new elements* m – endless generativity. > > *From:* Mike Archbold <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:06 PM > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [agi] Behold your saviour, Ben > > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> PRODUCE ONE EXAMPLE of a creative algorithm. Or a creative recipe. One >> single algorithm that has produced one new element. >> >> > > I'd say the whole of evolutionary computing which subsumes all of genetic > algorithms, genetic programming, evolution strategies, evolutionary > programming etc fits that general goal. See a book called Intro to > Evolutionary Computing by Eiben Smith. Optimisation, modelling, simulation > are the results. Now you are going to counter "well, it's still narrow and > preprogrammed." But then that gets back to the problem of moving the goal > posts around in AI. It's creative given the present state of AI, does it > scale up to your expectations? Probably not at this point. But, it's > creative to an extent. I'm not here to sell you on AI, though, just to give > you an example (one fucking example that is). > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche ------------------------------------------- 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
