3 ms·

Is it not? When monkeys emulate their trainers that is seen as an intelligent act. Babies emulate everything they can as they're learning. Imitation is a big pa

by gizmo 17y ago

Is it not? When monkeys emulate their trainers that is seen as an intelligent act. Babies emulate everything they can as they're learning. Imitation is a big part of intelligence as we know it.

jacquesm 17y ago
I think you miss the point how much programming went in to writing the software that does the imitation. I'm imagining a fast Fourier transform to analyze the incoming audio samples, software that knows about key signatures, tempo and so on. Then given an algorithmic transformation function with a random generator you can come up with new data. But it is really just a transformation of the old data. Given white noise as input the program would not produce a symphony that would strike us as a masterpiece or move us to tears. That takes a composer.
- petite 17y ago
  Composers aren't born composers either. Through years of practice an individual learns how to manipulate the instrument and over this time period, listens to/plays a wide variety of well known musical compositions. Only then is the individual able to use his knowledge to create something new. It would be similar to loading the program with most compositions from a particular time period, and then having something produced which both sounds different enough to be distinguishable, but similar enough to be pleasant.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Yes, that is true, they are not born composers. But their art is not to take a piece of music that already exists and then transform it according to a set of rules, that is where the 'art', 'inspiration' and 'transpiration' comes in, and it takes a being capable of emotion to be able to do that. You are seriously underestimating what composing is, it is not merely 'coming up with sounds that are distinguishable and pleasant'. That's the mechanical end of the business, any piece of software that you teach about basic key signatures and tempo rules & phrasing could in theory do that. Composing is much like story telling, to paint a picture in sound that evokes an emotion with a purpose in the listener. On the day a computer comes up with something that moves me as strongly as Bach or Vivaldi I'll eat my hat, but I won't be holding my breath for that.
    - petite 17y ago
      To me, that sounds like saying "and then some magic happens" which ultimately creates the end work. Who is to say that the intermediate steps could or could not be reproduced by a program? By the way, I'm a painter, so I'm not saying that when I do create a work that it was crafted by a set of logical, binary steps that I always follow for each painting. But I can say that my work can be analyzed to see why I did every single step, and none of those are impossible to express to a computer. Aside from my anecdotal experience, this is something that is also easily observable within the visual arts, and the artists that are recognized for defining the field.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        I think that in the end it all boils down to motivation and free will, a computer has none, even the ones with random generators. An intelligent being (artificial or 'natural' makes no difference here) has free will and I believe (but can not prove) that eventually that leads to intelligence. The prevailing belief here (certainly judging by the moderation ;) ) seems to be that you can algorithmically describe everything. I'm not sure that that is possible, neither am I sure that it is not. But to date, nobody has designed a machine that on its own decide to go and do anything at all. Even the act of deciding to make a painting vs going out for lunch or talking to someone for an hour or two requires free will and intelligence. No computer in existence today can do that, and if there is not going to be some fundamental change in how computers work I doubt that one will do so in the future. If you haven't read it yet look at the top of this discussion, rms has posted a link that makes for some very interesting reading on all this. & thanks for the exchange, it has been educational, especially about the 'method' that could be abstracted from art.
        petite 17y ago
        Yes, I understand absolutely where you are coming from here. I simply am not sure whether there exists something inherently different that allows me to make decisions such as eating lunch vs. creating a painting, or whether it's just a matter of complexity within my own memory, (such as my past experience of painting at noon on a sunny sunday has rewarded me with a good painting, which to me is similar to expressing that idea to a program). But again, this is merely philosophical. I just don't want to throw that idea out simply because we haven't done it yet. And it's been a pleasant exchange on my end as well :)
- gizmo 17y ago
  So music isn't music unless it's Mozart? I don't think it's me who is misunderstanding the discussion here. You're using double standards. When a primal tribe is beating on drums: music. When a computer builds a primitive melody? That's not music! Those are just bits and bytes! If I follow your logic to the extreme a computer can never compose music because there will always be a human who built the computer, or built the computer that built the computer that composed the music. I don't buy that.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I'm not saying a computer can not compose music, I'm saying that without real intelligence there is no composition, merely the following of a set of rules, a program. Intelligence, artificial or not, is capable of such stuff, a mechanical device interpreting fixed rules is not. When a primal tribe beats on a drum they've just invented music. When a computer beats on a drum it has been told by some human to beat a drum.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      "When a computer beats on a drum it has been told by some human to beat a drum." Well yeah, it seems likely that if a computer ever becomes really intelligent, it has been built by a human. So?
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        If it is an intelligent computer it will not need to be told what to do, it will motivate itself, but we may not even recognize its actions as motivation because the concepts are not clarified, we only know what motivates us, we can not begin to imagine how a sentient AI would be motivated, maybe it will tell us, maybe it won't, who know... That motivation does not necessarily have anything in common with a human motivation, there are plenty of alternatives. It might not want to beat a drum, even when told to. For that to happen though we have a bunch of formidable hurdles to cross, and in spite of all our processing power and data storage capability we have not yet been able to simulate the intelligence of even an insect or a small mammal. Whether an AI is built by humans or aliens or comes in to being through some freak coincidence is irrelevant. As long as it takes a human with their intelligence to tell a computer what to do it has not achieved intelligence, merely the capability to follow instructions very precisely.

by gizmo 17y ago

Is it not? When monkeys emulate their trainers that is seen as an intelligent act. Babies emulate everything they can as they're learning. Imitation is a big part of intelligence as we know it.

jacquesm 17y ago

I think you miss the point how much programming went in to writing the software that does the imitation. I'm imagining a fast Fourier transform to analyze the incoming audio samples, software that knows about key signatures, tempo and so on. Then given an algorithmic transformation function with a random generator you can come up with new data. But it is really just a transformation of the old data. Given white noise as input the program would not produce a symphony that would strike us as a masterpiece or move us to tears. That takes a composer.

petite 17y ago
Composers aren't born composers either. Through years of practice an individual learns how to manipulate the instrument and over this time period, listens to/plays a wide variety of well known musical compositions. Only then is the individual able to use his knowledge to create something new. It would be similar to loading the program with most compositions from a particular time period, and then having something produced which both sounds different enough to be distinguishable, but similar enough to be pleasant.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Yes, that is true, they are not born composers. But their art is not to take a piece of music that already exists and then transform it according to a set of rules, that is where the 'art', 'inspiration' and 'transpiration' comes in, and it takes a being capable of emotion to be able to do that. You are seriously underestimating what composing is, it is not merely 'coming up with sounds that are distinguishable and pleasant'. That's the mechanical end of the business, any piece of software that you teach about basic key signatures and tempo rules & phrasing could in theory do that. Composing is much like story telling, to paint a picture in sound that evokes an emotion with a purpose in the listener. On the day a computer comes up with something that moves me as strongly as Bach or Vivaldi I'll eat my hat, but I won't be holding my breath for that.
  - petite 17y ago
    To me, that sounds like saying "and then some magic happens" which ultimately creates the end work. Who is to say that the intermediate steps could or could not be reproduced by a program? By the way, I'm a painter, so I'm not saying that when I do create a work that it was crafted by a set of logical, binary steps that I always follow for each painting. But I can say that my work can be analyzed to see why I did every single step, and none of those are impossible to express to a computer. Aside from my anecdotal experience, this is something that is also easily observable within the visual arts, and the artists that are recognized for defining the field.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      I think that in the end it all boils down to motivation and free will, a computer has none, even the ones with random generators. An intelligent being (artificial or 'natural' makes no difference here) has free will and I believe (but can not prove) that eventually that leads to intelligence. The prevailing belief here (certainly judging by the moderation ;) ) seems to be that you can algorithmically describe everything. I'm not sure that that is possible, neither am I sure that it is not. But to date, nobody has designed a machine that on its own decide to go and do anything at all. Even the act of deciding to make a painting vs going out for lunch or talking to someone for an hour or two requires free will and intelligence. No computer in existence today can do that, and if there is not going to be some fundamental change in how computers work I doubt that one will do so in the future. If you haven't read it yet look at the top of this discussion, rms has posted a link that makes for some very interesting reading on all this. & thanks for the exchange, it has been educational, especially about the 'method' that could be abstracted from art.
      - petite 17y ago
        Yes, I understand absolutely where you are coming from here. I simply am not sure whether there exists something inherently different that allows me to make decisions such as eating lunch vs. creating a painting, or whether it's just a matter of complexity within my own memory, (such as my past experience of painting at noon on a sunny sunday has rewarded me with a good painting, which to me is similar to expressing that idea to a program). But again, this is merely philosophical. I just don't want to throw that idea out simply because we haven't done it yet. And it's been a pleasant exchange on my end as well :)
gizmo 17y ago
So music isn't music unless it's Mozart? I don't think it's me who is misunderstanding the discussion here. You're using double standards. When a primal tribe is beating on drums: music. When a computer builds a primitive melody? That's not music! Those are just bits and bytes! If I follow your logic to the extreme a computer can never compose music because there will always be a human who built the computer, or built the computer that built the computer that composed the music. I don't buy that.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I'm not saying a computer can not compose music, I'm saying that without real intelligence there is no composition, merely the following of a set of rules, a program. Intelligence, artificial or not, is capable of such stuff, a mechanical device interpreting fixed rules is not. When a primal tribe beats on a drum they've just invented music. When a computer beats on a drum it has been told by some human to beat a drum.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    "When a computer beats on a drum it has been told by some human to beat a drum." Well yeah, it seems likely that if a computer ever becomes really intelligent, it has been built by a human. So?
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      If it is an intelligent computer it will not need to be told what to do, it will motivate itself, but we may not even recognize its actions as motivation because the concepts are not clarified, we only know what motivates us, we can not begin to imagine how a sentient AI would be motivated, maybe it will tell us, maybe it won't, who know... That motivation does not necessarily have anything in common with a human motivation, there are plenty of alternatives. It might not want to beat a drum, even when told to. For that to happen though we have a bunch of formidable hurdles to cross, and in spite of all our processing power and data storage capability we have not yet been able to simulate the intelligence of even an insect or a small mammal. Whether an AI is built by humans or aliens or comes in to being through some freak coincidence is irrelevant. As long as it takes a human with their intelligence to tell a computer what to do it has not achieved intelligence, merely the capability to follow instructions very precisely.