

Why it’s hard to make machines think original thoughts - hhm
http://www.thinkartificial.org/artificialcreativity/original-thoughts-intro/

======
DarkShikari
Yet a predictable system doesn't always lead to expected output.

I once heard a story about a student, probably graduate, who wrote a very
complex genetic algorithm, complete with a physics engine, to build (out of
blocks representing legs, arms, etc) a creature that could best walk to a
finish line.

But what it actually did, after months of work and weeks of running, is stack
all the blocks on top of each other and have the creature fall over the finish
line, because it only measured how fast the creature reached the finish line,
not whether the entire creature crossed it.

And don't tell me that isn't a creative (albeit rules-lawyering) solution to
the problem.

~~~
DaniFong
There was another genetic solution to the problem. They put energy using
dampers on all the joints of a walking figure, except one, the neck. After
running the simulation, they found the figure, diving head first into the
ground, balancing on it's head, tipping, and then repeating, in this bizarre
sort of half cartwheel.

------
MaysonL
And yet there are at least "15 instances where genetic programming has created
an entity that either infringes or duplicates the functionality of a
previously patented 20th-century invention, 6 instances where genetic
programming has done the same with respect to a 21st-centry invention, and 2
instances where genetic programming has created a patentable new invention."

See <http://www.genetic-programming.org/>

~~~
hthth
There are also neural networks that have created patentable inventions. One of
them is mentioned in the article.

------
nazgulnarsil
creativity seems to be a word with no referent. what we really seem to mean by
creativity is non-obvious solutions to complex problems arrived at by unknown
means.

------
dejb
This article tends to define creativity as 'something that entertains humans'
which is in my view a seriously flawed perspective.

A bird call would entertain another bird more than the greatest music ever
written. Human attempts at imitating the bird call are probably at best
derivative and usually nonsensical. So from a bird's perspective, humans could
be regarded as less creative than birds. Similarly, judging an AI system's
creativity by something inherently human as art or literature is to use an
unfair measuring stick.

P.S. Actually I don't really know what the state of the art is in bird call
simulation is but you get the point right.

~~~
hthth
You are wrong about the article. It explicitly mentions that human activities
are "nowhere near the whole story" and that even primitive organisms can be
considered creative. The statement "creating something new or being original
is an essential part of creativity" is the only one used to explain what
creativity is, and to explain this particular problem.

The problem in question affects all systems, whether they are human-like or
not.

~~~
dejb
> It explicitly mentions that human activities are "nowhere near the whole
> story"

I read this as being relating to artists (specifically graphical) rather than
the entire class of human activities.

> even primitive organisms can be considered creative

Must admit I missed this as the sentence was in what I thought was a plug for
a book.

> "creating something new or being original is an essential part of
> creativity"

This didn't really mean anything to me.

Most the article was explained using specific examples which were human
specific activities and for me that was the main thrust. Perhaps it wasn't the
authors intention but that is the impression it left on me even re-reading it.

------
Kaizyn
Do you think that at least some part of the problem is the difficulty involved
in getting people to think original thoughts?

~~~
stcredzero
I thought of this too. I suspect that this question is somehow "obvious."

