[ExI] More thoughts on sentient computers

Sat Feb 25 16:54:30 UTC 2023

Now Jason, I do not pretend to have a good answer to what is creative, but
just being different doesn't seem to me to be sufficient.

An AI can gather what has been done, perhaps even weighted by how we humans
rate the things (Leonardo is superior to a chimp), and put together
something that combines what has been done but in a new way.  An infinity
of art could be created this way.

My personal definition of great art - I like it.  Same for food, music,
colors, animals, etc.  Why should I say something is great or even good if
I don't like it?  I cannot impose my standards on anyone else.  They get to
define greatness for themselves.

If enough people think something is great, it will last far longer than the
artists' lives.  Homer, anyone?

("You like it?  That's the best you can do?"   Yes.)

bill w

On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 9:27 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 8:41 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> Big art prize in Britain went to a person who turned the lights off and
>> then back on in a museum.  This is art?  ;You can do anything to a canvas
>> or wood or stone and someone will find value in it and some will call it
>> art.
>>
>> I think we cannot conclude anything from that except that calling
>> something art could include the whole universe with God the Creator.
>>
>> So as a matter of calling something creative I think we have to have some
>> standards.  Really, really bad art is still art but the level of creativity
>> is in question.  An AI winning an art contest is in the same category as
>> those prizes won by chimps and elephants.  Let's define creativity a bit
>> more strictly, shall we?   bill w
>>
>>
> Do you find anything on this webpage creative?
>
> https://www.midjourney.com/showcase/recent/
>
> Would you say none of them were creative if all of them were created by
> human artists?
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 3:08 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 11:22 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We don't understand creativity and thus cannot program it into our
>>>> computers.  But that is what gives humans the flexibility the computers
>>>> lack.  A computer has to go with probability - humans don't (and anyway are
>>>> not very good at it at all).  So wayout solutions, the vast majority of
>>>> which don't work or backfire, do happen, improbably.  We want instant
>>>> answers from computers, while humans find solutions that took many decades
>>>> or centuries to discover, and perhaps were always counterintuitive (aka
>>>> crazy).
>>>>
>>>> bill w.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would argue that is no longer the case, given the advances I describe
>>> here:
>>>
>>> https://alwaysasking.com/when-will-ai-take-over/#Creative_abilities_of_AI
>>>
>>> This article is a few years out of date, modern AI is vastly superior at
>>> creating art now compared to the examples available at the time of my
>>> writing. One AI generated art image won a competition (competing against
>>> human artists).
>>>
>>> I would say creativity is just permutation plus a value selector. In
>>> this sense, we have had creative algorithms for decades (e.g., genetic
>>> programming / genetic algorithms).
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 10:07 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/02/2023 23:50, bill w wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > another question:  why do we, or they, or somebody, think that an AI
>>>>> has to be conscious to solve the problems we have?  Our unconscious mind
>>>>> solves most of our problems now, doesn't it?  I think it does.  bill w
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a good question.
>>>>>
>>>>> (If our unconscious solves most of our problems now, it's not doing a
>>>>> very good job, judging by the state of the world!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Short answer: We don't yet know if consciousness is necessary for
>>>>> solving certain problems. Or even any problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Longer answer: I suspect it is necessary for some things, but have no
>>>>> proof, other than the circumstantial evidence of evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consciousness evolved, and we know that evolution rapidly eliminates
>>>>> features that don't contribute to reproductive fitness, especially if they
>>>>> have a cost. Consciousness almost certainly has quite a big cost. This
>>>>> suggests that it's necessary for solving at least some of the problems that
>>>>> we've met over the last 300 000 years (or at least for *something*
>>>>> that's useful), or we wouldn't have developed it in the first place. Or if
>>>>> it happened by accident, and wasn't good for survival, we'd have lost it.
>>>>> So we can conclude at the very least that consciousness has been good for
>>>>> our survival, even if we don't know how.
>>>>>
>>>>> It strikes me as noteworthy that the kinds of things that our
>>>>> computers can do well, we do poorly (playing chess, mathematics,
>>>>> statistical reasoning, etc.), and some things that we have evolved to do
>>>>> well, our computers do poorly, or can't do at all (hunting and gathering,
>>>>> making canoes, avoiding hungry lions, making sharp sticks, etc.). Perhaps
>>>>> consciousness is the (or a) missing ingredient for being able to do those
>>>>> things. Yes, arms and legs are an obvious advantage, but many other animals
>>>>> with arms and legs never developed like we did.
>>>>> As the former things tend to be abstract mental things, and the latter
>>>>> tend to be highly-co-ordinated, complex physical things, maybe
>>>>> consciousness has a lot to do with embodiment, and manipulating the
>>>>> external world in complex ways successfully. Maybe Big Dog is closer to
>>>>> consciousness than ChatGPT (or, more likely, needs it more).
>>>>>
>>>>> If Big Dog (or whatever the latest iteration of it is called) had
>>>>> ChatGPT in its head, as well as all the other stuff it already has, would
>>>>> it be able to build a canoe and use it to escape from a forest fire, decide
>>>>> where it was safe to stop, and built a hut? That would be an interesting
>>>>> experiment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230225/5e3fb9e7/attachment.htm>