Now THIS is F^7ckin' Automation! Skynet in 5-4-3-2.....

guerilla said:
You can't automate creativity. As we automate more and more, the human elements in production become rarer, and more valuable. But also more competitive.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We haven't yet been able to automate creativity, but that doesn't mean we can't.

In the end we'll end up creating neural networks, which simulates exactly how the brain makes calculations. Creativity comes from randomness (humans evolved basically from having random rules, and the best ones ended up surviving), and we will eventually be able to simulate this process in machines.
 


cardine said:
I disagree. We haven't yet been able to automate creativity, but that doesn't mean we can't.
Click to expand...
Not in the time frames being bandied about here.

cardine said:
In the end we'll end up creating neural networks, which simulates exactly how the brain makes calculations.
Click to expand...
It is impossible to perfectly replicate the analog. You can digitize the analog with minor (imperceptible) losses of fidelity, but you cannot analog the digital without isolating the natural world.

cardine said:
Creativity comes from randomness (humans evolved basically from having random rules, and the best ones ended up surviving), and we will eventually be able to simulate this process in machines.
Click to expand...
Creativity is not random. It is not an infinite number of monkeys playing with finger paints. It is a representation of the human soul, which if you are a theist is a divine creation, and if you are an atheist, a product of incomprehensible bio-chemical sophistication.

Humans did not evolve from randomness, they evolved from differentiation. That is the key to what is wrong with your characterization. Don't confuse uniqueness, with randomness. Biodiversity is not random.
 
cardine said:
Read 'The Singularity is Near' by Raymond Kurzweil. It will blow your mind.

In only 15-25 years a $1,000 computer will be as fast as the human brain.
Click to expand...

"be as fast as a human brain" is such a vague phrase. A computer can do math a lot faster than me, but if you asked it to do something more abstract, say affiliate marketing, it would be shit out of luck unless you gave it step by step instructions. Computers are only as "fast" as the software humans write for them.
 
kblessinggr said:
:P No, but we can change the definition of creativity to mean random spurts of output we perceive as creative. :P (and why not, we've already redefined other words over the years)
Click to expand...
There are plenty of idiots who watch reality TV who could probably accept a facsimile of creativity as creativity itself.

We've got a plastic culture that is divorced from notions of quality or scarcity.

Again, there will always be a market for the human, the highest values of man. Because those values are very, very scarce.
 
You could really break up creativity into two parts: 1) the process 2) the result.
Computers and their algorithms may never be able to duplicate the creative process of humans, but I think they will eventually be able to duplicate the result.
But a lot of human creativity has and will go into solving this problem, so you could maybe think of it as a transference of creativity or a morphing of the creative process rather than a loss.
 
guerilla said:
There are plenty of idiots who watch reality TV who could probably accept a facsimile of creativity as creativity itself.
Click to expand...
So did anyone watch American Idol last night?

Seriously, considering how formulaic most best selling novels are, I don't think people really give two shits for creativity. J. K. Rowling and Dan Brown are both empirical evidence.
They're not bad authors. They're just not creative either.
 
guerilla said:
Creativity is not random. It is not an infinite number of monkeys playing with finger paints. It is a representation of the human soul, which if you are a theist is a divine creation, and if you are an atheist, a product of incomprehensible bio-chemical sophistication.

Humans did not evolve from randomness, they evolved from differentiation. That is the key to what is wrong with your characterization. Don't confuse uniqueness, with randomness. Biodiversity is not random.
Click to expand...

Randomness created differntiation. Nobody created humans (at least IMO as an atheist), and humans evolved from other creatures. What made humans unique? Randomness... randomness that was able to survive to reproduce.

The differences in DNA that allowed a conscious/intelligent being to evolve is a result of randomness. The creativity that exists in humans is a result of evolution, which is therefore a result of randomness.

I don't think there is anything bio-chemical that is also incomprehensible. We will figure out how the software of the human brain operates, and we'll be able to create machines that use the same methods and functions.

By "as fast as the human brain" I mean the ability to make the same number of computations per second as the human brain does. The human brain is massively parallel... which is the main difference between humans and computers. Humans have a lot of very slow processors, while a machine has a very small number of very fast processors. In approximately 15 years a computer will be fast enough to be able to perfectly simulate the parallelism that exists in a human brain.
 
cardine said:
Randomness created differntiation. Nobody created humans (at least IMO as an atheist), and humans evolved from other creatures. What made humans unique? Randomness... randomness that was able to survive to reproduce.

The differences in DNA that allowed a conscious/intelligent being to evolve is a result of randomness. The creativity that exists in humans is a result of evolution, which is therefore a result of randomness.

I don't think there is anything bio-chemical that is also incomprehensible. We will figure out how the software of the human brain operates, and we'll be able to create machines that use the same methods and functions.

By "as fast as the human brain" I mean the ability to make the same number of computations per second as the human brain does. The human brain is massively parallel... which is the main difference between humans and computers. Humans have a lot of very slow processors, while a machine has a very small number of very fast processors. In approximately 15 years a computer will be fast enough to be able to perfectly simulate the parallelism that exists in a human brain.
Click to expand...

Summary : we jizz'd ourselves into existance. :D
 
Technical reports != novels.

Neural networks != brains.

Niche automation is not that hard.
Not too impressive if you consider 15-25 years from now the average population might be about as dumb as a drunk frat guy.
Click to expand...
You sir, are an idiot.
 
memetic: Whilst I agree that technical reports do not make novels, novels still follow a formula. Look at pretty much every SF or detective book out there that isn't considered ground breaking. There's a shitload of pulp fiction out there. the crap you buy for $3 a book at the supermarket becase you want something to read on the plane or whatnot.
There are books out there on how to write a best seller, and the amazing thing is that the best sellers do follow the formula set down in these books! All that's required is changing names, appearances, places, and the event that provides tension-conflict-resolution. You could probably make subroutines for sub-plots, too.

I have no doubt in my mind that this software could in all actuality write novels.
they wouldn't be insightful, or witty, like stuff by William Gibson, Terry Pratchett, Phillip K Dick, or Robert Heinlein
They'd feel like every other novel you'd read in that genre, but they'd sell... just like Stephen King, Christopher Pike, Raymond chandler, Eric Lustbader, Agatha Christie, etc
And thenit'd automate the affiliate marketing process by creating heaps of automated review flogs ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom