Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Wisdom . Is at all speeds and memory . Life and artifical .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

River, you are 20 years behind the times. Do some research and watch some of what I have posted. It'll change your mind, no doubt

It is much more sophisticated than that now. These are no longer just computing machines. These are true artificial intelligences which can weigh data and "decide" which answer is the "best guess", just like humans do, as Anil Seth has so clearly explained and demonstrated in some of my previous posts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

About what ? AI creativity . AI has creativity . And understanding . Supercomputers .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ALL OF IT!!!!!!

I am trying to be very selective in what I present as genuine examples of scientific advances in AI. Trust my judgement and give some of these examples a try. I guarantee that you will be pleasantly surprised. And perhaps a little worried about what these new AI can do.

For one thing , you will not be able to tell if you are talking to a human or an AI. In the future you will be talking to a person, who can answer all of your question, with greater speed and accuracy than the current tinny voice that asks you to press 1 for agreement or 2 for disagreement.

These new AI not only pass every Turing test, they will make you suspect you are talking a highly educated human. Any open information on the internet is their memory data base. They can make selective decisions as to what information is pertinent to the problem and questions.

 

Highlighted

Worried

Worried and alarmed .

Apparently no mistakes are made , and no awareness that mistakes are made .

An AI future is not a place I would want to live . Use AI as a tool , I could live with .

 

No one is trying to conquer the world with an army of AI.. "I ROBOT" is a warning scenario.

The current expression is that AI are an "extension to human knowledge and creativity" and especially useful in exploration of conditions which are dangerous to humans. IOW, AI can make certain endeavors safer for humans.

 

Show me an example of code from a Conscious Program.

 

Please nobody answer until he provides some answers in the various threads where he has been questioned

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, since you've been having a discussion with your own straw men for quite some time now, there's no telling what discussion you believe we've been having. Seeing as your claim is the only positive claim, which is the only kind of claim that has a burden of evidence, if you aren't interested in discussing that, you're just masturbating. I'm not into that.

 

Nope, I've only been discussing your arguments. It's just a pity you're not honest enough to accept that.

Your continued evasion is noted. If you can't be honest enough to follow your own arguments, and to recognise discussion of them when you've been party to that discussion for a number of pages, then you're simply a sulky little dishonest brat and will be treated as such. You'd actually be more honest if you just said: "Oh no, my arguments have been shown to be flawed... boo hoo... I'm crying foul! Maybe someone will give me sympathy while I go sulk in the corner!" 'Cos that's all you're doing.

 

Looks like we've reached the end of any productivity on this Topic.

 

Might be because you didn't answer any questions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Perhaps we can still squeeze a few more pages out of this.

I pose the question of Free Will in context of Human motivated action and AI motivated action.

Can AI develop FW and if so, can it be comparable with Human FW inasmuch as they both would be based on acquired knowledge and choice of possible responses.

In the case of AI it seems that its programming already includes weighted response choices, much like Human programming allows for weighted choices.

 

Has trying to shame or insult someone into accepting your straw man as their own argument ever actually worked for you? If not, it seems you're the one who needs to be honest with yourself, as you know this tactic will not further any productive discussion and can only be the evasion you're projecting. And if it has worked for you, congratulations. You've learned the rather useless lesson that your fallacious red herrings can work to distract some people. If that's all you're seeking from discussion, sorry, I cannot accommodate you.

And all this copious ad hominem demonstrates that you are defensive and likely desperate to stick with your straw man of my argument, at any cost, because you have no argument of your own. That's fine with me. I've said my peace, and without any counter argument (one in favor of AI creativity, not merely claiming "you're wrong"), it stands unchallenged. Sorry, I know you must hate that.

 

Ah, the loaded question of the one who has little else to offer by way of honesty. Alas, I am not shaming or insulting you into accepting any strawman. I am simply hoping you will address the weaknesses in your own arguments, which you seemingly can't be arsed to do.

The discussion stopped being productive the moment you decided upon the course of evasion you're following, claiming strawmen where there aren't any, refusing to address analysis of your own arguments etc. I've given you every opportunity to continue, but you have chosen not to. Instead you've simply continued to evade, your most recent post being just the latest in that manner.

All I'm looking for from you is to address the flaws in your arguments, that unfortunately for you seem to lead to the conclusion that there is no creativity. That you don't want to address those matters is down to you entirely.

I'm neither defensive nor sticking to any strawman. I'm waiting for you to address the analysis of your arguments. Well? Are you going to? Or are you just going to stick your fingers in your ears and continue to cry foul, hoping that it will all just go away?

You've said your peace, sure. It has certainly been challenged, though, in as much as it has been shown that the conclusion it reaches is not the one you believe it does. But rather than address that analysis honestly you continue to evade. As you are doing in this latest post of yours. So well done you. But hey, if all you're here to do is fart and leave while claiming it's the sweetest of smells, you know where the door is. Just make sure to leave it open on your way out.

 

Regardless of what you may believe, how do you expect to have a productive discussion when all you're doing is insisting my argument is something I've repeatedly told it is not? Even if it were due my supposed lack of honesty, how do you expect any of your antics to change that?

Simply demanding that I agree with your conclusions is not intellectually honest.

You're obviously taking great pains to avoid making your own argument, and all this is just delay tactics.

Since you completely refuse to make any argument of your own, mine stands, simply due to the lack of counter argument. "You're wrong" or "prove me wrong" are not valid arguments, much less manage to counter anything. You haven't provided any reason to think AI can be creative. As such, there's really nothing to argue. You can go on arguing with yourself without me.

 

I'm doing no such thing. I have taken your argument, analysed it, and have reasoned that it leads to the conclusion that creativity does not exist at all. You are the one doing nothing but insisting, I'm afraid.

My antics? Of trying to have a discussion, of explaining why I don't think your arguments lead to the conclusion you think they do? Or my antics of highlighting your dishonesty? To the former, it should be obvious. To the latter, I don't expect anything I say to change how dishonest you are. But, hey, some people do still win lotteries.

But I'm not simply demanding that you agree. I've laid out my reasoning. Yet you continue to evade. The only one demanding anything is you, I'm afraid, in simply asserting that the conclusion I think your arguments reach are not the conclusions they reach. And I agree: it's not intellectually honest of you, as I've been pointing out.

Whether I make arguments for a position of my own or not is irrelevant to the flaws in your own argument. But again, your effort at evasion is noted. Your effort to change the subject to someone else's position when what has been discussed between us is your argument, and whether it reaches the conclusion you think it does.

Whether I make arguments for a contrary position to yours or not does not mean your argument therefore stands. That is hilariously fallacious of you. It genuinely brought a smile to my face.
No, I have reasoned your argument to be flawed. Whether the claim it is in support of is correct or not doesn't change that. If you have arguments that you think reach one conclusion, but in fact they reach another, then your argument is flawed with respect to the conclusion you think it reaches. Had you argued that computers can't be creative because creativity doesn't actually exist then your arguments would seem to be reasonable. But you haven't argued that. You have argued for the existence of creativity but not in computers.
If you say that the moon can't be made of cheese because it is raining outside, do you honestly think that one needs to argue that the moon is made of cheese to be able to point out the error of your argument with respect the conclusion you're reaching?

Fortunate for me, then, that I have provided reasoning for calling your arguments flawed. But if you want to continue to be ironic and argue such a strawman as you've raised...?

To reason that your arguments don't reach the conclusion you think they do, I don't need to provide any reason to think AI can be creative. Why do you think I would have to?

Your continued evasion is noted.

Well, at least it would finally be an honest discussion.

 

Yes, to a similar degree that people have free will. (Note that recent research has shown that people have far less free will than they believe that they do - but our minds are very good at creating the illusion that we have it.)

 

OK
Let’s follow the purple track. How does a system process the word “robotics” and produce “A”?

High-level steps:

1. Convert the word to a vector (list of numbers) representing the word
2. Compute prediction
3. Convert resulting vector to word

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The important calculations of the GPT3 occur inside its stack of 96 transformer decoder layers.

See all these layers? This is the “depth” in “deep learning”.

Each of these layers has its own 1.8B parameter to make its calculations. That is where the “magic” happens. This is a high-level view of that process:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You can see a detailed explanation of everything inside the decoder in my blog post The Illustrated GPT2.

The difference with GPT3 is the alternating dense and sparse self-attention layers.

This is an X-ray of an input and response (“Okay human”) within GPT3. Notice how every token flows through the entire layer stack. We don’t care about the output of the first words. When the input is done, we start caring about the output. We feed every word back into the model.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In the React code generation example, the description would be the input prompt (in green), in addition to a couple of examples of description=>code, I believe. And the react code would be generated like the pink tokens here token after token.

My assumption is that the priming examples and the description are appended as input, with specific tokens separating examples and the results. Then fed into the model.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://jalammar.github.io/how-gpt3-works-visualizations-animations/

 

Again, how do you think repeatedly telling me that is going to change anything?

Well, you know what they say about people who repeatedly try the same thing expecting different results.

It should be very clear by now that I don't find your supposed reasoning worth a damn.

Effectively saying "prove me wrong" while being unwilling to make your own argument is explicitly crackpot. I have no problem if you want to keep hammering that point home.

See, you've just ignored every argument of mine in favor of your repeated straw man. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Even searching this thread to refresh your memory, which specific arguments of mine are analogous to "it is raining outside?"

I have no doubt that you believe your reasoning is sound. That's how cognitive bias works.

I don't. But since it's clear you will not accept what I tell you my argument is, it's pointless to further elaborate to a wall. The only option left to further the discussion would be for you to support your claim. But I don't think you'll ever do that, considering all this excuse-making to stave that off doing just that.

You'd definitely have to cite said "recent research" to be considered anything but talking out of your ass.