Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Can a computer...
| User | Post |
candrodor
Posts: 16/19 |
My music teacher was ranting on the other week about a style of music in the first half of the C20. It involved "serialising" music, making a piece with sequences, that would have the sequence played 12 times, and would end once it was played in all 12 keys (ignoring relative keys.) It was later realised you could do the same with 12 different dymnamic levels, pppp to ffff or something silly. Same with rhythms, so you can end up with a sort of scientifically made piece. Wouldn't have creativity, but it would be "legal" music. |
Edea
Posts: 28/36 |
*Opens up a fractal generator, prints.*
Looks like a painting to me. I certainly can't make a fractal picture on my own.
If it's emotion that seems to set the boundaries for creativity, then human beings simply don't know how to program emotions yet. But for humans themselves, it was a spontaneous process that took billions of years to resolve itself into our current forms. Computers have taken about 50 years total. The growth is artificial in nature, so it seems very incomplete.
It'd be nice to find another planet with silicon based lifeforms on it to compare computers to. |
Zer0wned
Posts: 137/181 |
Actually, it seems like you've mis-read my post. I addressed all of those things, except maybe the difference between logic and creativity. Not to mention there was no "wrong way" for me to look at this, as the topic is extremely open ended to begin with.
The difference between logic and creativity: Spontaneousness. But even then, I don't think that humans are at all spontaneous in their creativity anyway, as explained in my above post, it's about chemical levels, external influences, and how the brain is both hard-wired and taught (self taught or otherwise) to react. So the real line between creativity and logic is in whether or not an onlooker chooses to call it either a complex logical output based on external events, how these events were interepereted, and emotions (the chemical levels I was talking about) thusly invoked as a result of the interperetation, or creativity.
A computer would have to have an extremely complex system of emulators to even begin to think and learn like a human to a convincing degree, But, for pretend sake, it's kind of self defeating to ask that if a computer could learn like us (and therefore think like us, can't really have one without the other), could it have "creativity". Of course! it's one of the definers of human thought in the first place!
The human brain is nothing special, eh? It's one of the most complex things in the known (bolded for emphasis) universe, and its complete abilities have yet to be understood, and we USE the damned thing, I fail to see the lack of specialness in that. |
paraplayer
Posts: 279/280 |
you seem to be looking at this the wrong way.
remember the human brain is nothing special. The only diffrence is it's ability to defy logic with emotion (and even then is it really defying logic if the emotion is invoked to achieve your goal?)
if an advanced computer could learn the same way a human could would it have creativity?
Where do we draw the line between creativity and logic? |
Zer0wned
Posts: 126/181 |
Dammit.. I had a full response earlier, and my computer froze.. damned 125 watt power source.. oh well, replaced it with a 300 watt and things are now ~smoooth~. Anyway...
It is my belief that living things are in fact programmed (no quotations for emphasis), via DNA. Computers use binary from various mediums and manipulate machines, gadgets, and visual mediums. The body, on the other hand, is programmed via a (greek word for 12)inary base of chemical pairs of adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine that manipulate a more chemical medium, and is "upgraded" overtime by way of trial and error (survival of the fittest/evolution/whatever).
Now sticking with this reasoning, I'd call the brain an operating system. Limbs, organs, skin, etc. are more like programs. But instead of the way of the harddrive, where there is a space limit, and the code is written onto it, the cells react to their base code, and create the "program" accordingly by multiplying, arranging, and changing their balance of chemicals according to the code provided.
Now, like a very advanced, machine-based computer; the body/mind reacts to various chemical presenses (internal and external), system statuses, sensory input, and keeps a stored database of cause and effect. Some machines (living things) are hard-coded differently (different DNA), and will react differently based on all of these inputs.
Where I'm getting at is, how can "creativity" not be programmed? It already has been! Now I don't think a computer can be creative like us, per se, because our form of programming is heavily reliant on chemical levels which translate into thoughts and emotions. But I think a computer can be made to be "mused" and "inspired" by outside forces that it can detect, what it does detect, what relevance and priority the detected things have, how they will be used, and what creative display it will be transposed upon is up to the programmers.
I think if some form of self-growth (in the live and learn sense) were implemented, like interperetation of feedback, (like say it "learns" what patterns and methods score higher in its creations).
***********Read this if you want to just get the short end of it***********
So in review, I believe that computers can have some form of independant thought, although it's subject to interperetation, but, I don't believe it's likely to make one creative in a human manner. |
Thayer
Posts: 516/988 |
Originally posted by Kario
No, it cant, they havent even perfected the arm to hold the brush yet.
A brush isn't necessary to paint. Painting is not limited to brushes, and there are many types of media that would still be considering painting and fit under the category of no brushes. I don't believe it's really that hard to see a computer making art, especially abstract pieces. And incidentally, computers already do paint. |
Wopple
Posts: 24/41 |
Originally posted by Kefka
How would it know it would sound good? It would be ripping off of other music, and that is all.
Yeah, what the other guy said. Music theory is actualy qquite restrictive. It's not quite throwing random scales and chord progressions together, but it can get close. You could certainly program a computer that would make up random melodies based on the laws which would sound QUITE good, although consistancy would be a problem.
|
GeckoYamori
Posts: 80/153 |
Computers can already compose music from scratch without any references, using randomized scripts guided by a few 'laws' from human music theory. |
Kefka
Posts: 3317/3392 |
How would it know it would sound good? It would be ripping off of other music, and that is all. |
Vyper
Posts: 160/256 |
Originally posted by firemaker
A computer has to be phisically programmed to do something. Even thhe most powerful computer in the world could not paint a picture. AI is a failed recreation of life. Could a computer compose a shmphony?? i think not. right from the word go computers have to be programmed. if you look at the way the first processors were made you will see that they were programmed, so a computer needs human intervention to do anything.
Actually, a computer probably could be programmed to compose a symphony. I mean, think about it. Just supply it with every possible note along with examples of classical music and have the computer rearrange the notes to a style that sounds good. |
Ailure
Posts: 10670/11162 |
Only if they have a biological brain, or have something that works similar to the brain.
Creativity is a trait humans have, but machines lacks... for now. They're masters at logic, but fails whenever creativity is needed. A human brain and a computer works quite diffrent.
I can see it possible if they use a brain somehow, thought you would need a device to connect between the computer and the brain.  |
seanbabaganoosh
Posts: 54/71 |
Like what Kario said.
Also, paintings are made/expressed through the emotions of the artist. Comps. can't have emotions. It is way too complicated to program something like that. How do you program it to make a painting to convey a sad mood? Or how would you get it to add a sad complexion to the person in the picture? |
Kario
Posts: 1970/2082 |
No, it cant, they havent even perfected the arm to hold the brush yet. |
Danielle
Posts: 1397/3359 |
It could, if it got the creative part from a human that programmed it. So really.. no it can't, unless it's given the talent. That's how it always is for computers, isn't it? |
Snika
Posts: 340/916 |
I suppose you could program a machine to paint a picture, much like the zookeepers trained the elephants in the zoo.
It could either be a random amount of brush strokes, or I guess you could program it to do certain brush strokes to create something like the Mona Lisa.
Computers will never be able to process art the way humans do, though. Its a creative outlet for people, and computer could never match that. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4917/5458 |
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
Originally posted by Arwon
What if it's the remains of a computer that collided with God?
Deus in Machina?
You just got pun'd! |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 2092/2189 |
Originally posted by Arwon
What if it's the remains of a computer that collided with God?
Deus in Machina? |
NSNick
Posts: 3202/3875 |
"Hey kids. I'm a computer."
"Stop all the downloadin'!" |
neotransotaku
Posts: 3716/4016 |
I believe creativity stems from (1) randomness of events that occur (2) how each input influences the function it is entered into. If the subroutines in an AI are be non-deterimistic, then creativity of a computer is possible. However, if AIs are programmed in a deterministic fashion then well, there is no creativity because essentially we be programming a computer to be able to replicate the works of others...
I guess, being able to program non-deterministic output into a computer is the key for AIs to be "creative" |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4914/5458 |
Unless a high-level of artificial intelligence is created that could therefore make new computers (ie reproduction) with distinctive personality traits within their AI I don't quite think that computers will be too good the artist. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
