The Creative Spark

Elmo · Post by **Elmo** » Wed May 31, 2006 4:42 pm

My homeboy Plato was one of the first philosophers to inquire into the nature of creativity. He put forward the idea that only the gods had the power of creativity, and new ideas were placed in human minds by divine hands. This idea has not survived in it's native form(except in the diseased minds of a few missguided preachers(no offense of course

)).

What remains of this concept in todays thinkscape is that - aside from that paint daubing elephant and the chimp artiste, 'curious george'(or as some call him 'MrPresident'

) - creativity is the fundamentally the domain of humankind. Our talent for creative innovations and expression is one of the prime defining traits of the species and has driven us to where we are now.

What then, will we do if we are replaced in our human duty to create?

Machines already do much of our work for us with greater speed, accuracy and efficiency. This is something we have grown accustomed to; they mow our lawns, assemble our cars, perform surgery, self-replicate, explore space and ocean, defuse bombs and observe traffic. This all frees up time for the richer of us to write books, watch films or wander round exclusive parks hitting a little ball with a stick. Why then, is it still thought by most, that artificed intelligences will not surpass human intelligence in creativity?

While it may be true that an AI will not 'create' new ideas from out of the blue, isn't that also true of human intelligence? - when was the last time you thought of a new colour or a spatial dimension that was not there before? our creativity is an exploration of what is already given to us and in that sense AI may already be gaining on us.

AIs have been developed that can write novels(slightly cliched genre fiction with very strange analogies) , create paintings(would say 'art' but that's another kettle of fish), apply old solutions to new problems, simulate conjecture in explaining situations(see SWALE), improvise solutions to mechanical problems and design innovative buildings. Will they surpass us? and should we be worried?

Lethagrin · Post by **Lethagrin** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:17 pm

What makes you think these AI's wont reach the same mental peak as ourselves?

I guess they could observe at a better quality than us, and outlive us. And cross many other human physical boundaries. But how can truely say they will stop interpreting and start understanding.

base of the pillar · Post by **base of the pillar** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:52 pm

If machines do reach a similar creative peak who's to say they won't do what a good majority of humans do and simply not be creative. I mean think of how many truely good authors have written in the last year. You make it sound as though with all this free time we as humans are creating new amazing works every day yet what most humans do with the amount of free time they're given is watch "American Idol", sorry to any fans out there.

Bimboliquido · Post by **Bimboliquido** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:23 pm

I dare say we could see at the question through "religious" eyes.

If there is a God,and please,mind i'm non questioning this,let's say he created us humans( and whatever else,ok).

Now,if we are God's creation,did we or are we going to reach His "level"?
If it is the "general" God we are used to know through various religions,i think we definitely didn't/won't.

Just to make a dully romantic example,could the hypothetic best painter in the world paint a twilight sky or a storm in the middle of the ocean as good as the "real" ones are?(I'm not talking,of course,about one's ability to perfectly reproduct so-called reality...but after all that's the higher level i'm talking about.)

IF there is such an amazing God,we are, roughly sure, bound to not reach His capabilities.

Where to? To the obvious fact that A.I.s are a product of man,and to me, the only way they have to surpass mankind is in a physical way.( they surely are already faster and stronger and better in a bunch of things than we are...).

But there are things that they don't(won't?)possess,and that's just because humans are not able to give those things to their creations(why,we don't even know a bunch of things that are to know ourselves...)

In a line,could human's creations surpass human itself,or they could only reach the maximum limits humans already reached?

Hell if i know,but i dare say no,A.I. will always be inferior to man cause they don't have a true ability to evolve.

Shirow doesn't think the same way and i surely hope he's right,though i think i won't be able to see who'right...

This is my first post here,thanks for your attention and forgive my bad english,i'm italian.

mu · Post by mu » Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:26 am

AI will never surpass us because they need us to reproduce them. And they are not biological creatures so they can't evolve and adapt when nessesary. they also need us to mantane them.

mu · Post by mu » Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:29 am

Oh god i'm soooooooo sorry I didn't mean to do that!!!! I'm not used to posting on this kind of forum Pleeeeeaaaaaase forgive me!!!!!!

Jeni Nielsen · Post by **Jeni Nielsen** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:35 am

mu wrote:Oh god i'm soooooooo sorry I didn't mean to do that!!!! I'm not used to posting on this kind of forum Pleeeeeaaaaaase forgive me!!!!!!

Don't worry. If it happens again just PM me and I'll take care of it.

(I'll go ahead and and delete the tripple post

)

Jeni Nielsen · Post by **Jeni Nielsen** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:37 am

mu wrote:AI will never surpass us because they need us to reproduce them. And they are not biological creatures so they can't evolve and adapt when nessesary. they also need us to mantane them.

Well I don't know. Think about how cars get built nowadays. It's mostly machines building other machines. Who's to say that it won't end up being a completely automated process in the future. So in essence machines will be able to "reproduce" themselves.

Lightice · Post by **Lightice** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:03 pm

Jeni Nielsen wrote:
mu wrote:AI will never surpass us because they need us to reproduce them. And they are not biological creatures so they can't evolve and adapt when nessesary. they also need us to mantane them.
Well I don't know. Think about how cars get built nowadays. It's mostly machines building other machines. Who's to say that it won't end up being a completely automated process in the future. So in essence machines will be able to "reproduce" themselves.

Indeed. And besides, technology evolves. The technological evolution is both faster and more efficent than biological evolution. When a human-level AI is realized, it will be able to take part in designing a super-human AI, which alone can design AIs of greater and greater capability. It is evolution, but unlike our evolution, it's guided by intelligence and proceeds in matter of months or even days, rather than millions of years.
No human interference is required. There is no reason, why a machine of suitable complexity could not possess all creativity of human mind and more.

Will humans be replaced? I don't think so. After all, like said, the AIs will be created by us and raised by us. Essentially, they will become us, though far more intelligent and capable.

mu · Post by mu » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:19 pm

AI's hav to be progamed with the abilty to be more inteligent first. theres no reason to create such a thing other than for the purpose of it being really cool. I don't think people would want to create something with that kind of intelect.

Lightice · Post by **Lightice** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:36 am

mu wrote:AI's hav to be progamed with the abilty to be more inteligent first. theres no reason to create such a thing other than for the purpose of it being really cool. I don't think people would want to create something with that kind of intelect.

You think? The practical uses are countless. The modern technology constantly stretches the limits of what is possible for humans, but eventually we will meet those limits. Human mind can only go so far in designing more and more complex artifical systems required to keep the constantly developing society rolling. Even now we couldn't make it without computer help. Eventually the computer systems become so complex, that it's neccesary for them to operate themselves. To do that with efficency, intelligence is neccesary.

You say, that people don't want that kind of intelligence. I disagree - many have devoted their lives for that goal. The masses demand a constant stream of new inventions and if it requires a superhuman AI, that's the way to go.

Every time the fasibility of strong AI is debated, one of the opponents points out that "people don't want it to happen", forgetting that it was their intention to debate its impossibility. Not only it doesn't matter what the people want, because someone will do it, whatever the public opinion is, but looking at the majority's attitude to the new technologies, I would say, that most happily welcome almost any kind of development, if they can get something good out of it.

Elmo · Post by **Elmo** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:18 am

I'm with lightice on that point ^. Any sort of strong AI with human or higher abilities in creativity and similar fields of thought would be welcomed by the majority of people.

The benifits of such an AI are just too large for much dissent. The human mind is haphazard and cluttered it has developed, over time, multiple purposes like a swiss army knife. A good program on the other hand is far more elegant and is pure of intention and purpose. To continue the knife analogy the AI is more like a well forged long sword folded, balanced and shaped to focus all it's power to one point of the edge; it's entire existance devoted to that single purpose. Would it not then be safe to assume that any innovations, design concepts or solutions suggested by such a mind would be equally superior in elegance and effciency?

There is of course the question of the human experience which must be considered when thinking about if an AI can be developed with such abilities. Would a man who had only read about lemons in books be able to create a design for a superior lemon juicer? could a great creative poem about mountains be written by a man who has never experienced one? Knowledge and experience aren't the same kind of information. As creativity needs to relate well to it's subject to be useful or effective, will AI be able to be creative in the human world we want it to operate in despite not sharing the human experience?

Lightice · Post by **Lightice** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:21 am

An AI must certainly have human experience in order to act in a human enviroment. Thankfully, the development of robotics will allow them to experience our world, firsthand. All senses, other than taste or smell can already be applied to robots and the last two, I imagine, will come sooner or later. They are already developing a smell-recorder in Japan.

What you describe, Elmo, is a narrow AI and those we already have - though just ten years ago most of them were little more than laboratory experiments. They count the stockmarket prices, investigate credit card frauds, control air traffic, calculate scientific theories and soon give orders to workers in hamburger joints - we'll see a machine ordering people around even before they achieve sentience. That should tell us just how worried most people are about AIs - that is, not at all.

A strong AI should have all the capabilities of a human being - including emotions, or at least some of them - and more. A strong AI is a human being, though one born and most likely raised in quite unusual manner. Thinking them as devices to be used doesn't do them justice. I prefer to think them as the Human 2.0.

Jeni Nielsen · Post by **Jeni Nielsen** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:49 am

Lightice wrote:
Jeni Nielsen wrote:
mu wrote:AI will never surpass us because they need us to reproduce them. And they are not biological creatures so they can't evolve and adapt when nessesary. they also need us to mantane them.
Well I don't know. Think about how cars get built nowadays. It's mostly machines building other machines. Who's to say that it won't end up being a completely automated process in the future. So in essence machines will be able to "reproduce" themselves.

Indeed. And besides, technology evolves. The technological evolution is both faster and more efficent than biological evolution. When a human-level AI is realized, it will be able to take part in designing a super-human AI, which alone can design AIs of greater and greater capability. It is evolution, but unlike our evolution, it's guided by intelligence and proceeds in matter of months or even days, rather than millions of years.
No human interference is required. There is no reason, why a machine of suitable complexity could not possess all creativity of human mind and more.

Will humans be replaced? I don't think so. After all, like said, the AIs will be created by us and raised by us. Essentially, they will become us, though far more intelligent and capable.

Some people, myself included, think that scientific evolution has replaced, or at least superceeded human evolution. Who needs survival of the fittest when you can have glasses and heart surgery. But maybe that's a bit off topic.

I'm one of those people who is facinated and horrified by artificial intelligence. Perhaps humans won't be replaced, but become so interfaced with AI and technology that the line will become so blurred as to be useless.

mu · Post by mu » Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:41 pm

U hav all been able to cotrodict me and u may all be right. U hav easily covinced me of the possibility. And if AI develop emotion I hope they hav compassion becuase if they don't than that would suck.

P.S. my spelling is horrendes