[ExI] More thoughts on sentient computers

Sat Feb 25 20:04:32 UTC 2023

On Sat, Feb 25, 2023, 11:55 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

Permutation

  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.
>

A value selector

> 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
>

Would you say then that creativity can be accomplished by the combination
of:

permutation + a value selector ?

Jason

>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230225/9a70e884/attachment.htm>