full transcript

From the Ted Talk by Gil Weinberg: Can robots be creative?

Unscramble the Blue Letters

How does this music make you feel? Do you find it beautiful? Is it creative? Now, would you change your answers if you learned the composer was this roobt? Believe it or not, people have been grappling with the question of artificial creativity, alongside the question of afaiitrcl intelligence, for over 170 years. In 1843, Lady Ada Lovelace, an elingsh mathematician cdornesied the world's first computer programmer, wotre that a machine could not have human-like intelligence as long as it only did what humans iletnliaonnty programmed it to do. According to leovalce, a machine must be able to create original ideas if it is to be considered intelligent. The Lovelace Test, formalized in 2001, proposes a way of scrutinizing this idea. A machine can pass this test if it can pudocre an outcome that its designers cannot explain bsead on their original code. The Lovelace Test is, by degsin, more of a thought experiment than an objective scientific test. But it's a place to start. At first glance, the idea of a machine creating high quiatly, original music in this way might seem impossible. We could come up with an extremely complex algorithm using random number generators, cohatic functions, and fuzzy logic to generate a sequence of musical notes in a way that would be impossible to track. But although this would yield countless ogiianrl melodies never heard before, only a tiny fraction of them would be worth listening to. With the cumeptor having no way to distinguish between those which we would consider beautiful and those which we won't. But what if we took a step back and tried to model a natural process that allows creativity to form? We happen to know of at least one such process that has lead to original, valuable, and even beautiful outcomes: the process of evolution. And evolutionary algorithms, or gtneeic algorithms that mmiic biological evolution, are one promising approach to making machines generate original and valuable artistic outcomes. So how can eloivotun make a machine musically creative? Well, instead of organisms, we can start with an iiantil pliootpuan of musical phrases, and a bisac algorithm that mimics ripduootcren and random mutations by switching some ptras, combining others, and replacing random notes. Now that we have a new generation of phrases, we can alppy sceloietn using an operation claled a fitness ftcouinn. Just as biilgoacol fitness is determined by external enatnrveimnol pressures, our fitness function can be determined by an external melody chosen by human musicians, or music fans, to represent the ultimate beautiful melody. The algorithm can then compare between our muscail phrases and that beautiful melody, and select only the phrases that are most similar to it. Once the least siailmr sequences are weeded out, the algorithm can reapply mauotitn and recombination to what's left, select the most similar, or fitted ones, again from the new generation, and repeat for many generations. The psreocs that got us there has so much randomness and complexity built in that the result might pass the Lovelace Test. More inpttlmaroy, thanks to the presence of human aesthetic in the process, we'll theoretically generate mieloeds we would consider beautiful. But does this satisfy our intuition for what is truly creative? Is it enough to make something original and beautiful, or does creativity require intention and anasrewes of what is being created? Perhaps the creativity in this case is really conmig from the programmers, even if they don't understand the process. What is human creativity, anyways? Is it something more than a system of interconnected neurons developed by biological algorithmic processes and the random experiences that shpae our lives? Order and chaos, mincahe and human. These are the dynamos at the heart of machine creativity initiatives that are currently making music, sculptures, paintings, ptorey and more. The jury may still be out as to whether it's fair to call these acts of creation creative. But if a pecie of art can make you weep, or blow your mind, or send shivers down your spine, does it really matter who or what crtaeed it?

Open Cloze

How does this music make you feel? Do you find it beautiful? Is it creative? Now, would you change your answers if you learned the composer was this _____? Believe it or not, people have been grappling with the question of artificial creativity, alongside the question of _________ intelligence, for over 170 years. In 1843, Lady Ada Lovelace, an _______ mathematician __________ the world's first computer programmer, _____ that a machine could not have human-like intelligence as long as it only did what humans _____________ programmed it to do. According to ________, a machine must be able to create original ideas if it is to be considered intelligent. The Lovelace Test, formalized in 2001, proposes a way of scrutinizing this idea. A machine can pass this test if it can _______ an outcome that its designers cannot explain _____ on their original code. The Lovelace Test is, by ______, more of a thought experiment than an objective scientific test. But it's a place to start. At first glance, the idea of a machine creating high _______, original music in this way might seem impossible. We could come up with an extremely complex algorithm using random number generators, _______ functions, and fuzzy logic to generate a sequence of musical notes in a way that would be impossible to track. But although this would yield countless ________ melodies never heard before, only a tiny fraction of them would be worth listening to. With the ________ having no way to distinguish between those which we would consider beautiful and those which we won't. But what if we took a step back and tried to model a natural process that allows creativity to form? We happen to know of at least one such process that has lead to original, valuable, and even beautiful outcomes: the process of evolution. And evolutionary algorithms, or _______ algorithms that _____ biological evolution, are one promising approach to making machines generate original and valuable artistic outcomes. So how can _________ make a machine musically creative? Well, instead of organisms, we can start with an _______ __________ of musical phrases, and a _____ algorithm that mimics ____________ and random mutations by switching some _____, combining others, and replacing random notes. Now that we have a new generation of phrases, we can _____ _________ using an operation ______ a fitness ________. Just as __________ fitness is determined by external _____________ pressures, our fitness function can be determined by an external melody chosen by human musicians, or music fans, to represent the ultimate beautiful melody. The algorithm can then compare between our _______ phrases and that beautiful melody, and select only the phrases that are most similar to it. Once the least _______ sequences are weeded out, the algorithm can reapply ________ and recombination to what's left, select the most similar, or fitted ones, again from the new generation, and repeat for many generations. The _______ that got us there has so much randomness and complexity built in that the result might pass the Lovelace Test. More ___________, thanks to the presence of human aesthetic in the process, we'll theoretically generate ________ we would consider beautiful. But does this satisfy our intuition for what is truly creative? Is it enough to make something original and beautiful, or does creativity require intention and _________ of what is being created? Perhaps the creativity in this case is really ______ from the programmers, even if they don't understand the process. What is human creativity, anyways? Is it something more than a system of interconnected neurons developed by biological algorithmic processes and the random experiences that _____ our lives? Order and chaos, _______ and human. These are the dynamos at the heart of machine creativity initiatives that are currently making music, sculptures, paintings, ______ and more. The jury may still be out as to whether it's fair to call these acts of creation creative. But if a _____ of art can make you weep, or blow your mind, or send shivers down your spine, does it really matter who or what _______ it?

Solution

  1. artifcial
  2. english
  3. mutation
  4. wrote
  5. considered
  6. chaotic
  7. produce
  8. evolution
  9. piece
  10. computer
  11. population
  12. intentionally
  13. biological
  14. lovelace
  15. created
  16. musical
  17. function
  18. apply
  19. melodies
  20. genetic
  21. design
  22. process
  23. based
  24. shape
  25. initial
  26. machine
  27. original
  28. importantly
  29. environmental
  30. basic
  31. mimic
  32. parts
  33. robot
  34. reproduction
  35. quality
  36. selection
  37. called
  38. coming
  39. similar
  40. poetry
  41. awareness

Original Text

How does this music make you feel? Do you find it beautiful? Is it creative? Now, would you change your answers if you learned the composer was this robot? Believe it or not, people have been grappling with the question of artificial creativity, alongside the question of artifcial intelligence, for over 170 years. In 1843, Lady Ada Lovelace, an English mathematician considered the world's first computer programmer, wrote that a machine could not have human-like intelligence as long as it only did what humans intentionally programmed it to do. According to Lovelace, a machine must be able to create original ideas if it is to be considered intelligent. The Lovelace Test, formalized in 2001, proposes a way of scrutinizing this idea. A machine can pass this test if it can produce an outcome that its designers cannot explain based on their original code. The Lovelace Test is, by design, more of a thought experiment than an objective scientific test. But it's a place to start. At first glance, the idea of a machine creating high quality, original music in this way might seem impossible. We could come up with an extremely complex algorithm using random number generators, chaotic functions, and fuzzy logic to generate a sequence of musical notes in a way that would be impossible to track. But although this would yield countless original melodies never heard before, only a tiny fraction of them would be worth listening to. With the computer having no way to distinguish between those which we would consider beautiful and those which we won't. But what if we took a step back and tried to model a natural process that allows creativity to form? We happen to know of at least one such process that has lead to original, valuable, and even beautiful outcomes: the process of evolution. And evolutionary algorithms, or genetic algorithms that mimic biological evolution, are one promising approach to making machines generate original and valuable artistic outcomes. So how can evolution make a machine musically creative? Well, instead of organisms, we can start with an initial population of musical phrases, and a basic algorithm that mimics reproduction and random mutations by switching some parts, combining others, and replacing random notes. Now that we have a new generation of phrases, we can apply selection using an operation called a fitness function. Just as biological fitness is determined by external environmental pressures, our fitness function can be determined by an external melody chosen by human musicians, or music fans, to represent the ultimate beautiful melody. The algorithm can then compare between our musical phrases and that beautiful melody, and select only the phrases that are most similar to it. Once the least similar sequences are weeded out, the algorithm can reapply mutation and recombination to what's left, select the most similar, or fitted ones, again from the new generation, and repeat for many generations. The process that got us there has so much randomness and complexity built in that the result might pass the Lovelace Test. More importantly, thanks to the presence of human aesthetic in the process, we'll theoretically generate melodies we would consider beautiful. But does this satisfy our intuition for what is truly creative? Is it enough to make something original and beautiful, or does creativity require intention and awareness of what is being created? Perhaps the creativity in this case is really coming from the programmers, even if they don't understand the process. What is human creativity, anyways? Is it something more than a system of interconnected neurons developed by biological algorithmic processes and the random experiences that shape our lives? Order and chaos, machine and human. These are the dynamos at the heart of machine creativity initiatives that are currently making music, sculptures, paintings, poetry and more. The jury may still be out as to whether it's fair to call these acts of creation creative. But if a piece of art can make you weep, or blow your mind, or send shivers down your spine, does it really matter who or what created it?

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation frequency
lovelace test 2
fitness function 2

Important Words

  1. acts
  2. ada
  3. aesthetic
  4. algorithm
  5. algorithmic
  6. algorithms
  7. answers
  8. apply
  9. approach
  10. art
  11. artifcial
  12. artificial
  13. artistic
  14. awareness
  15. based
  16. basic
  17. beautiful
  18. biological
  19. blow
  20. built
  21. call
  22. called
  23. case
  24. change
  25. chaos
  26. chaotic
  27. chosen
  28. code
  29. combining
  30. coming
  31. compare
  32. complex
  33. complexity
  34. composer
  35. computer
  36. considered
  37. countless
  38. create
  39. created
  40. creating
  41. creation
  42. creative
  43. creativity
  44. design
  45. designers
  46. determined
  47. developed
  48. distinguish
  49. dynamos
  50. english
  51. environmental
  52. evolution
  53. evolutionary
  54. experiences
  55. experiment
  56. explain
  57. external
  58. extremely
  59. fair
  60. fans
  61. feel
  62. find
  63. fitness
  64. fitted
  65. form
  66. formalized
  67. fraction
  68. function
  69. functions
  70. fuzzy
  71. generate
  72. generation
  73. generations
  74. generators
  75. genetic
  76. glance
  77. grappling
  78. happen
  79. heard
  80. heart
  81. high
  82. human
  83. humans
  84. idea
  85. ideas
  86. importantly
  87. impossible
  88. initial
  89. initiatives
  90. intelligence
  91. intelligent
  92. intention
  93. intentionally
  94. interconnected
  95. intuition
  96. jury
  97. lady
  98. lead
  99. learned
  100. left
  101. listening
  102. lives
  103. logic
  104. long
  105. lovelace
  106. machine
  107. machines
  108. making
  109. mathematician
  110. matter
  111. melodies
  112. melody
  113. mimic
  114. mimics
  115. mind
  116. model
  117. music
  118. musical
  119. musically
  120. musicians
  121. mutation
  122. mutations
  123. natural
  124. neurons
  125. notes
  126. number
  127. objective
  128. operation
  129. order
  130. organisms
  131. original
  132. outcome
  133. outcomes
  134. paintings
  135. parts
  136. pass
  137. people
  138. phrases
  139. piece
  140. place
  141. poetry
  142. population
  143. presence
  144. pressures
  145. process
  146. processes
  147. produce
  148. programmed
  149. programmer
  150. programmers
  151. promising
  152. proposes
  153. quality
  154. question
  155. random
  156. randomness
  157. reapply
  158. recombination
  159. repeat
  160. replacing
  161. represent
  162. reproduction
  163. require
  164. result
  165. robot
  166. satisfy
  167. scientific
  168. scrutinizing
  169. sculptures
  170. select
  171. selection
  172. send
  173. sequence
  174. sequences
  175. shape
  176. shivers
  177. similar
  178. spine
  179. start
  180. step
  181. switching
  182. system
  183. test
  184. theoretically
  185. thought
  186. tiny
  187. track
  188. ultimate
  189. understand
  190. valuable
  191. weeded
  192. weep
  193. worth
  194. wrote
  195. years
  196. yield