4 ms·

whenever I hear about robots or software agents "inventing" or "evolving" some aspect of human intelligence, I'm always skeptical because it sounds like they we

whenever I hear about robots or software agents "inventing" or "evolving" some aspect of human intelligence, I'm always skeptical because it sounds like they were programmed such that this outcome is almost pre-ordained. for example, evolutionary "art" that "draws" the mona lisa - I saw an example of this, but the actual mona lisa was essentially the objective function of an optimization, so why wouldn't it draw it after enough steps? granted this article doesn't say much about implementation, but it sounds like they were programmed with the interpretation of words being associated with locations as a given. I admit I'm a novice in this particular domain so I can't speak too intelligently about it, but am I missing something?

boredguy8 15y ago
'Approximate that using this limited tool set and tell us when you think you're close' is a nontrivial problem. Without getting into a discussion of what creativity 'is', we can probably agree most everything about human activity begins as imitation.
- trebor 15y ago
  And humans, already having an innate intelligence, can easily imitate something. Without human interference a robot would rust to pieces before it ever moved a millimeter (we do have to tell it what to do). We could invent synthetic creativity, but it in my opinion it'd never progress past its synthetic nature.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Why can’t humans create what nature created? Creativity is not magic, I see no reason why it should be in principle impossible for humans to build creative systems.
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      Let's start with building another human, then, beginning with elemental chemicals. I think we all know how far we can get with that. Or, let's try to engineer an entire economy to supplant the emergent system of markets. Oh, wait, that results in millions of people starving to death. Some systems are so complex that it's beyond our abilities to dream about how we might approach such a problem, let alone execute it. Given that we've been so unsuccessful in assigning a definition to creativity or intelligence, I think that these things might be in the same category of overly-complex systems.
      - ugh 15y ago
        If evolution can do it, we will be able to do it, too. (Given enough time.) I’m not at all sure how markets figure into this. Human brains are not markets, this comparison strikes me as non-sensical. I don’t see you claiming that there is anything in principle impossible about that.
        brosephius 15y ago
        brains and markets are both complex adaptive systems. they aren't similar in high-level function, but they are with respect to low level dynamics.
      - moe 15y ago
        You forgot: Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. Oh wait... Edit: Not sure why I got downvoted, probably the snarkyness. Fine, I can also put it the long-winded way: There used to be a time when flying seemed beyond our abilities to dream about how we might approach it. Likewise for most other achievements that we have made. What's going to stop us from building a human body, including the brain, once we have the manufacturing technology to do so?
        brosephius 15y ago
        >What's going to stop us from building a human body, including the brain, once we have the manufacturing technology to do so? it's that we don't know what "manufacturing technology" we need, because we don't have a deep enough understanding of how the brain works. I think the parent's point was that attempts to engineer complex systems fail because these attempts can't reproduce the emergent behavior that arises from many layers of interactions from individual agents. a plane is complex, but it's not a complex system. edit: I actually disagree a bit with myself - you can make a case that planes have elements of complex systems, but it's not at the same scale as a brain, in my opinion.
    - trebor 15y ago
      No one person can invent robotic creativity, therefore a team is necessary. If we presume that the team is comprised of members renowned the world over for their robotics and programming work, and are leaders in their field it doesn't guarantee success (even with technology 200 years from now). We cannot even agree what creativity is and where/how it comes from the human brain. Without a full understanding of creativity, which I'm sure a few bus-loads of philosophers and psychologists could never agree upon, that is communicated without flaws to an expert robotics team... I hope you see the ridiculousness of this idea. For all our understanding and consensus on the matter, creativity might as well be magic. And, as much as I've programmed and studied theory... I still don't know how to implement magic. Unless, of course, Ruby or Python already have "creativity" metaprogramming? class Robot include Creativity creative :language, :syllables => 2, :syllabary => %w{ ja ya ri je pi ze ku zo re } end
      - ugh 15y ago
        It's a hard problem, that's all. Not in principle impossible.
        trebor 15y ago
        Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I agree that the principle is possible because I view almost every principle as possible. But I think the achievement of said principle is far beyond man's capabilities. And I think the primary limiter is us, that we cannot produce something greater than our own intelligence. (I have seen many try, and fail, to build something that reaches even their own intelligence.)

boredguy8 15y ago

'Approximate that using this limited tool set and tell us when you think you're close' is a nontrivial problem. Without getting into a discussion of what creativity 'is', we can probably agree most everything about human activity begins as imitation.

trebor 15y ago
And humans, already having an innate intelligence, can easily imitate something. Without human interference a robot would rust to pieces before it ever moved a millimeter (we do have to tell it what to do). We could invent synthetic creativity, but it in my opinion it'd never progress past its synthetic nature.
- ugh 15y ago
  Why can’t humans create what nature created? Creativity is not magic, I see no reason why it should be in principle impossible for humans to build creative systems.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    Let's start with building another human, then, beginning with elemental chemicals. I think we all know how far we can get with that. Or, let's try to engineer an entire economy to supplant the emergent system of markets. Oh, wait, that results in millions of people starving to death. Some systems are so complex that it's beyond our abilities to dream about how we might approach such a problem, let alone execute it. Given that we've been so unsuccessful in assigning a definition to creativity or intelligence, I think that these things might be in the same category of overly-complex systems.
    - ugh 15y ago
      If evolution can do it, we will be able to do it, too. (Given enough time.) I’m not at all sure how markets figure into this. Human brains are not markets, this comparison strikes me as non-sensical. I don’t see you claiming that there is anything in principle impossible about that.
      - brosephius 15y ago
        brains and markets are both complex adaptive systems. they aren't similar in high-level function, but they are with respect to low level dynamics.
    - moe 15y ago
      You forgot: Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. Oh wait... Edit: Not sure why I got downvoted, probably the snarkyness. Fine, I can also put it the long-winded way: There used to be a time when flying seemed beyond our abilities to dream about how we might approach it. Likewise for most other achievements that we have made. What's going to stop us from building a human body, including the brain, once we have the manufacturing technology to do so?
      - brosephius 15y ago
        >What's going to stop us from building a human body, including the brain, once we have the manufacturing technology to do so? it's that we don't know what "manufacturing technology" we need, because we don't have a deep enough understanding of how the brain works. I think the parent's point was that attempts to engineer complex systems fail because these attempts can't reproduce the emergent behavior that arises from many layers of interactions from individual agents. a plane is complex, but it's not a complex system. edit: I actually disagree a bit with myself - you can make a case that planes have elements of complex systems, but it's not at the same scale as a brain, in my opinion.
  - trebor 15y ago
    No one person can invent robotic creativity, therefore a team is necessary. If we presume that the team is comprised of members renowned the world over for their robotics and programming work, and are leaders in their field it doesn't guarantee success (even with technology 200 years from now). We cannot even agree what creativity is and where/how it comes from the human brain. Without a full understanding of creativity, which I'm sure a few bus-loads of philosophers and psychologists could never agree upon, that is communicated without flaws to an expert robotics team... I hope you see the ridiculousness of this idea. For all our understanding and consensus on the matter, creativity might as well be magic. And, as much as I've programmed and studied theory... I still don't know how to implement magic. Unless, of course, Ruby or Python already have "creativity" metaprogramming? class Robot include Creativity creative :language, :syllables => 2, :syllabary => %w{ ja ya ri je pi ze ku zo re } end
    - ugh 15y ago
      It's a hard problem, that's all. Not in principle impossible.
      - trebor 15y ago
        Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I agree that the principle is possible because I view almost every principle as possible. But I think the achievement of said principle is far beyond man's capabilities. And I think the primary limiter is us, that we cannot produce something greater than our own intelligence. (I have seen many try, and fail, to build something that reaches even their own intelligence.)