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/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
