“What is in us that is not in computers”

The publishing house “Mann, Ivanov and Ferber” a book “Machine, the platform, the crowd. Our digital future.” The authors are engineers and professors from the Massachusetts Institute of technology, Andrew McAfee and Eric Brynjolfson, and talk about how technology is changing the world and what opportunities the digital revolution gives people.

  • Our children fail to distinguish it from reality
  • What do we do with artificial intelligence, which has its own plans
  • Until then came progress: I can do robots, not people
  • Children, brought up YouTube
  • Goldfish carefully man – what have smartphones

But because art is something else, isn’t it?

Digital work has reached art. The program Simon Colton The Painting Fool paints without human intervention, Patrick Tresset have produced a few manipulators, which paint portraits of live models, and the program Emily Howell, was developed by music Professor David cope, and compose melodies in different styles.

We often hear that digital painters, composers, and other “creative individuals” not as talented as people of the same professions, and that the creation of vehicles is still definitely not as deep as the human.

Cope noticed an interesting phenomenon. Ryan Blitstein in the magazine Pacific Standard in 2010, talks about his work: “At a concert in Santa Cruz in the program did not mention that Emily Howell is not a man, and one chemistry Professor, a passionate lover of music, described in the hall a performance of the song Howell as one of the most moving experiences in my life.

Six months later the same man attended a lecture given by cope about the program Emily Howell and heard in the recording of the same concert. Cope recalls that the Professor told him, “You know, it’s nice music, but I can without hesitation with absolute certainty that it was composed by a computer. In this work, no heart, no soul, no depth.”

Probably we are not too surprised that the computer-composer can create music that people find fascinating or beautiful. Aesthetics — what we find beautiful or something that pleases our taste and feelings, are complicated, difficult to understand (especially because it changes with time and is different for different groups and cultures), but still possible. People brought some of these rules and principles — for example, the frequent use of the “Golden section”, is approximately equal to 1,618:1, for the arrangement of elements in the paintings or other works of art — and is constantly discovering new (although some may long to escape attention).

This knowledge is embedded in technology and used in a number of industries. Startup Grid offers people and businesses a highly customized websites that reflect their tastes. Sites comply with the principles of web design, while people in their creation are not involved.

IBM sent its Watson technology to the kitchen, where the machine comes up with a whole cookbook of useful recipes which contain new combinations of ingredients and spices known to man.

The Shanghai tower is a 128 — floor modern skyscraper in the heart of Pudong. Technology efficient use of energy reduces emissions (in carbon dioxide equivalent) by 34 thousand tons per year while saving the use of materials reduced construction costs on $ 58 million.

Many people twisted the shiny skyscraper it seems quite beautiful. She, as well as the internal design of the building was designed by the computer. Of course, later perfected and honed group of architects, but the starting point in their work was the building designed machine and is very far from a clean sheet of paper.

What is in us that is not in the computers

Pioneer of computer music of David cope says, “Almost everything I hear and read, is one and the same. It is the eternal opposition between the machine and man and the question “You don’t want to take away from us the last quality, which can be called truly human, creative powers?” You know, I think this attitude is petty and alien creativity.”

Photo: unsplash

We understand what it’s like to hear that. The controversy of whether computers are real creators and may be of interest to some people; we are much more concerned about how to maximize the total number of creative forces in the world.

We believe that it needs to move in two directions: to continue to work to create computers that are able to come up with new ideas, and look for ways to combine their capabilities with those that make creative people.

The best solutions will appear in joint work of mind and machine.

Too often, bringing them together we are asking the mind to do boring and routine work, which should make the machine. As we described in Chapter 2, the idea of the standard of the partnership established twenty years ago, was to release people for thinking of a high order, leaving computers tedious work. However, designers and other creative professions today spend too much time watching mind-numbing boring. That said, we former CEO of Autodesk Carl bass:

“The use of CAD systems is the geometry in the 11th grade. You sit, draw the line, find the midpoint, say it, draw another line, extrudible do mate. And interestingly, you are forced to do all of this without knowing if it will solve your detail of the task. You can spend weeks working on all these drawings and then to understand that the new mechanism will not work. We taught a whole generation to work this way. I think we gave people bad tools”.

Autodesk and other companies are working to improve the tools for creativity. New generation products will do some things differently.

First, they will be given the opportunity to test the General feasibility or the suitability of ideas to how users will be engaged in “geometry in 11 th grade”. A typical first draft — sketch on the back of a napkin. Digital tools, which will appear very soon, will allow you to do something like this sketch — in a burst of inspiration and will give a quick and accurate answer regarding the feasibility of the idea: will the building the earthquake will be given if the engine required power and the like.

Second, the new tools at each stage of development will be automatically doing more routine work. We are not good at it, too slow, with a lot of errors, so you should pass it on to their technology and upgrade the standard of the partnership, leaving a creative job.

A very long time the role of people in this work will remain great, no matter how evolved technology. Earlier, we advocated a very limited participation of people in a variety of situations, including decisions, judgments, diagnosis and forecasting. What is the difference between these things and work? The difference is that in many areas the creation of something new and good clearly requires that the Creator lived in the real world, and computers in any case not live.

This is not the place to start a discussion about what is consciousness — this “word-suitcase” dedicated entire life and libraries, — but we still note that in the present computers do not have consciousness. To come up with something that may appeal to people who usually need to have a deep understanding of what it means to be human, and experience the world with all the senses and emotions. As far as we can tell, for a long time no one, except people will not be capable of.

Songwriter Andrew bird in 2008, said: “the Only thing that distinguishes the song from the confusion of seemingly disparate observations, is over-confidence of the author in myself.”

We like his idea, but, we believe, he showed excessive modesty. Computers will never lack confidence, and they could produce endless lists of diverse or cohesive observations about love and loss. However, we are very surprised when you will see a digital poet who can create outstanding lyrics like Cole porter, Joni Mitchell or Jay-Z. The sources of their creativity for the most part lie in the understanding of human nature. We do not see anything that would indicate the imminent emergence of this understanding of the computers.

According to the pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence Jan Lacuna, we are definitely waiting for that in the future, but now “is the conceptual idea that we don’t yet know how to do it.” Andrew ng, another prominent researcher, agree with him. He told us: “We have no idea how the brain works, and we create the algorithms to do with how the brain”.

While the machine is not acquired this ability, we can settle for a kind of poetry and prose created by the artificial intelligence and collected CuratedAI — “the literary magazine written by machines for people.” His introductory article “Music pleased with how to think, Mr. Bertram,” was written in August 2016, a neural network Deep Thunder after “effects of the novels of Jane Austen”. The text begins:

“Cold, and no memories of what happens in the Mountain. Your staff tell me when I was trying to become the first in worship, and it was all so casual on the trip to Mr. Crawford; but you deserve much, barely came before, and I am sure I have exalted the word, mA’am, I’m sure we didn’t know that the music pleased, as thought Mr. Bertram”.

(It is in the spirit of this book would be meaningless to translate the text of a computer exclusively with an automatic translator. Alas, the machine translator gave even less meaningful result than machine-author. The result is absolutely not impressive, and the translation had to be closer to the original. Approx. transl.)

We have no idea what it means, and we will continue to give preference to the poetry and prose that is created by people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *