Russell,

I made my WEB-acquaintance with Hod - his interview-picture with his
students reminded me of my then Cornelian son and friends, (before he was
for 17 yrs in IBM's development)
and saw that the 'inductive' you mention is still based on the already
known(?) elements. The "creative" is relative, just as the "new" I referred
to in my today's post to Bruno.

Your:
*"But it certainly feasible that humans are really just more so of what this
machine does."*

is a fair assumption, it may even be reversed. We cannot know as long as we
'think' with our human mind - restricted into the (perceived? -cf,  Colins)
reality of ours.

Hod Lipson's good quotes include:
  " The central act of the coming era is to connect everything to
everything."
   "Complexity must be grown from simple systems that already work  -
                          none pointing to previously unknowables".
>From his interview: about "Machine Creativity":

"I have been interested in machine creativity for many years. A lot of work
has been
done to make computers smart. They can play chess or drive a vehicle across
the
dessert. These are hallmarks of intelligence but not the ultimate artificial
intelligence
we are looking for. What uniquely defines human intelligence? I think the
ultimate
challenge is creativity and curiosity. Trying to understand what it means to
be creative
or curious in a way that we can imitate has been a long fascination. Can
computers augment creativity or curiosity? Can computers ask intelligent
questions?
Generate new ideas? This is the epitome of AI.
How can we make computers with these characteristics?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I think the 'Koza' circuits are unusual combinations of elements so far
applied in different patterns. So I figure also the 'Virtual Reality' games.
A 'shuffling' in the memory banks).
-------------------------
I was undecided about your above quoted statement (Italics) because I was
perplexed years ago by a question: "How do we learn 'brand-new' ideas? I
could not come up with anything better than 'try the opposites of the known'
or 'try the unrelated' - still ALL within our knowledge-base. A clever
machine can do just that. What a clever AI machine cannot do though, while I
can:
Imagine a machine "trained" in solving math problems, to receive a math
problem to solve it and sais unexpectedly: "OK, I will do it, but first I
want to play a fugue by J.S.Bach, then I will address the problem". (To
satisfy an emotional joy before going to work as constructed).
This may be added to Hod's 'curiosity' (and who know how many more?....)

Happy 2010

John M

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 5:16 PM, russell standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:54:53AM -0500, John Mikes wrote:
> > I wonder if a 'robot' can produce a "noch nie dagewesen" (Ger. for brand
> > new) unrelated idea?
>
> I do know Hod Lipson from the ALife community, but am not familiar
> with this particular piece of research. From  the WIRED article, I
> understand this to be a particular implementation of inductive
> reasoning by machine. It is impressive enough that this is possible,
> but I don't for one minute think that they have approached the
> creative power of a human being. But it certainly feasible that humans
> are really just more so of what this machine does.
>
> Still, the whole area of machine learning, and minimum length
> description has some very interesting surprises in store, which is why
> I've never bought Colin's argument. For instance John Koza's genetic
> programs have created several electronic circuits, some of which were
> patentable, so fit the requirement of noch nicht dagewesen.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


Reply via email to