It could be useful for AGI, especially when it gets to the level of creating it's own hardware.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, John G. Rose <[email protected]>wrote: > Gentlemen please. Restrain yourselves, let’s keep this cordial J**** > > ** ** > > John**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > Nothing about what you said is extraordinary except for the consistency > with which you dismiss examples out of hand. > > And btw, I don't appreciate being FUCKING talked to like that. And I find > it amazing that you of all people just accused me of producing "personal > waffle", Mr. > I-can't-say-ONE-FUCKING-concrete-thing-to-save-my-life-but-everyone-else-has-a-different-standard. > You can say whatever else you like to this. As far as I'm concerned, the > conversation is over until you learn to have a little respect for your > fellow human beings instead of talking down to everyone like they're dumb > little robots who just don't get what you the enlightened sage has to say. > You are not the only person on this earth or this list who has insights or > bothers to think, so until you quit acting like it, you can SHOVE IT. > > **** > ------------------------------ > > On Oct 18, 2012 5:20 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: ** > ** > > You’ve been predictable and produced a lot of personal waffle -**** > > **** > > but not ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE of a single creative thing – a single new > element - that algorithms have ever produced.**** > > **** > > It should strike you as extraordinary that no one can produce one example > – nada.**** > > **** > > ..unless you’re prepared to look at the obvious.**** > > **** > > The whole of technology so far – esp algorithmic technology – has been > about machines that produce routine, predicable, “old” courses of action > and products. Algorithms – all zillions of them – have never produced a > single new element. You can’t produce one fucking example because there > isn’t one.**** > > **** > > AGI will be a revolution – a whole new epoch of technology - because it > will be about machines that can produce NEW courses of action and products > – with NEW combinations of elements – and do so endlessly with endless > diversity and endless surprises and unpredictability. Like you – only > hopefully you will start producing something newer than excuses...**** > > **** > > *From:* Aaron Hosford <[email protected]> **** > > *Sent:* Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:17 AM**** > > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> **** > > *Subject:* Re: [agi] ONE EXAMPLE**** > > **** > > Funny you should say that when he just said *you're* sticking to a > primitive definition of "algorithm". You can't imagine anything *people* do > (in particular anyone on this list, since that's a convenient group to pick > on) that's new or creative. Maybe it's *your* creativity that's limited, in > that your imagination can't follow where our imaginations tread. I can > easily imagine a program (not an algorithm, mind you, but a collection of > data structures and algorithms interacting with the real world in all its > glorious complexity and surprisingness) from which creativity emerges. How > did all those fonts come about? The randomness of the real world, > interacting with the pattern recognizers and learning mechanisms that live > in the human mind. Nobody thought them up from scratch. **** > > **** > > I'm a musician and songwriter in my spare time, which requires creativity. > The worst insult to a song writer is to say that it sounds just like > another song (unless all he cares about is getting paid, in which case > formulas work great). When I write songs, I start by picking up the guitar, > and fiddling around randomly until I hear something interesting come out. > Then I reverse engineer what I just accidentally produced, and I start > thinking about how to generalize the "feel" of it so I can produce more > that goes with it. I try things out, and build onto it, not by thinking > ahead, but by stumbling in the right direction and either backtracking if > it sucks or holding on to what I've done if it sounds good. This goes on > throughout the entire process of writing a song. My experience as a song > writer serves as a general guide to determine the direction I'm going in > and reduce the number of bad ideas and false starts I have to try out > before I stumble onto a good one, but ultimately writing a song comes down > to accumulating a lot of awesome mistakes together according to a strict > measure of what sounds good to me.**** > > **** > > This, I suspect, is exactly what other artists and creators go through > when they create anything at all. There's nothing particularly hard about > implementing any of this in a computer program aside from determining the > measure of goodness, which we humans have built in due to evolution. To > make it general across multiple domains and not just one, we would have to > also build in a way to detect the space of possibilities, such as that for > a guitar, there are such-and-such notes, or for a canvas, there are x and y > coordinates related to each other by a Euclidean distance metric. This is > also do-able, albeit probably a lot more difficult.**** > > **** > > How much experience do you personally have with creating things, that you > can sit in judgment of us and say we don't know what creativity much less > how to build it? Are you a musician? An artist? A programmer? A writer? A > philosopher? What?**** > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > Frankly, Jim, definitions are for wankers. The last resort of s.o. who > doesn’t want to get anywhere.**** > > **** > > Your ideas about algorithms’ powers are fictional. There isn’t an > algorithm in the world that isn’t mindblowingly limited – that just > “builds” Lego houses and no other kind of structure, or “cooks” one set of > dishes and nothing else.**** > > **** > > Take just about any verb you like – “travel”, “fly”, “calculate”, > “compute,” “translate,” et al – and an algorithm will only be able to do > one hyperspecialised version, compared to the infinite possibilities.**** > > **** > > Show us something actual and general/creative, with new elements, that > algos can do - or please stop wasting air.**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* Jim Bromer <[email protected]> **** > > *Sent:* Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:13 PM**** > > *To:* AGI <[email protected]> **** > > *Subject:* Re: [agi] ONE EXAMPLE**** > > **** > > Mike,**** > > How many times does it take to get this idea across to you. You are > confusing a primitive definition of algorithm - which might be currently > acceptable to many people - as a fundamental notion of the characterization > of a computer program.**** > > Jim**** > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > *P.P.P.S. Just to ram this home -***** > > **** > > *UNLESS you do something like I’ve suggested, (and I know none of you > have) -***** > > **** > > *a) tackle a proper creative problem (and what better than > geometrical/math ones for you?) -***** > > **** > > *(you don’t have to come anywhere near solving it, just have a go at it), > and then***** > > **** > > *b) try and algorithmise/systematise your thinking -***** > > **** > > *unless you do that, you will NEVER understand AGI.***** > > **** > > *If you do, note what is the “set of elements”/options to be thought > about here? (there never is one).***** > > **** > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> | > Modify Your Subscription > ****<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > > *AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2>* > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > > *AGI | Archives | Modify Your > Subscription<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > * > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > > *AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2>* > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > > *AGI | Archives | Modify Your > Subscription<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > * > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > > ** ** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > > *AGI | Archives | Modify Your > Subscription<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > * > > **** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > > ** ** <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-164650b2> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-6ef01b0b> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
