MA: It is not
just our Mozarts in ivory towers doing the creating. A lot of it is
just dumb luck.
Wouldn't hang around waiting for dumb luck to help you with your AGi
project, Mike. Might have to wait a few aeons.
(Anyone notice how AGI-ers are absolutely incorrigible in avoiding the
challenge of having ideas about AGI? "Dumb luck is what I need." "I don't
have to show *you* anything, so there!" "it's all written down in my work
on AGI "{Not].... "Programs are already more intelligent than us/creative"
[Not] ]
This should be a forum for tossing around ideas, not excuses and fantasies.
On 29 November 2013 17:58, Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote:
> On one or two occasions when taking photographs, my camera has gone
> off accidentally, or I have eff'd up the settings -- but importantly
> the result was better than what I had planned IF I had taken the
> picture according to my intentions. I had something in mind, and a
> mistake altered the results.
>
> Evolution.
>
> Don't ignore accidental variation in what you consider creativity.
> Evolution creates this way -- by mistake and random variation. This
> is a big part of Nature. The entire field of evolutionary programming
> is based upon random, accidental variations to get to a solution, or
> put a different way, a new, novel solution is ~created~. It is not
> just our Mozarts in ivory towers doing the creating. A lot of it is
> just dumb luck.
>
> On 11/29/13, tintner michael <[email protected]> wrote:
> > PM:Your argument is Fallacious. There are many human musicians and music
> > producers that "create" music
> > withn a particular genre. Country, Hip-hop, Pop, etc. These musicians
> are
> > making "new" music within
> > a particular genre.
> >
> > That in no way contradicts what I said. It is almost impossible for a
> human
> > to produce a piece of music that is not creative - just as it impossible
> to
> > build another rock wall, or produce another patchwork that is not new and
> > different from previous examples, with new kinds of musical elements/
> > rocks/patches, and therefore creative. Writing music like all human
> > activities is intrinsically creative. One just has to realise here that
> > "creative" here means of the incremental, everyday kind, not of the
> > transformational, cultural kind - introducing any new kind of actions and
> > objects.
> >
> > The point is that narrow AI/algos esp "Music programs" CAN'T do this -
> > can't introduce any new elements - can't be sad to "write music" at all,
> > merely to iterate predetermined variations on the music the *programmer*
> > has chosen/written.
> >
> > And I'm sorry that you're telling us yet again that you are not
> interested
> > in explaining how you or anyone else can meet the unsolved challenge of
> AGI
> > - creativity.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29 November 2013 15:48, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Mike,
> >>
> >> Your argument is Fallacious. There are many human musicians and music
> >> producers that "create" music
> >> within a particular genre. Country, Hip-hop, Pop, etc. These musicians
> >> are making "new" music within
> >> a particular genre and are very comfortable doing it, and very lucrative
> >> as well. Then there are musicans
> >> which combine genres as well. These are all variations, within a genre,
> >> and across genres.
> >>
> >> I think you have a basic meme running through your brain that says
> >> "Computers can't be creative" and that
> >> axiom is a the core of your inference processes. You should extricate
> >> (or
> >> suspend) that premise if we're all
> >> going to get anywhere.
> >>
> >> No one has to show you anything, it is you that must adapt to the
> reality
> >> of the world. The world model you've
> >> mentally constructed is always in error, and must be adapted to the
> >> evidence that is all around you but which
> >> you cannot percive. "A system of assimilation tends to feed itself." ~
> >> J.Piaget This means you accept what you
> >> are comfortable accepting and reject what you are used to rejecting.
> But
> >> it is you that must shift your biases
> >> if you want to be truly creative and constructive. Throw away your old
> >> patterns of thought, your old assumptions
> >> and try new premises for a change.
> >>
> >> ~PM
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:47:14 +0000
> >> Subject: Re: [agi] Composing music and other creative exercises
> >> From: [email protected]
> >> To: [email protected]
> >>
> >>
> >> Steve,
> >>
> >> This is yet another example of AGI-ers delusions. Here's a music program
> >> -music is creative - therefore the program is creative. It's not
> creative
> >> at all.
> >>
> >> It's easier to think about this if we start with visual arts programs.
> By
> >> your logic a "Mondrian" program - or we could equally cvonstruct a
> >> Pollock
> >> inblot program - is creative, because it gives you Mondrian variations.
> >> Neither are/would be creative. They are "arts Lego kits" - sets of basic
> >> abstract shapes, basic rectangles or inkblot lines for example - on
> >> which
> >> they construct variations. And that's it. They can't add/create one new
> >> shape. Period. They're just recipe variations. OLD recipes, OLD
> >> [MondrianPollock] paintings. Nothing new here.
> >>
> >> Ditto music programs. "Improvisation" programs similarly construct a set
> >> of variations on a "music Lego kit" - a set of basic musical notes,
> >> chords,
> >> refrains, whatever. And that's it. They can't add/create one new note,
> >> noise, instrument. Period. They're just recipe variations. The use of
> >> random numbers makes only a trivial and no real difference. OLD music.
> >> OLD
> >> C & W, rock, classical etc music.
> >>
> >> If they were creative, they would function like human composers -
> >> it/musical AGI would be a WHOLE DIFFERENT KIND AND CULTURE OF PRODUCTION
> >> -
> >> a different kind of intelligent, productive activity.
> >>
> >> With rational, narrow AI you start with a fully specified formula/algo
> >> and
> >> produce something old.
> >>
> >> With human composers, you start with a brief (or they brief themselves)
> -
> >> "give me a rap song like Kanye's Bound about infidelity, but with
> >> monastic
> >> choral music instead, something like that..."
> >>
> >> Or "here's a nice refrain/chord - see what you can do with that..."
> >>
> >> And you produce something NEW, not old - even if the newness is at times
> >> only a slightly different stew, collage - strictly "incremental" as
> >> opposed
> >> to "transformational"" creativity.
> >>
> >> In the arts, - - you start with some form of IDEA/brief - ALWAYS - not
> >> a
> >> complete step-by-step formula-algo - (an algo for an algo). [And THIS
> IS
> >> EQUALLY TRUE OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING as distinct from finished programs
> >> -
> >> and scientific and technological creativity. The creation of new algos
> >> always starts from ideas not other algos]
> >>
> >> That's the Woz Test - an AGI robot must be able to start with GO TO THE
> >> KITCHEN - an *****idea/brief*** - not any kind of formula/algo.
> >> Just the briefest outline. And then the robot will have to create a new
> >> journey forged as it goes along in search of this new kitchen in this
> new
> >> house, rather than reproducing a precise variation on some old journey,
> >> as
> >> a current factory robot would
> >>
> >> Neither you nor anyone else gets this - and I need to expand on it much
> >> more fully.
> >>
> >> Creativity is a WHOLE DIFFERENT KIND, LEVEL AND CULTURE OF PRODUCTION
> -
> >> smart, high-level intelligence as opposed to the dumb, low-level
> >> intelligence of algos./routines.
> >>
> >> AGI requires a 2nd computer revolution - Turing introducing the
> >> rational,
> >> formulaic/algo process was the first. The second is the introduction of
> >> the
> >> IDEA-based machine/computer project. - Project not process. An
> adventure
> >> into new territory, not a foregone conclusion of a journey in old
> >> territory.
> >>
> >> When you tell a real AGI robot, as you do with a human,
> >>
> >> - FIND THE KEY IN THAT ROOM, PACK MY CASE, CLEAR THE ROOM, FIND BEN
> IN
> >> THAT CROWD, MAKE COFFEE IN THE KITCHEN.
> >>
> >> you arre giving it a creative, outline brief and it has to work out the
> >> details of that brief for itself, and come up with something - a journey
> >> -
> >> which will be new, even if only incrementally new as distinct from a
> >> transformational new work of art.
> >>
> >> What are you doing, Steve, like every other AGI-er, when confronted with
> >> the unanswerable challenge -
> >>
> >> SHOW ME A SINGLE ALGO THAT DOES OR COULD PRODUCE A SINGLE NEW ELEMENT
> >>
> >> is respond:
> >>
> >> "but algos are creative, aren't they, somehow, somewhere - they must be
> >> -
> >> please God let them be creative, because they're all I know..."
> >>
> >> No they're not - they're totally rational, totally dumb, totally "old".
> >> AGI is going to be a computing REVOLUTION - the biggest thing since,
> >> perhaps even bigger than, Turing. "Smart" computers/robots as opposed to
> >> the "dumb" computers/robots we have at the moment. Computers with IDEAS
> >> that can CREATE new courses of actions on their own, as opposed to
> >> computers with algos that can only iterate old courses of action,
> >> predesigned for them by human programmers. Independent machines not
> >> puppet
> >> machines.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 28 November 2013 22:31, Steve Richfield
> >> <[email protected]>wrote:
> >>
> >> Mike, et al,
> >>
> >> In the distant past I have worked with creative composers to create two
> >> very different programs to compose music.
> >>
> >> The logic of these programs was more in deciding what NOT to do than
> what
> >> TO do, so there was generous use of a random number generator, followed
> >> by
> >> logic that rejected most selections. A common situational challenge was
> >> that there was no acceptable next note, so time to back up or start
> over.
> >>
> >> While this fit the "programmed" model you so like to reject, it ALSO
> >> reflected the mindset of most composers. Sure there is an occasional
> >> maverick who deviates from one of the many patterns, and in so doing
> >> creates a new pattern, like switching between a major and a minor key in
> >> mid-piece. However, people like these are in the EXTREME minority -
> about
> >> as rare as malfunctioning computers, so you could run less creative
> >> programs on many computers, and sometimes be surprised over what a
> >> malfunction might bring.
> >>
> >> For a good discussion of these deviations, you might watch the
> >> now-unfolding story aboutf the lawsuits over the piece *Blurred Lines*,
> >> which is a highly creative piece that borrows from another piece, but in
> >> ways that are so subtle as to probably NOT violate (present) copyright
> >> laws.
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU
> >>
> >> Apparently, creative music CAN be composed by an expert system designed
> >> to
> >> do that. The amazingly simple rules for such systems come from centuries
> >> of
> >> creative composers. Such a computer would probably NOT create these
> >> deviations, but then again, neither do most composers.
> >>
> >> It appears that creativity comes at more than one level. A computer
> might
> >> be able to solve all equations that people can now solve, but never push
> >> back that frontier to solve equations that people can NOT now solve.
> >> Similarly, a computer might be able to create music as good as a
> graduate
> >> from a major music school, but never create the likes of *Blurred
> Lines*.
> >> without something else first pointing in that direction, which is what
> >> the
> >> lawsuits are all about. Robin Thicke readily admits that he was actually
> >> listening to Marvin Gaye's music as he was composing *Blurred Lines*,but
> >> claims that *Blurred Lines* is NEW in ways that do NOT tread on
> >> copyrights.
> >>
> >> My conclusion is that computers can now already be creative, but there
> >> are
> >> limitations that apply equally to most people. We CAN now program great
> >> skill, but not yet program deviant genius.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >> *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/303/19999924-4a978ccc> |
> >> 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/303/6952829-59a2eca5> |
> >> 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/303/11943661-d9279dae
> > Modify Your Subscription:
> > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> AGI
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: 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-f452e424
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
