Are AI models narrowly creative?
#4822·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoAh, so if I understand correctly, there are two knobs affecting speed (elapsed time) for a given algorithm: the hardware, and the implementation of the algorithm. The given algorithm has a complexity, independent of those two, which is how the time and memory scales with an input.
The given algorithm has a complexity, independent of [the implementation]
No, the complexity depends on the implementation.
#4813·Dirk Meulenbelt, about 1 month agoCreativity isn't defined by its outputs but by its process. RNGs do not recognise or criticise ideas.
Agreed on both counts, but I think the bountied idea survives this...
Recognizing and criticizing ideas could be a requisite for tractably synthesizing any possible explanation (I suspect as much).
#4816·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 month agoSpeed is a property of programs, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
Ah, so if I understand correctly, there are two knobs affecting speed (elapsed time) for a given algorithm: the hardware, and the implementation of the algorithm. The given algorithm has a complexity, independent of those two, which is how the time and memory scales with an input.
#4809·Dirk Meulenbelt revised about 1 month agoA random number generator does not have universal creativity, because it is not a universal explainer: it can only generate explanations by accident. Universal explainers seek good explanations through conjecture and criticism.
Universal explainers
In the context of how AGI may work – which seems to be what Tyler is mostly interested in – the concept of a universal explainer might not get us very far. Creativity is the more fundamental concept, I think.
A person is a universal explainer, yes, but he could also use his creativity to come up with reasons not to create explanations.
https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/explain-irrational-minds
#4809·Dirk Meulenbelt revised about 1 month agoA random number generator does not have universal creativity, because it is not a universal explainer: it can only generate explanations by accident. Universal explainers seek good explanations through conjecture and criticism.
Universal explainers seek good explanations…
You sounded persuaded by https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable. As in, you agreed that people don’t seek good/hard-to-vary explanations.
So why still speak of good explanations?
#4776·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoThis wrongly implies speed is a property of programs, but it's a property of hardware.
Speed is a property of programs, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
#4812·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoWe could say a person is a program that can synthesize any possible explanation in finite time, excluding memory limitations. But this would again grant personhood to RNGs. For that matter, a counting program could just enumerate all possible binary strings up to its memory limit, in finite time...
Creativity isn't defined by its outputs but by its process. RNGs do not recognise or criticise ideas.
#4807·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoDoesn't it? All explanatory knowledge is in the set of all possible programs, and a random program (or number) generator can generate any of those, given infinite time.
We could say a person is a program that can synthesize any possible explanation in finite time, excluding memory limitations. But this would again grant personhood to RNGs. For that matter, a counting program could just enumerate all possible binary strings up to its memory limit, in finite time...
#4807·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoDoesn't it? All explanatory knowledge is in the set of all possible programs, and a random program (or number) generator can generate any of those, given infinite time.
You're right and I revised my criticism.
A random number generator does not create explanatory knowledge.
A random number generator does not have universal creativity, because it is not a universal explainer: it can only generate explanations by accident. Universal explainers seek good explanations through conjecture and criticism.
#4783·Knut Sondre Sæbø revised about 1 month agoUnderstanding explanatory knowledge seems like a better criterion
Maybe... but "understanding" is too vague, I think. Doesn't understanding mean: can explain? But then this is just "can create any explanation" again. I think the core question is why a random program generator isn't a person, coming from Deutsch's definition of a person as a program that has explanatory universality -- can create any explanation (my thought here is that this definition isn't good enough on its own, given the random generator point).
#4781·Dirk Meulenbelt, about 1 month agoA random number generator does not create explanatory knowledge.
Doesn't it? All explanatory knowledge is in the set of all possible programs, and a random program (or number) generator can generate any of those, given infinite time.
#4722·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoThe definition of fitness that rendered Move 37 the best choice originated outside the system.
The definition of fitness for DNA also originated outside it, so this doesn't in itself suggest the system isn't actually creating new knowledge.
Does not understand explanatory knowledge seems like a better criterion
Understanding explanatory knowledge seems like a better criterion
#4781·Dirk Meulenbelt, about 1 month agoA random number generator does not create explanatory knowledge.
Does not understand explanatory knowledge seems like a better criterion
#4694·Tyler MillsOP revised about 2 months agoBy this standard, a random number generator has universal creativity as well, and is therefore a person. So there must be a standard for personhood other than: able to generate any possible explanation. Such as: can do that tractably.
A random number generator does not create explanatory knowledge.
By the latter standard, neither nature nor random number generators are people, which is sensible; nor can nature create any given possible knowledge tractably -- this is true because the fact that all possible knowledge exists is only by way of the multiverse, which is a process that cannot be simulated in its entirety, even by a quantum computer, never mind tractability.
By the latter standard, neither nature nor random number generators are people, which is sensible; nor can nature create any given possible knowledge tractably -- this is true because the fact that all possible knowledge exists is only by way of the multiverse, which is a process that cannot be simulated in its entirety, even by a quantum computer.
#4774·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoAn alternative criterion for personhood is speed: a person is a program that can synthesize any explanation in less than the lifetime of the universe, say.
This wrongly implies speed is a property of programs, but it's a property of hardware.
#4774·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoAn alternative criterion for personhood is speed: a person is a program that can synthesize any explanation in less than the lifetime of the universe, say.
This is a bad criterion because then random program generators are sometimes people.
#4694·Tyler MillsOP revised about 2 months agoBy this standard, a random number generator has universal creativity as well, and is therefore a person. So there must be a standard for personhood other than: able to generate any possible explanation. Such as: can do that tractably.
An alternative criterion for personhood is speed: a person is a program that can synthesize any explanation in less than the lifetime of the universe, say.
#4684·Tyler MillsOP, about 2 months agoSince evolution created genetic knowledge from nothing, it can be said to have the same "narrow creativity" as AI. The confusion over whether AI "is creative" can be resolved by saying that it is, but only narrowly (like evolution), and that the creativity defining people is universal, not limited to any domain. AI creates knowledge in domains it was designed for; AGI can create knowledge in all possible domains, each of which it designs itself.
Criticized per #4718: AIs are not "narrowly creative"; there is only creativity in the binary, universal sense, per Deutsch.
#4718·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoMove 37 was not new knowledge. It was the winning choice in that situation before the AI ever existed, because it was deducible from the game's rules and the current board state. It was implicit knowledge, already contained in the system at that time. AlphaGo made it explicit, by finding it, like a search engine, but did not create it. If you calculate the trillionth digit of pi, you haven't created new knowledge, at least not in any sense we should mean. You have simply revealed a value that was already fixed by a definition.
The fact that Move 37 wasn't explicitly in the training data or the programmers is irrelevant to its status as knowledge. This is true for pi, and for all content created by AI at the time of this writing.
The definition of fitness that rendered Move 37 the best choice originated outside the system.
#4720·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoIf the human made Move 37 for the same reason as AlphaGo, it would not be creative. Such moves are creative when humans make them because they are not deducing them (they can't due to practical limitations). If something can be deduced, it is not creative. Creativity is the conjecture of a new structure which is not derivable/deducible/implicit via existing rules of inference. All AI-generated art is implicit in the training data and model design in the same sense, so is not being made via creativity.
This highlights the core mystery of AGI/creativity: if it is the creation of something which cannot be deduced from existing rules (yet is still helpful, hard-to-vary, knowledge-bearing, etc.), how can it be programmed? In a sense it cannot, as Deutsch writes: "...what distinguishes human brains from all other physical systems is qualitatively different from all other functionalities, and cannot be specified in the way that all other attributes of computer programs can be. It cannot be programmed by any of the techniques that suffice for writing any other type of program." [https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are-we-to-creating-artificial-intelligence]
#4719·Tyler MillsOP, about 1 month agoIf there had been no AlphaGo and no Move 37, and a human had made that move, as they have similar moves, it would no doubt be called creative genius (as similar moves have). Isn't the above a double standard?
If the human made Move 37 for the same reason as AlphaGo, it would not be creative. Such moves are creative when humans make them because they are not deducing them (they can't due to practical limitations). If something can be deduced, it is not creative. Creativity is the conjecture of a new structure which is not derivable/deducible/implicit via existing rules of inference. All AI-generated art is implicit in the training data and model design in the same sense, so is not being made via creativity.