[ExI] More thoughts on sentient computers

Sun Feb 26 20:31:44 UTC 2023

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023, 3:05 PM William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> . They will on the fly be able to generate new Beatles albums, Kubrick
> films, and George R.R. Martin sagas.
>
> Jason Now just how creative are those?  There are musicians are Harvard,
> for one, that can write Baroque music as well as Handel ever did, but
> that's been done, and extremely well.  There is, of course, some creativity
> in re-makes, and I am sure AIs wil be able to create art of all kinds some
> of which we will find pleasing.  But the criteria have to be whether humans
> like them.
>

I cover this in the link I provided at the start of this conversation,
there are ai systems (such as Hyperlive) that can tell how well a piece of
music will sell from the audio alone.

> 'Not just some re-hash of what's been done before, but truly something new
> under the sun."  That will take real creativity.  Not just new, but good.
> Not everything is an offshoot of something in the past.   bill w
>

I also covered this in the link I provided. There is a "Creative
Adversarial Network" whose goal is to generate art in styles unlike
anything it has seen before.

Jason

>
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 1:37 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2023, 2:08 PM William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There's no standard, it's situational.
>>>
>>> Say you had a process searching for new drug compounds. A standard would
>>> be how effective the drug was.
>>>
>>> If you had  a process evolving artificial life z the standard would be
>>> how for the life form is in surviving and thriving.
>>>
>>> fine - but now you are not talking about art - bill w
>>>
>>
>>
>> We were talking more generally about creativity.
>>
>> Aesthetics and art are just one branch of the creative domains. And
>> machines have already demonstrated at least some capacity in all creative
>> human domains: game playing, storytelling, comedy, music, art, invention,
>> etc.
>>
>> There's nothing uniquely human about creativity. Should these trends
>> continue much longer, they will soon surpass us in all our creative
>> capacities. They will on the fly be able to generate new Beatles albums,
>> Kubrick films, and George R.R. Martin sagas.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 9:48 AM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2023, 10:36 AM William Flynn Wallace <
>>>> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Value - who gets to decide the standards?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's no standard, it's situational.
>>>>
>>>> Say you had a process searching for new drug compounds. A standard
>>>> would be how effective the drug was.
>>>>
>>>> If you had an a process evolving artificial life z the standard would
>>>> be how for the life form is in surviving and thriving.
>>>>
>>>> Many art generating AIs are trained on which patterns are expected to
>>>> be most liked by humans.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Art critics will endlessly argue about every artist that ever lived.
>>>>> Music ditto.  LIterature ditto.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all qualitative and subject to opinions, which will naturally
>>>>> change over time with deaths and births and world events etc. etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have read more than one book on aesthetics and that is why I have
>>>>> given up on philosophers and critics and decided on "I like it- I don't
>>>>> like it" as my personal evaluator.  bill w
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree aesthetic appreciation is subjective, but that art is be
>>>> subject doesn't undermine my claim they we understand how to engineer
>>>> creative systems.
>>>>
>>>> As long as we have a way to select something of value to at least one
>>>> subject, or for at least one purpose, that's sufficient. It's not possible
>>>> to please everyone so that shouldn't be a goal.
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 4:27 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2023, 4:46 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
>>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Re all those images you sent:  having seen decades of covers of
>>>>>>> scifi books, most of them are not very creative - that is,they leave bored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Value selector - expand please.  If by permutation you mean just
>>>>>>> changes from art images of the past, then OK.  bill w
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By permutation I mean modification, combination, mutation,
>>>>>> randomization, generation, etc. Anything that makes new examples or novelty
>>>>>> (which may then be evaluated for their value.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By value selector I mean any function that assesses value of a
>>>>>> generated permutation, by judging each ones's fitness, utility, aesthetics,
>>>>>> suitability, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Putting these two processes together yields an algorithm for
>>>>>> creativity. It will generate novel examples, and then filter them such they
>>>>>> only those judged to be of sufficient value will be output.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 2:07 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>>>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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/20230226/001c7e2d/attachment-0001.htm>