Comments on: Can Computers Think Creatively?

By: Mind of Migg » Blog Archive » Challenging the status quo

Mind of Migg » Blog Archive » Challenging the status quo — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:36:09 +0000

[...] they’re different. There was an experiment done recently and discussed at length in this (http://lateralaction.com/articles/computers-creativity/) article. It talks about the ability of computers to think creatively. Basically, they gave a [...]

By: Patterns of Incomplete | CalebMonroe.com

Patterns of Incomplete | CalebMonroe.com — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:15:12 +0000

[...] the resonance of your mental space. Pattern it out. Design patterns are just situational programs. You can write a program for creativity. So write the one that creates the originating conditions that keep you creating in an infinite [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:02:31 +0000

Thanks Jessica, yes it’s interesting to break things down into their component parts [1's and 0's, rules, lego bricks, whatever], but I’m more interested in what you can build with the pieces afterwards…

By: Jessica

Jessica — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:08:00 +0000

I’ve spoken with programmers who believe that everything in life can eventually be brought to a series of 1′s and 0′s – I think it is interesting, but only as a lens in which to view our own creativity. By breaking apart the creative process into a series of rules, I think humans can learn – and create more effectively.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:35:08 +0000

What indeed. Durrell would have been worth following on Twitter…

By: fantomaster

fantomaster — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:29:37 +0000

Power Article Rewriter: sure it’s a “content spam” tool, albeit a fairly sophisticated one, essentially used for search engine optimization.
Or, as Lawrence Durrell wrote so nicely: “When a civilisation has decided to bury its head in the sand what can we do but tickle its arse with a feather?”

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:05:34 +0000

@ Fantomaster – That Power Article Rewriter thing may have incidental value as a tool for literary experiments, but it’s primary application is pretty depressing.

@ Adam – Yes! It’s not just about how ‘good’ something is, but whether it matters.

@ Phaoloo – To judge by the amount of time some of us spend hooked up to computers, that day may already have arrived.

@ Christy –

The fundamental question for me is one of nature vs. nurture. Are we simply the sum of our experiences? Is so, a complex computer should be able to replicate that.

“this is an art
Which does mend nature, change it rather, but
The art itself is nature.”

Shakespeare, The Winter’s Tale

@ Zeitguy – This is probably the closest I’ve come to a definition of creativity on this site. I agree that permutation is nothing without appreciation – which is why I regard critical thinking as part of the creative process.

Thanks for the pooping duck – great to know the science of robotics had such an auspicious start!

By: zeitguy

zeitguy — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:32:51 +0000

The answer to the question “can computers think creatively” is not really addressed here. Without a better definition of creativity, we are only discussing parlor games. You might as well ask “can computers poop?” and invoke Vaucanson’s defecating duck automaton.( http://dugnorth.com/blog/2008/02/vaucansons-defecating-duck-automaton.html)

The real interest, for me, lurks in the essay in the recognition that computers cannot critique their own output.

Gizmos for “creating” everything from philosophical propositions (Raymond Lull) to classical music (Mozart) have been around for centuries.

The ability to recognize, or create, value in context, is uniquely human. The pivotal concept is not creativity as permutation, which can be at many different levels of order (See Pierce on art and information theory). It is appreciation. To appreciate means to find value in, but it also means to add value. The mechanisms of permutation cannot appreciate anything. They can make us think, and provoke us to new creation, but so can a stain on a garden wall…as Leonardo Da Vinci noted long before computers.

Thanks for an interesting and provocative essay.

By: Christy

Christy — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:13:26 +0000

First of all , I would argue that mimicking the style of a composer is not the same as creating a style of composition.

The fundamental question for me is one of nature vs. nurture. Are we simply the sum of our experiences? Is so, a complex computer should be able to replicate that. If, on the other hand, there is something inherently individual in our DNA, that will be more difficult to emulate. In the end, unless you believe that we have a soul that imbues us with certain personality traits, the human body is essential a machine, albeit a highly complex one.

As for enjoying art, music or literature from a computer, it doesn’t matter to me. Then again, I’m not that discriminating with my human-generated content either. If I’m entertained, I’m entertained.

By: Phaoloo

Phaoloo — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:20:23 +0000

Thanks Goodness they are still machines now and can’t think creatively otherwise they dominate us someday (just like some movies show this)