No, it's your presumption of a fallacy that is pointlessly unjustified.
It was entirely justified. Hence the justification given. Accept it or don't, I couldn't care less.
Even assuming you agree on the term creativity, nothing he said there is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, unless you have unilaterally already decided what you claim is genuine AI (a true Scotsman), without reaching any consensus on that term.
It's nothing to do with what one thinks genuine AI is, but all to do with what creativity is. AI just happens, in my view, to be something that, on occasion, has shown creativity. So thanks for the red-herring, but no thanks.
If so, you need to agree on where the threshold of AI creativity lies.
No, just need to understand what creativity is and how it is recognised, irrespective of that which gives rise to it.
Unless, of course, you're just already conflating or equivocating the two terms. In which case, you would be begging the question, as any attainment of AI would then equate to attainment of creativity, without any independent parameters to determine the latter.
I do find it funny how you blather on about irrelevancies, as if you think you're making a point worth listening to.
Only if your working assumption is about AI and not creativity.
No, for the last time, it is about creativity, hopefully irrespective of that which gives rise to it. Sure, his definition of creativity is that it requires consciousness, which he has subsequently clarified, and which I disagree with.
That is not a novel product. It is just a using a much more complex tool than an abacus. It's not "learning", its extrapolating over many iterations. It a method of doing some predetermined goal, not a product in itself.
So Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer et al from the realm of Chess aren't in any way creative in the way they play their games? They haven't set the goal to win. Their brain is simply working out a method of doing some predetermined goal, right? Therefore no creativity? Just so I understand your point of view here: players of games are not creative, is that what you're saying?
And you're wrong about the "learning". AI such as AlphaGo Zero do learn. That is what they are very good at doing. Certainly not general learning but highly focussed. They were not told anything other than the rules to various games (e.g. chess, Go etc). They then played games against themself, and through that they absolutely learnt how to play, with nerual nets and the software mimicking the way our own squishy brains learn (e.g. pathway reinforcement). But maybe you have a definition of "learning" that, similar to SK's definition of "creativity", requires consciousness?
Improving existing things or processes is definitionally innovation.
I'm sure you agree that creativity and innovation are not mutually exclusive. Innovation requires creativity, but just because one innovates does not mean they haven't also created what becomes the innovation. Even if the ultimate end goal is the same, it doesn't mean that all improvements are simply innovation in the absence of creativity. There is the creation of the new method, that hasn't been considered before. The innovation is in recognising it as superior and implementing it. And such AI as AlphaGo Zero do both the creation of new combinations and the recognition of it as superior, all within the framework of the rules of a game.
It's not producing new, valuable objects. It's just finding better methods to achieve existing, valuable objects.
And when the better methods are themselves valuable objects? To other chess players, to itself, or Go players, the moves that AlphaGo (and subsequent versions) come up with are absolutely valuable. And AlphaGo Zero created them and then implemented them. Creation, resulting in innovation.
Now, one could argue that it is not AlphaGo Zero creating, but their programmers doing the creating through the tool of AlphaGo Zero... but since they didn't tell AlphaGo Zero anything other than the rules, and merely gave it the ability to play games against itself, for it to learn, and that it came up with strategies that no human player had yet considered as viable... I see that as a tough argument to make. But feel free. Could be interesting.
There is no value judgement required for innovation, as the end product is the value, not the process itself. The innovation may save time or money, but neither is a novel object. The novel object is what the process produces, and processes are not improved without preexisting products. Don't get me wrong, innovation is valuable, but only because it serves other, preexisting novel objects. Producing a widget faster and cheaper doesn't help you invent new widgets. Problem solving is not creativity.
Problem solving per se is not creativity, but it can and does quite often involve creativity.
If someone asks me to solve 2+2 = ? then sure, no creativity.
If someone asks you to prove Fermat's last theorem (before anyone had actually proven it) then are you honestly saying that there would be zero creativity involved in finding the solution?
I also think we have different definitions of what it means to be innovative. I accepted your earlier definition of creativity including "valuable", but to me innovation also requires value judgement... judgement that
it is better than what was already there, where creativity is in the arriving at
it. And there would be value judgement in that as well.
I.e. Creativity is in coming up, without being told, with ways of getting from A to B - judged simply on whether they would get you from A to B. Innovation is in comparing the solution to what is already in play, and if judged to be superior then implementing it. The creative one doesn't need to be the one providing itself with the fact that getting to B is the value, but can simply use that as the value judgement it applies, as the impetus for creating.
AI like AlphaGo Zero can do both. They are not told all the myriad ways to get from A to B. They are simply told "you need to get from A to B", and the tools (rules) they can use. They can now come up with solutions. They create the solutions where none previously existed within them. They then assess those solutions and implement a new one if it is deemed by it to be superior than the one currently in play. Creativity and innovation. Both.
Just an improved method to achieve a preexisting product, i.e. a win. Surprise alone does not novelty make. Otherwise, being scared by a rare snake would be a creative, valuable object.
Don't be so fatuous.
Where did I say, or even suggest, that surprise alone makes something novel? It is what caused the surprise that you should focus on, and you know that. It is the move and the strategy that the AI came up with that stunned everyone, that was seen as creative and innovative.
The win is the novel object, which you're feeding it as the impetus.
The win is not necessarily the novel object, but I agree that it is certainly the impetus. The novel object in the case of AlphaGo Zero playing Go would be the strategy employed that noone had identified before, and in implementing it. It is also creating it because it never existed within its system at the outset. It knew the aim (to win) and the rules. That was it. So what is creativity if it is not the putting together of what is available in ways not done before, to arrive at a solution?
It is only innovating a strategy to achieve that preexisting product. You had to judge "a win" as valuable and set it to the task.
Sure, it is given the "win" as the target, just as improving a process might be the target at work. But that doesn't preclude the solutions arrived at being creative, being the result of creativity (e.g. the solution being something noone else had considered before). Sure, the recognising it as superior to the existing one at the time, and then implementing it, is the innovation. But it is more often than not a matter of creativity followed by innovation. Both. Not one or the other.
And given that noone has told the AI any pre-existing strategies, that it has come up with all the strategies it employs by itself, how is that not creating? It's not that it built on existing strategies by previous Go (or Chess) players fed into it in some brute-force approach that earlier computers may have done. It learnt from scratch. Genuinely learnt. Simply by playing against itself, and reinforcing neural pathways that were successful, etc.
Distinct from "unexpected", "surprise", etc..
Okay - so the idea that the infinite monkeys mashing typewriters wouldn't be creative even if they came up with the complete works of shakespeare. Got it. And I don't disagree.
