Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

[Write4U]

No, humans are not given specific goals, like an AI requires. Pretty glaring difference.

Survival is not a goal?

 

[Vociferous]

No, humans are not given specific goals, like an AI requires. Pretty glaring difference.

Survival is not a goal?

Ongoing necessities for continued existence are not specific goals, they are imperative drives. They're akin to the software necessary for an AI.

 

[Vociferous]

I don't insist on only talking about innovation, that is your strawman. But if that is where the examples are, then so be it. That the creativity is wrapped up in innovation or not is ultimately irrelevant to the question. If all you want to talk about is "pure creativity" then my offer to help with those heavy goalposts still stands.

Then you're refusing to stay on topic, which is creativity, not some possible amalgam of watered down creativity and innovation. That's your goalpost running down the field.

Whether one sits on the shoulders of others or not, the idea is itself still an act of creation. But because it is also an implemented improvement it is labelled innovation, as the creation aspect is not the focus. It's not rocket science, but while you remain blind to it we most certainly will be at an impasse.

Since the "creation aspect" is literally the focus of creativity, and thread's topic, my patience for your weaseling about wears thin.

It IS learning. Not just as in the "severely limited claim" but even in the general sense. It is one of the ways that we humans learn.

Then you're contradicting yourself, when you said, "Certainly not general learning but highly focussed."

And I can't take you seriously if all you're going to do is appeal to complexity.

Never did, quit making up bullshit.

No we wouldn't: the point is that all we're talking about is a larger and more complex ruleset. So removing the possibility of creativity due to complexity of the ruleset, as you do, would seem to be just that: an appeal to complexity.

No, just your own straw man. As I've repeatedly told you, the lack of creativity in an AI has nothing to do with complexity. It has to do with both the goal and the rule set, defining how the goal can be accomplished, being supplied to it. And that even applies to humans playing games, also as I've already told you.

Then the onus is on you to explain yourself better as to what you actually think creativity is, such that trial and error, or brute force approaches, can not be deemed to be creative, rather than just your current bare assertions. You're happy to explain what you think creativity is not, but you haven't actually explained what you think it is and the means by which it is achieved that prevents brute-force or trial-and-error also being seen as creative.

I've already told you that discovery is not creativity, as you're not originating the new and valuable. A discovery or innovation can be valuable, but neither is the production of something new. Perhaps creativity is beyond you.

Thanks for the appeal to ignorance, but we do actually have a reasonably good understanding of how we learn.

Even if I humor your sunny idealism, shall we say, of what we know about how the brain works, learning is not, itself, creativity. Again, quit conflating terms.

To make a shoe, but not how.

Again, ad nauseam, the how is the rule set.

You do know the difference between rules and instructions, I presume?

In a trial-and-error process, the granularity of the rules doesn't matter. Random suffices until accumulate solutions can be compared against the goal. But it seems you're the one making an appeal to complexity now. You're just trying to claim that complexity of instructions is all that could rule out creativity, proving that you're presuming creativity as a given.

I've already provided example where having someone else set your goals does not prevent creativity, thus your claimed requirement for self-setting of goals can be dismissed. Now we are concentrating on the rules, where it seems you have nothing but an appeal to complexity to support your argument.

Doing what your boss tells you is not creativity.

How absurd of you. One merely needs to look at the principle of it: given sufficient time, power etc, it would be possible, even if the universe is infinite. So stop with the nonsense rebuttals and address the point.

Yes, that is absurd. "Given sufficient time" you think "it would be possible" to simulate an infinite universe. That's a blatant contradiction. Sufficient time would itself be infinite, and an infinity cannot be realized. Hence your naive simulation could not be realized, even in principle. Basic logic.

How so? The idea never existed before? It just spontaneously appeared? No plans? No thinking beforehand? No. You can probably trace the iterative ideas all the way back to observations of birds. No new ideas, just innovations, one after the other, with people making judgements of what works better, what doesn't, reinforcement, rejecting those that don't work etc.

Again, you're conflating implementation with creation. The idea is the creation. The plans, building, testing, etc.. are the implementation. Observations of birds are not the new idea that humans can fly. There's a leap there that innovation alone does not account for.

See, nothing, per your own arguments, but innovation. No creativity. Move along. Move along.

Just your straw man.

Like the first airplane. Got it.

No, the first airplane didn't have a preexisting goal and known rules.

I'm can't speak to what led him to the discovery. Can you?

I can certainly relate to finding things, and it never requires creativity, as those things already exist. Too bad you can't manage such a simple analogy without this sort of ridiculous evasion.

And this once again concludes with there never being any creativity. Everything already exists in the possible solution space of the universe. Everything. There is no escaping it - unless you can give me just one example of something that doesn't?

You've already agreed that the universe doesn't provide goals. So, solution to what?

You don't use the word, but you appeal to complexity every time you refuse to apply the same principles you argue as to why AI are not showing creativity in playing Go, for example, to the more complex ruleset of the universe. It's taking me to point out, each time you do it, that this is an appeal to complexity on your part. That you don't want to recognise it, that you think you not mentioning the word explicitly somehow means you haven't done it, is not something I can help with.

No, that's still you conflating creativity and innovation, demonstrated every time you claim anyone's even implied that there is no creativity.

Unfortunately I never equated creativity to the setting of goals, but that creativity was to be found in the setting of goals. I.e. not all goals set are necessarily creative.

So creativity is to be found in goals, but not all goals, just certain, cherry-picked ones? Got it.

You have argued that creativity requires one to set the goals, as if that somehow differentiates humans from AI (your assertion being that AI's don't set their own goals but simply find better ways of accomplishing goals given to it, thus aren't being creative). So show how humans set goals, and then we can compare if there is an actual distinction with AIs to be had, or whether you are, as I suspect, simply evading the matter.

I've already told you that goals are not creativity. The goal given to the AI is a task, not the production of a novel, valuable object. Human goals to accomplish a task are not any more creative.

Which you have defined as the novel object.
"The win [goal] is the novel object" - post #212.
So goals clearly do matter when they are the novel object, right? So explain how humans set the goal, and let's examine where the distinction lies.

The win is the goal of the game. That goal was created as part of that game, the entire novel object. The AI is then tasked with achieving that goal, by playing that game. That doesn't make all goals novel objects. The game and it's goal exist prior to anyone, human or AI, playing it. Novel ideas, such as human flight, are not themselves goals. The goal would be in implementing the idea. Hence, AI playing a game is innovation, not creation. The AI is provided the goal as a task, akin to telling your Tesla the destination. The only difference is complexity. You just keep projecting your own argument that a more complex computer is somehow creative.

No, Pollock had specific goals in mind. Those goals may have given him freedom in the way he painted, but he nonetheless had specific goals. It is utterly absurd of you to try to claim otherwise.
Or do you really think he just spent time splattering some paint on a canvas by accident with no notion of value / end product / goal, even to himself?

I really can't help you if you don't understand things like abstract painting, free jazz, etc.. Their improvisational nature is contrary to setting goals. Such works do not have value until the market says they do. They are not inherently valuable, like human flight.

 

[Write4U]

Their improvisational nature is contrary to setting goals.

Well, I know something about Jazz and creativity. Setting a goal does not necessarily make for creativity.
Creativity is the spontaneous improvisations and variations on a theme, regardless of market approval.

Conscious awareness itself is an act of creativity by the brain, a "controlled hallucination".

You create your own reality.

 

[Write4U]

Lyrics written by GPT3
https://crossminds.ai/video/river-of-love-or-gpt-3-ai-written-lyrics-5f99b13226cd723d6a05ef6c/

And a Dr Seuss story

A new Dr. Seuss book written by A.I. Starring Ron Grigsby. Using OpenAI's new GPT-3 we inputted "Here is a transcript of the new Dr. Seuss book:" and the A.I. generated the title and all of the words.

 

[Vociferous]

Setting a goal does not necessarily make for creativity.

Tell that to Sarkus.

 

[Write4U]

Tell that to Sarkus.

Nothing that contradicts Sarkus. Setting a goal of doing the dishes is not a creative thought , nor a creative act.

You want creative goal setting? This is very creative goal oriented thinking

(warning crude language)

 

[Vociferous]

Setting a goal does not necessarily make for creativity.

You must have missed this:

I've already told you that goals are not creativity.

 

[Sarkus]

No, humans are not given specific goals, like an AI requires. Pretty glaring difference.

Yet another appeal to complexity on your part to make the distinction that you can't otherwise support.

Then you're refusing to stay on topic, which is creativity, not some possible amalgam of watered down creativity and innovation. That's your goalpost running down the field.

I am staying on topic. It is you who are dismissing a combination of the two as meree innovation.

Since the "creation aspect" is literally the focus of creativity, and thread's topic, my patience for your weaseling about wears thin.

Yet you dismiss that aspect when it is wrapped up in innovation. A jam doghnut still has jam in it even if surrounded by dough.

Then you're contradicting yourself, when you said, "Certainly not general learning but highly focussed."

Stop equivocating. I used "general" here as in the learning of many things rather than specific, and not some limited notion of learning. I.e. the learning process is the same, but the scope of what is learnt is specific and not general. That is different to your use of the term "general" referring to the sense of the word "learning", not the scope. And you think I'm weasling about!

Never did, quit making up bullshit.

You did, you do, and no doubt you will continue to do so, even if you're not aware that you are, despite pointing it out, and explaining it to you, time and time again. There's no accounting for blindness to such matters, I guess.

No, just your own straw man. As I've repeatedly told you, the lack of creativity in an AI has nothing to do with complexity.

Then stop appealing to it at every opportunity. When you refuse to apply the arguments relating to the limited ruleset of the game to the wider ruleset of the universe, you are doing just that! It is not a strawman on my part, but simple obliviousness on your part.

It has to do with both the goal and the rule set, defining how the goal can be accomplished, being supplied to it.

The AIs in question aren't told how the goal can be accomplished. They are told what the winning conditions are, but not how to accomplish them. You've been told this before.

And that even applies to humans playing games, also as I've already told you.

And following your argument (notwithstanding any appeals to complexity) it applies, as I have told you repeatedly, to every endeavour ever carried out by humans, and everything that ever happens in the universe. Your inability to see that, to reject it, is your appeal to complexity.

I've already told you that discovery is not creativity, as you're not originating the new and valuable.

Nor is anything ever done in the universe. None of it is novel.

A discovery or innovation can be valuable, but neither is the production of something new.

Nothing new, by your own argument, is ever done. Everything is simply innovation on what has gone before. So, by your argument, there is no creation. But again you reject this conclusion, explicitly even, but don't alter your arguments so as not to give rise to it.

Perhaps creativity is beyond you.

All I'm doing at the moment is looking at your arguments and following them to their extreme conclusions, to show you that your arguments are lacking, given that you reject those conclusions. It is thus not me for whom creativity is beyond, it would seem. Simply your arguments are currently inadequate to address the issue of this thread, without leading to the conclusion that there is no creativity.

Even if I humor your sunny idealism, shall we say, of what we know about how the brain works, learning is not, itself, creativity. Again, quit conflating terms.

Where have I said that learning is creativity? Please, do point it out. Alternatively just quit the strawmen, please.

Again, ad nauseam, the how is the rule set.

Then that, again, ad nauseam, applies to anything with even a larger and more complex rule set like, say, the universe.
So anything that happens within this thing with the larger rule set must not be creative, right? Or are you going to reject that notion, again, but claim you're not appealing to complexity?

In a trial-and-error process, the granularity of the rules doesn't matter. Random suffices until accumulate solutions can be compared against the goal.

Sure, and the difference between that and anything humans have ever done? It isn't so obviously trial-and-error, because humans have been through that process when they were babies, and have had countless years of education, learning through experience etc, so that the pathways they use are more defined. The learning is general (in scope), but the process will ultimately have been the same in principle. And given this, where is the creativity in humans? How does that arise? Start to make an argument that actually addresses how the creativity happens, such that we can see that it can't happen in AI.

But it seems you're the one making an appeal to complexity now. You're just trying to claim that complexity of instructions is all that could rule out creativity, proving that you're presuming creativity as a given.

There is no appeal to complexity, because I am still examining your argument, and all that distinguishes the ruleset of Go with the ruleset of the universe is complexity. You don't see creativity in one, but you do in the other: appeal to complexity. So no, I'm not assuming creativity as a given. This is all just me highlighting the flaws in your arguments. Which you seem oblivious to.

Doing what your boss tells you is not creativity.

You honestly think you can claim that if you don't know (a) what has been asked by the boss, and (b) how it has been achieved?
"Hey, Michaelangelo, go and decorate the Sistine Chapel for me, will ya!"
"Sure, boss."

Yes, that is absurd. "Given sufficient time" you think "it would be possible" to simulate an infinite universe. That's a blatant contradiction.

No it's not. Or do you honestly think that nothing infinite can be modelled in finite time?

Sufficient time would itself be infinite, and an infinity cannot be realized. Hence your naive simulation could not be realized, even in principle. Basic logic.

Who says it would take an infinite time? That is your assumption, and it is false. Or, again, do you think it takes infinity to model an infinite process?

Again, you're conflating implementation with creation.

No, I'm not. I'm simply showing how your arguments are inadequate.

The idea is the creation. The plans, building, testing, etc.. are the implementation. Observations of birds are not the new idea that humans can fly. There's a leap there that innovation alone does not account for.

So how is this idea "created"? What is the process? You put the first aircraft as an act of creativity, so why do you see that as creativity rather than mere innovation or implementation of what has gone before?

Just your straw man.

Not at all, it's the conclusion of your own argument, that you're clearly oblivious to.

No, the first airplane didn't have a preexisting goal and known rules.

So the first person never saw birds fly? They never saw hot air balloons take flight and think "Oh, how can we make them more controllable... like birds?" or other such notion? You think they literally had... what? How was the idea formed? Random thought in someone's head that they latched on to? Oh, no, you've dismissed randomness as being creative. So how?

I can certainly relate to finding things, and it never requires creativity, as those things already exist. Too bad you can't manage such a simple analogy without this sort of ridiculous evasion.

Everything already exists within the possibility of the ruleset in play - something you stated meant no creativity was possible.

You've already agreed that the universe doesn't provide goals.

I have?? Where?

So, solution to what?

Whatever we do.

No, that's still you conflating creativity and innovation, demonstrated every time you claim anyone's even implied that there is no creativity.

You really don't get it, do you. I'm just turning your arguments against you and showing you the conclusion your own arguments result in. That you can't/won't accept those conclusions should tell you something about the quality of your argument. If you want to reach the conclusion you think you're reaching, perhaps address the argument you're making, 'cos, as demonstrated, you're not there yet.

 

[Sarkus]

Cont'd...

So creativity is to be found in goals, but not all goals, just certain, cherry-picked ones? Got it.

You're the one who stated that a novel thing of value was the goal, and now you're trying to say that you don't accept that such goals are where the creativity is to be found???

I've already told you that goals are not creativity.

Doughnuts are not cooking. But a process of cooking is to be found in the nature of doughnuts, is it not?

The goal given to the AI is a task, not the production of a novel, valuable object. Human goals to accomplish a task are not any more creative. The win is the goal of the game. That goal was created as part of that game, the entire novel object.

So the win is now not the novel object??

"The win is the novel object," - post #212

The AI is then tasked with achieving that goal, by playing that game. That doesn't make all goals novel objects. The game and it's goal exist prior to anyone, human or AI, playing it. Novel ideas, such as human flight, are not themselves goals. The goal would be in implementing the idea. Hence, AI playing a game is innovation, not creation. The AI is provided the goal as a task, akin to telling your Tesla the destination. The only difference is complexity. You just keep projecting your own argument that a more complex computer is somehow creative.

Nope, no projection, as I'm simply following your arguments that dismiss computers of being creative also lead to nothing ever being creative. And all you've offered to show why there is creativity elsewhere is an appeal to complexity, given that that is the only difference in processes.

I really can't help you if you don't understand things like abstract painting, free jazz, etc.. Their improvisational nature is contrary to setting goals. Such works do not have value until the market says they do. They are not inherently valuable, like human flight.

No, it's very much goal-driven, and there are very much rule-sets. Value might only be to the one playing/painting, and that value provides the impetus. But don't delude yourself into thinking that it is not goal-driven or lacking value.

And didn't you previously state: "By all means, do give some examples of valueless creativity. Seems such a goal would be inherently without impetus, as value is simply what makes something worthwhile." - post #212.

Again, you seem to be confused in your arguments, as well as ssemingly blind to their conclusion.

 

[Write4U]

You must have missed this:

False equivalence!

 

[Vociferous]

Yet another appeal to complexity on your part to make the distinction that you can't otherwise support.

Only in your head. But tell me, how do you originate something new if it's not even original to you? Wouldn't any imparted goal be a preexisting idea? No complexity required between a self-originated and a preexisting idea. Remember, novelty is a requirement of creativity. Secondhand doesn't count.

Then you're contradicting yourself, when you said, "Certainly not general learning but highly focussed."

Stop equivocating. I used "general" here as in the learning of many things rather than specific, and not some limited notion of learning. I.e. the learning process is the same, but the scope of what is learnt is specific and not general. That is different to your use of the term "general" referring to the sense of the word "learning", not the scope. And you think I'm weasling about!

You are weaseling, as that's exactly as I meant it too. Learning in general is the ability to learn many different things, while your notion of learning very specifically defined things is extremely limited by comparison. Even you can't be preposterous enough to deny that.

You did, you do, and no doubt you will continue to do so, even if you're not aware that you are, despite pointing it out, and explaining it to you, time and time again. There's no accounting for blindness to such matters, I guess.

No accounting for floundering people bitterly clinging to their straw men for buoyancy.

Then stop appealing to it at every opportunity. When you refuse to apply the arguments relating to the limited ruleset of the game to the wider ruleset of the universe, you are doing just that! It is not a strawman on my part, but simple obliviousness on your part.

I can't help it that you insist on the stupid claim that everything that applies to chess equally applies to the universe.

Where have I said that learning is creativity? Please, do point it out. Alternatively just quit the strawmen, please.

Sarkus #227: "It tells us that it is possible to innovate methods of getting from A to B while also being creative about how one gets from A to B. Just because someone has set the goal, and just because there is an existing method, does not mean that every subsequent means of getting from A to B considered is merely innovation. That's what you seem to be missing."

Me #249: "No, it doesn't. Especially when it's just an iterative process, no matter how complex. There is nothing creative about different routes from A to B, just different judgements on what makes such a path more optimal. In terms of a game, the only optimal judgement is a win."

Sarkus #252: "You've just described the way the brain works: making judgements as to pathways, reinforcing those that work, those that don't. Congratulations, you've once again simply concluded that nothing is creative."​

If you're now saying you didn't mean that to apply to your original claim of creativity, so be it. It's just irrelevant.

Then that, again, ad nauseam, applies to anything with even a larger and more complex rule set like, say, the universe.
So anything that happens within this thing with the larger rule set must not be creative, right? Or are you going to reject that notion, again, but claim you're not appealing to complexity?

Again, every time you start talking about the rule set, you seem to forget about the goal, of which you've already agreed that the universe does not supply. A supplied goal of a game is not new, a self-originated goal of a person is new. Simple difference you can't seem to grasp.

Sure, and the difference between that and anything humans have ever done? It isn't so obviously trial-and-error, because humans have been through that process when they were babies, and have had countless years of education, learning through experience etc, so that the pathways they use are more defined. The learning is general (in scope), but the process will ultimately have been the same in principle. And given this, where is the creativity in humans? How does that arise? Start to make an argument that actually addresses how the creativity happens, such that we can see that it can't happen in AI.

If you agree with my definition of creativity, you should be able to tell me how it arises, without reference to any innovation or implementation. Otherwise, you're just attempting to explaining it away.

You honestly think you can claim that if you don't know (a) what has been asked by the boss, and (b) how it has been achieved?
"Hey, Michaelangelo, go and decorate the Sistine Chapel for me, will ya!"
"Sure, boss."

You've moved the goalposts of your own, earlier example, this time including an act of creativity, which obviously begs the question.

No it's not. Or do you honestly think that nothing infinite can be modelled in finite time?
Who says it would take an infinite time? That is your assumption, and it is false. Or, again, do you think it takes infinity to model an infinite process?

You're equivocating "modeled" (approximated) and "simulated" (replicated). You claimed: "Everything anyone will ever do could be simulated by brute force" #227

So how is this idea "created"? What is the process? You put the first aircraft as an act of creativity, so why do you see that as creativity rather than mere innovation or implementation of what has gone before?

Again, you should be able to answer that yourself, unless you're trying to explain away creativity or conflate it with innovation. If you don't understand how human flight was new, I really can't help you.

So the first person never saw birds fly? They never saw hot air balloons take flight and think "Oh, how can we make them more controllable... like birds?" or other such notion? You think they literally had... what? How was the idea formed? Random thought in someone's head that they latched on to? Oh, no, you've dismissed randomness as being creative. So how?

The first airplane was not an innovation upon birds or balloons. It didn't flap, wasn't lighter than air, and didn't rely on any know principle of either. No one said everything new is wholly detached from any and all previous experience. That's a reductio ad absurdum.

You've already agreed that the universe doesn't provide goals.

I have?? Where?

Sure. And one could equally say that everything... and I do mean everything ... a human does already exists within the potential of the universe, the only difference in that we set out own goals (or at least most of us do).

So, solution to what?

Whatever we do.

But you already said "we set our own goals". So now you're claiming the universe sets them for us?

 

[Write4U]

It didn't flap,

Yes it did!

Plane that flies by flapping its wings makes historic first flight

Humanity spent centuries trying to fly like birds with flapping wings before finally developing the technologies needed to soar with balloons and then taking to the air with gas-powered, fixed-wing aircraft.

Now, as if flying full circle, a human-powered aircraft that flies using flapping wings has been invented.

Impractical inspiration

Although this aircraft is not a practical method of transport, it can "act as an inspiration to others to use the strength of their body and the creativity of their mind to follow their dreams," Reichert said. This research promotes how "human power, when walking or cycling, is an efficient, reliable, healthy and sustainable form of transportation."

Although I don't see a particular application, you never know what people are going to be inspired by — when people climbed Everest, it inspired other people in what they were doing," Reichert told LiveScience. "It inspires people to think twice about what's possible."

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2...apping-its-wings-makes-historic-first-flight#

 

[Vociferous]

Yes it did!

Learn how to read the context. We were talking about the world's very first airplane.

 

[Write4U]

Learn how to read the context. We were talking about the world's very first airplane.

Why?

Moreover why use birds as a standard of flight? The insect learned to fly 400 million years ago.

And you are missing the point that it is not flight which is the focus of this creation. It is using human leg power to flap wings and maintain lift.

p.s. this is the first attempt at artificial wing flapping.

 

[Write4U]

Ongoing necessities for continued existence are not specific goals, they are imperative drives. They're akin to the software necessary for an AI.

Wrong!

Survival is the default goal of all humans because the way we have evolved overtime. Many humans had to compete to live based on our inner instincts. Survival has been a necessity for us to exist, therefore everytime we are thrown into a new situation we adapt towards the competition.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-survival-the-default-goal-of-all-humans#

 

[Write4U]

What you seem to miss completely is that I have just used AI logical goal to posit a persuasive argument about the creation and diversification of modes of flight.
Each a creative variation on a theme, just like Jazz......

 

[Sarkus]

Only in your head.

Yet you keep failing to make the distinction any other way, while still, as shown, appealing to complexity to do just that. Go figure.

But tell me, how do you originate something new if it's not even original to you? Wouldn't any imparted goal be a preexisting idea?

Yes.

No complexity required between a self-originated and a preexisting idea.

You're still failing to grasp what your appeal to complexity is. Let me repeat for the umpteenth time: there is a difference between the creator and the created. You are focussing here on the strawman of the complexity of the created. Your appeal to complexity is with regard the creator.

Remember, novelty is a requirement of creativity. Secondhand doesn't count.

Then describe how someone comes up with something new, when every possibility is already within the possibilities of the ruleset of the universe, when every idea is merely the combination of pre-existing ideas.
"There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages." - Mark Twain

You are weaseling, as that's exactly as I meant it too.

Then it behooves you to clearly write what you mean. To wit:
"I said AI doesn't learn, in the general sense. I agree with your severely limited claim. It's fine by me if you want to call that learning too." is what you wrote (post #255).
Yet what you were saying was fine if I wanted to call learning was a process, not scope ("That fits with my description of iterative innovation" - post #255). Iterative innovation is a process, not scope.

Learning in general is the ability to learn many different things, while your notion of learning very specifically defined things is extremely limited by comparison.

Which is a matter of scope, not process. That you confuse the two is your confusion, not anyone elses.

Even you can't be preposterous enough to deny that.

Even you can't be pathetic enough to think your leading question would go unnoticed.

No accounting for floundering people bitterly clinging to their straw men for buoyancy. I can't help it that you insist on the stupid claim that everything that applies to chess equally applies to the universe.

You have given no reason to show that it doesn't. Do you not see how even this comment of yours is just you confirming that you're just appealing to complexity? Your arguments thus far do not separate the two (the simple from the more complex); you simply assert it without substance. Still going over your head?

Sarkus #227: "It tells us that it is possible to innovate methods of getting from A to B while also being creative about how one gets from A to B. Just because someone has set the goal, and just because there is an existing method, does not mean that every subsequent means of getting from A to B considered is merely innovation. That's what you seem to be missing."

Me #249: "No, it doesn't. Especially when it's just an iterative process, no matter how complex. There is nothing creative about different routes from A to B, just different judgements on what makes such a path more optimal. In terms of a game, the only optimal judgement is a win."

Sarkus #252: "You've just described the way the brain works: making judgements as to pathways, reinforcing those that work, those that don't. Congratulations, you've once again simply concluded that nothing is creative."​

If you're now saying you didn't mean that to apply to your original claim of creativity, so be it. It's just irrelevant.

So please point out where I have said that learning is creativity? You obviously think I have, and having quoted the above you clearly think I have done so in there somewhere. So point it out.

Again, every time you start talking about the rule set, you seem to forget about the goal, of which you've already agreed that the universe does not supply.

Where have I agreed that??

A supplied goal of a game is not new, a self-originated goal of a person is new.

How is it new? Because the person didn't have it before? How is it novel other than in a purely subjective sense?

Simple difference you can't seem to grasp.

At the moment you haven't shown that there is a difference. You've asserted, and blustered, and waffled, and thrown up strawmen. But you haven't shown them to be different.

If you agree with my definition of creativity, you should be able to tell me how it arises, without reference to any innovation or implementation. Otherwise, you're just attempting to explaining it away.

Back to the evasion, I see. I've certainly agreed with your definition for purposes of discussion. But now you're going to have to step up and be honest, and explain how it arises. Start to make an argument that actually addresses how the creativity happens, such that we can see that it can't happen in AI.

You've moved the goalposts of your own, earlier example, this time including an act of creativity, which obviously begs the question.

Not at all, the goalposts have stayed where they've always been, despite your efforts. The example has changed, sure, but since when can examples not change? And how is it an act of creativity? I haven't asserted it is, you have just assumed and claimed it begs the question. Perhaps if you show how it has arisn, we might get somewhere.

You're equivocating "modeled" (approximated) and "simulated" (replicated).

Oh, good grief, do you not know what a simulation is? Simulation is the act of using a model to investigate behaviour of a system (i.e. the one modeled). Seriously, if you're going to throw around your failure to comprehend language then there's no hope. Simulation does NOT mean "replicated".

Again, you should be able to answer that yourself, unless you're trying to explain away creativity or conflate it with innovation.

I'm not trying to explain it away, I'm simply taking your arguments to their conclusion, and thus far you have done an excellent job in arguing creativity away. You don't want your arguments to do that, you want creativity to be a conclusion, so you must surely know how it arises, right? 'Cos all you're offering in this regard is evasion, evasion, evasion.

If you don't understand how human flight was new, I really can't help you.

More evasion.

The first airplane was not an innovation upon birds or balloons. It didn't flap, wasn't lighter than air, and didn't rely on any know principle of either.

Two things: 1, yes the earliest efforts at flight were based on birds. Daedalus, for example, which I think was the earliest recorded "flight". The airplane is a direct descendent of those earliest efforts. 2. the principle is that the first airplane didn't arrive in isolation from preceding ideas but stood on the shoulders of those, quite notably the result of trial and error. So how is the first airplane an example of creativity again?

No one said everything new is wholly detached from any and all previous experience. That's a reductio ad absurdum.

It's where your arguments take you, I'm afraid, at least until you explain how creativity actually arises. Which you're seemingly reluctant to do. Because at the moment, albeit with my gentle nudging, you're just highlighting the flaws in your arguments.

But you already said "we set our own goals". So now you're claiming the universe sets them for us?

Let me clarify: from our own perspective we at least think we set our own goals compared to AI who are given them.

 

[Write4U]

Ongoing necessities for continued existence are not specific goals, they are imperative drives. They're akin to the software necessary for an AI.

IOW, we can create a survival goal in AI? Do you think the AI can invent ways to survive?

Why do we need to write the three laws of robotics? Is that not to protect humans from possible harm by robots, if they were to decide humans are a threat to their existence.

And how creative has this survival imperative been in nature? How many creative variations on both offensive and defensive survival themes have been created? And all this from a simple software algorithm, like the software for an AI? OK , I'll go with that.....

 

[Vociferous]

But tell me, how do you originate something new if it's not even original to you? Wouldn't any imparted goal be a preexisting idea?

Yes.

Then, by definition, it's not new and thus not creativity.

No complexity required between a self-originated and a preexisting idea.

You are focussing here on the strawman of the complexity of the created. Your appeal to complexity is with regard the creator.

You can have the exact same idea be self-originated or preexisting. So there can be no appeal to complexity for the exact same idea. It's who originates the idea, as creativity can only originate from a creator, by definition. There no need to appeal to complexity when you have yet to demonstrate that the AI creates anything other than what its programmers tell it to.

Then describe how someone comes up with something new, when every possibility is already within the possibilities of the ruleset of the universe, when every idea is merely the combination of pre-existing ideas.
"There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages." - Mark Twain

Again, if you don't believe creativity exists, you are simply explaining it away, which also defeats your own argument that an AI can be creative.

You are weaseling, as that's exactly as I meant it too.

Then it behooves you to clearly write what you mean. To wit:
"I said AI doesn't learn, in the general sense. I agree with your severely limited claim. It's fine by me if you want to call that learning too." is what you wrote (post #255).
Yet what you were saying was fine if I wanted to call learning was a process, not scope ("That fits with my description of iterative innovation" - post #255). Iterative innovation is a process, not scope.

Iteration is a method of learning, even in humans, so your gripe is with your own straw man.
Self-directed, iterative learning dramatically improves critical thinking in STEM classes↑

I can't help it that you insist on the stupid claim that everything that applies to chess equally applies to the universe.

You have given no reason to show that it doesn't. Do you not see how even this comment of yours is just you confirming that you're just appealing to complexity? Your arguments thus far do not separate the two (the simple from the more complex); you simply assert it without substance.

Ah, the common refrain of the crackpot. "Prove me wrong." You're the one making the claim, so the onus is yours. The null hypothesis is that the rules of games don't apply to the whole universe and the AI isn't doing anything special.

So please point out where I have said that learning is creativity? You obviously think I have, and having quoted the above you clearly think I have done so in there somewhere. So point it out.

Like I said, if your argument about innovating from A to B had nothing to do with creativity, it was just irrelevant. I'm fine with that.

Where have I agreed that??

"Sure. And one could equally say that everything... and I do mean everything ... a human does already exists within the potential of the universe, the only difference in that we set out own goals (or at least most of us do)." #227

How is it new? Because the person didn't have it before? How is it novel other than in a purely subjective sense?

You really don't understand how something like the first airplane or a work of art is new? Seems like you're just on a fishing expedition for words you can equivocate.

At the moment you haven't shown that there is a difference. You've asserted, and blustered, and waffled, and thrown up strawmen. But you haven't shown them to be different.

Wait. You seriously don't see any difference between a supplied goal and a self-originated one? Again, that's you arguing that creativity does not exist, in humans or AI.

Back to the evasion, I see. I've certainly agreed with your definition for purposes of discussion. But now you're going to have to step up and be honest, and explain how it arises. Start to make an argument that actually addresses how the creativity happens, such that we can see that it can't happen in AI.

It's your claim. This "prove me wrong", crackpot bullshit ain't gonna fly. If you assert AI can be creative, it's on you to show how it occurs. If that means you first have to define how it happens in humans, that's also on you. Quit projecting your own obvious evasion on others. If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty, you know the onus for your own claim is on you. Own it.

You've moved the goalposts of your own, earlier example, this time including an act of creativity, which obviously begs the question.

Not at all, the goalposts have stayed where they've always been, despite your efforts. The example has changed, sure, but since when can examples not change? And how is it an act of creativity? I haven't asserted it is, you have just assumed and claimed it begs the question. Perhaps if you show how it has arisn, we might get somewhere.

You cannot honestly purport to be questioning if something involves creativity when you explicitly presume creativity, e.g. "Michaelangelo, go and decorate the Sistine Chapel". That's literally begging the question.

Oh, good grief, do you not know what a simulation is? Simulation is the act of using a model to investigate behaviour of a system (i.e. the one modeled). Seriously, if you're going to throw around your failure to comprehend language then there's no hope. Simulation does NOT mean "replicated".

Quit trying to weasel out of what you've already said. You claimed: "Everything anyone will ever do could be simulated by brute force" #227 You cannot "model" "everything anyone will ever do" without replicating "everything anyone will ever do".

I'm not trying to explain it away, I'm simply taking your arguments to their conclusion, and thus far you have done an excellent job in arguing creativity away. You don't want your arguments to do that, you want creativity to be a conclusion, so you must surely know how it arises, right? 'Cos all you're offering in this regard is evasion, evasion, evasion.

Not my arguments, your straw men. Again, your claim, your onus. Quit being a lazy crackpot.

If you don't understand how human flight was new, I really can't help you.

More evasion.

At this point, I can only assume you actually don't understand how anything can be new.

Two things: 1, yes the earliest efforts at flight were based on birds. Daedalus, for example, which I think was the earliest recorded "flight". The airplane is a direct descendent of those earliest efforts. 2. the principle is that the first airplane didn't arrive in isolation from preceding ideas but stood on the shoulders of those, quite notably the result of trial and error. So how is the first airplane an example of creativity again?

Until you can answer that yourself, your claim that AI can be creative is vacuous.

It's where your arguments take you, I'm afraid, at least until you explain how creativity actually arises. Which you're seemingly reluctant to do. Because at the moment, albeit with my gentle nudging, you're just highlighting the flaws in your arguments.

It's a false dilemma that creativity either cannot be based upon any previous knowledge or experience or it doesn't exist. If that's what you presumed, that's on you.

Let me clarify: from our own perspective we at least think we set our own goals compared to AI who are given them.

Then that's just an argument for there being no real creativity, again, defeating your claim about AI.
Thanks.