Matt,
This issue is so fundamental - and AGI-ers/ rational thinkers simply can't
absorb it.
The answer is - in part, yes. You can always analyse existing scripts/
jokes/ types of modern art etc. etc. and arrive at underlying formulae. And
there is a great deal of computer art out there in probably all departments
now - for example, I have seen some pretty good variations on love story
outlines. And there are jazz improvisation and abstract art programs. I
suspect IOW that you are wrong about "neglect" here.
What people are doing there is producing "hack" art - finding and developing
formulae for work that has already been done.
That's what rational thinkers - logicomathematical - do: look for the
general formulae - the patterns. John wanted to find the patterns behind
music.
The rest of the answer is - in the most important part, no
The whole point of creative, new art is that you BREAK the pattern - you do
something that no one has done before. What truly excites us - and satisfies
our brain's craving for novelty - is art that breaks with a genre, that
surprises us. The music goes up where you expect it to go down, or on and on
where you expect it to stop - and yet it works, because it's a true
reflection of how our emotions flow. Ditto in every department of art, the
characters behave in new ways - and yet true. There had never been an
"identity crisis" in art before Holden Caulfield, no one ever masturbated
before Portnoy & so on.
I don't have time to explain this now - but science/technology and rational
thought are GENERAL (and abstract) and REGULAR and PATTERNED. That's what
they deal with. But the arts are INDIVIDUAL (and concrete) and IRREGULAR and
PATTERN-BREAKING.
Science and AGI are "man" and "woman" and "human" - only the arts are Hamlet
and Falstaff and Matt Mahoney.
Rational thinking involves less than one half of your brain - the left side.
The arts reflect the other half - the right. side.
You can no more have one without the other than you can have generalisations
without particularisations/individualisations. Or than you can have any kind
of rational thoughts without consciousness and that movie.
The only way you can recognize individuals - like Matt Mahoney & Ben
Goertzel is by recognizing how they BREAK THE PATTERN - what's DIFFERENT and
IRREGULAR about them. Check out the latest facial animation which recognizes
this. Your brain and visual cortex really are designed to do that as well as
categorize you generally.
You have to learn to be different to enter into the arts - if you have ever
seen a movie esp US - you will note that what they celebrate over and over -
are the individuals who can beat the SYSTEM. Rational types like you tend to
be the villains or the poor nerds. The arts hate the "suits" of all kinds
who want to impose uniformity and pattern. You're a horrible person in the
arts :).
What I'm suggesting is that you should become a Renaissance type and embrace
both sides of your brain and personality. And you have no choice for true
AGI.
Matt: Mike, or anyone else, perhaps you can solve the technical problem of
art. The entertainment sector is a significant fraction of the economy.
There is a lot of money to be made if you have a machine that can produce
good music or entertaining movies as well as the best artists.
Most AI researchers have ignored this field, either because they don't
consider it worthy of solving, or because they believe it is impossible. I
believe both views are wrong. For one thing, the brain is a computer and
obviously the brain can do it.
Suppose you write a program that inputs jokes or cartoons and outputs
whether or not they are funny. Then there is an iterative process by which
you can create funny jokes or cartoons. Write a program that inputs a
movie and outputs a rating of 1 to 5 stars. Then you have an iterative
process for creating good movies. Write a program that recognizes good
music, and you have an iterative process for creating good music.
I believe the field of artificial art has been neglected because it is
rare to find good artists who are also good programmers. Artists can't
teach or explain how to recognize or create good art; they can only give
examples. Even Donald Knuth (The Art of Computer Programming) can't
explain the technique for finding beautiful algorithms, although he has
created plenty of them. That is the one algorithm he doesn't know.
I suspect that all AI problems, such as language, vision, and art, are of
similar difficulty in terms of both hardware and software, because they
are all executed on the same wetware.
Rather than discuss whether the problem should be solved or can't be
solved, I welcome any insights toward a solution.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
