Known feedback is already encoded in the inputs. I don't remember move 37, but I think I know to what you're referring. Playing games against itself, and rememb

Known feedback is already encoded in the inputs. I don't remember move 37, but I think I know to what you're referring. Playing games against itself, and remembering, meant that outcomes (i.e. feedback) were already encoded in the inputs for the next run. It had a goal - win the game - but it's hard to claim that the machine itself was wilful. The people who designed it were. But, the machine was just an incredibly effective goal-seeking instrument. The rules were clear, the goal was clear; everything was pretty constrained. Just because move 37 never happened to have been used previously in the recorded history of Go, except in the games the machine played against itself, is meaningless in a claim to innovation. It was just both novel and effective. The will sets the goal, it precedes it. The scientific method is neither here nor there. I don't understand its relevance to the point I believe you're trying to make. Theorize, test, refine or abandon. It's mechanical, except in the theorization and the decision making around refinement or abandonment. What can we imagine? and how shall we judge? Both efforts of will. Someone has to decide that shelter is a good thing, and some smart person in Zambia, a long time ago, came up with the idea and pushed it forward. That person must have wanted to do it, without prompting and without prior knowledge; at least, the first one must have. I recall Einstein's own story that he came up with the original theory of relativity by imagining what it would be like to sit on a light beam. Innovative stuff. Imagining doesn't seem very AI-ish to me. My personal view is that, right now, AI's have only memory, and that they don't have experience. Experience is the why?-part and the judgement part without an external entity establishing a goal-seeking mechanism. Maybe they'll get there. Who knows?