[ExI] More thoughts on sentient computers

[William Flynn Wallace]

Please resend link.

You are referring to popular music, right?  A lot of that is like romance
novels:  just alter the personalities, the setting, etc. and you can crank
one out in a week or less. Not much creativity there.  Popularity does not
equal quality.  Sometimes it's even the reverse.   bill

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.

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 2:31 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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/d59f0fbd/attachment.htm>