Mike, On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:17 AM, tintner michael <[email protected]>wrote:
> > This should be a forum for tossing around ideas, not excuses and fantasies. > I couldn't have said this better. We have been discussing what is useful random variation, what is dumb luck, and what is something ELSE that even YOU would call creative. I provided the most creative and successful piece of music to appear during the last year as a foil for this discussion, with some of these same issues about to be litigated in court. What part of THAT do YOU think is truly creative, and what part is not? It seems obvious to me that every computer program ever written, and every computer program that ever will be written, executes according to an algorithm that is dictated by its code. If and when computers become intelligent by YOUR standards, it absolutely MUST come as a result of such an algorithm. But, you keep trashing algorithms. I can't see anything distinguishing your beliefs from those of a Christian Science believing friend of mine who also believes (without technical argument) that machines will never "think". What (if anything) is the difference between your beliefs and those of Christian Science friend? Steve ============= > 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
