3 ms·

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "original" though, eh? Are you familiar with the "cut up" technique? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique h

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "original" though, eh? Are you familiar with the "cut up" technique? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique It could be considered a mechanical original thought generator? From Information Theory we have the result that the unpredictability of a message is a measure of it's information content. Right now we are concentrating on making systems that generate predictable results (the novelty is not just that they can generate realistic "thought", but also that they can do it "to spec", which is another way of saying that we can predict some of the aspects of the output of the machines: it looks like they understand us and are providing salient responses. So it's not that computers can or cannot make original thought, it's that we have to decide what parts of the outputs are original: it's an observer-dependent variable, so to speak? What do you think?

shanebellone 4y ago
Fair play. I'm not familiar with the "cut up" technique. Thanks for the share. Your point is definitely valid. Might the phrase "novel thought" better describe the intention than "original thought"? "So it's not that computers can or cannot make original thought, it's that we have to decide what parts of the outputs are original: it's an observer-dependent variable, so to speak? What do you think?" This is a complicated statement. Novelty is certainly observer dependent. I suppose there should be two classes of novelty that consider context and perspective. Something can be new to the user (novel) and new as a solution (Novel). Though, there are also permutations to consider. For example, every year new users get online, but the Internet isn't a new solution. I think we'd have to define what merits the designation of "novel thought" and the context before discussing the possibility. It's an intriguing thought to consider regardless.

shanebellone 4y ago

Fair play. I'm not familiar with the "cut up" technique. Thanks for the share. Your point is definitely valid. Might the phrase "novel thought" better describe the intention than "original thought"? "So it's not that computers can or cannot make original thought, it's that we have to decide what parts of the outputs are original: it's an observer-dependent variable, so to speak? What do you think?" This is a complicated statement. Novelty is certainly observer dependent. I suppose there should be two classes of novelty that consider context and perspective. Something can be new to the user (novel) and new as a solution (Novel). Though, there are also permutations to consider. For example, every year new users get online, but the Internet isn't a new solution. I think we'd have to define what merits the designation of "novel thought" and the context before discussing the possibility. It's an intriguing thought to consider regardless.