The problem with your approach is that you are still left only with your own subjective judgement as far as what does and does not constitute creativity, and I would even suspect that some parts of this judgement process are in themselves an algorithm. Also, I think you criticize the various grounds for AI -- you seem to dislike things like logic and algorithms -- but I'm not sure if you consider that these are just the building blocks to be used within a larger whole, not wholly of themselves a solution...
Criticize Ben's approach all you want, but at least he is trying to incorporate multiple elements into his design. But to answer your main question, a single example of creativity is to be found in evolutionary computing. Here algorithms are generated and tested, as we know, and the fittest algorithm wins out for the next round. The end result is the unforseen solution to some problem in question. An unforeseen solution is a creative solution as far as I'm concerned. This is just a mimicking of the same strategy nature has used for countless eons. You could counter, "well, an accident is not creative, it is not willful," but so what? Again we are back to what you consider creative. On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: > > MA:You've been kind of dancing around all the examples people have been > feeding you. > > There has been no example of genuine generativity. Period. If you or anyone > else feels that a given example is not being sufficiently discussed, I will > gladly discuss it in depth. > > Do you personally think that there IS an example? Put it forward . This is > the crucial issue of AGI – it should be discussed seriously. > > On my side, I haven’t yet, but I can gladly give you endless and > spectrum-wide examples of how ALL REAL WORLD PROBLEMSOLVING CANNOT BE SOLVED > BY ALGORITHMIC MEANS. That’s 90-odd per cent, I would guess, of all human > reasoning. You guys similarly to the above, almost never discuss real world > problemsolving – just logic, maths and programming problems. You can’t get > much more blinkered than that. > > MA: you never answered my suggestion that an algorithms need only appear to > be creative to pass the Turing test > > Huh? You want to try and fake it? Step back a moment and think of what a > twisted, “dancing around” mindset you are embracing – wh. is the kind of > twisted thinking that most AGI-ers seem to fall into when confronted by the > non-generativity of algorithms. > > No. Algorithms will never in any shape or form pass any Turing test – i.e. be > able to hold a real world conversation. > > Why? Because real world conversation is creative – it involves a continuous > stream of new elements and new,non-formulaic combinations of concepts – and > their real world referents. We continually talk about the “news” – from media > to professional to personal – and it really is “news” – never before happened > quite like that. > > Algorithms can’t handle the possible new combinations of just *two* or > *three* concepts let alone a full-blown conversation. > > This is one reason why what Aaron & others are doing – trying for a > language/conversational AGI – is suicidal. The *first* thing he should be > doing is asking: how can I produce/process creative/generative conversation? > But he like nearly all others avoids the challenge. > > > > > > > From: Mike Archbold > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 11:41 AM > To: AGI > Subject: Re: [agi] ONE EXAMPLE > > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:07 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. > > > > > You've been kind of dancing around all the examples people have been feeding > you. I think one thing you ignore is that people are kind of tiresome in > their application of algorithms and are far from really having an elusive > undefined creative element. eg., if so-and-so is a certain social class and > does such-and-such, then I am supposed to do so-and-so or risk some > undesirable-outcome....but some new social situation arises, unforseen, now a > new rule is needed, so we apply whatever algorithms we seem to have that > work.... > > anyway you never answered my suggestion that an algorithms need only appear > to be creative to pass the Turing test. If it appears to be creative then it > is creative, meaning only that somebody has not picked up on the "trick." > Also, evolution, built into the universe, runs off accidents and survival of > the fittest which creates the appearance of being creative. SO you are left > with your own subjective assessment only of what does and does not constitute > creativity. And how do you know your own assessments of creativity are not > themselves bounded by some algorithm? > >> >> >> 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 >> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:17 AM >> To: AGI >> 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 >>> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 3:13 PM >>> To: AGI >>> 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 | Modify Your Subscription >>> >>> >>> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >>> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >> >> >> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
