I said a lot of creativity is dumb luck, which is true. I didn't say that is the whole thing, and I didn't say "dumb luck is what I need."
On 11/29/13, tintner michael <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/303/11943661-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/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
