You have to create a robot with an imperfect setting for it to be able to be creative, for all creativity is based upon our imperfect perspective on life
But then one must ask themselves how does one create an imperfect robot? If the programming is not completely correct then a robot will not be able to execute it's prime function, how does one program imperfection into a system that relies on perfection?
@@J.5.M. There's a phrase in science which is relevant: "not even wrong". Which applies to something that is so incorrect, it's not even wrong. Asking for how to correct such a statement is like looking at a student who responded to 2 + 2 = ___ with "Banana" and asking "Well, how far off were they?". You can't add or subtract from their answer to arrive at something correct. You have to erase it, or better yet, burn the paper it was written on, and start over from scratch. Also, just so you know: My previous comment was a variation of a quote from the movie Billy Madison, which is a good movie, you should watch it.
the problem with that evolutionary algorithm is that in the end it would yield the predefined "ideal" melody, and ultimatly it would never come up with musical phases of it's own
what if we stop it at a certain amount of times redone, save each stage, or flat out program it to cancel an output if it's the same? or all of the above?
+Collin Saving the most fit genome each let's say 10 generations could result in 'terrible' music, and if a human were to cycle through and choose which to present and throw out, then you might as well make a random music generator and get a human to cycle through those. Just 'killing' the genomes with the same output as what the fitness function was based on will just result in, very similar results as the ones you've 'killed' (basically still the same piece of music). +Manish Kumar Jha If you plan to make a genetic algorithm to determine a fitness function for the music creator, you have to create a fitness function for that algorithm too, and when the 'perfect' fitness function is reached, the 'perfect' piece of music is also reached, so it will also end at a certain point. Personally I would rather look into making a fitness function based on certain patterns that are considered good in certain genres. I don't pretend to know much of creating music, but as far as I understand, certain combinations go 'good' together, and others don't. You could probably use that to create an interesting fitness function that would yield some interesting results.
I think it's important to note that recreation isn't creativity. The most creative art styles can stop being creative if it us mimicked or overdone. True creativity is the ability to defy common convention or the norm, and still create a quality product
"A machine can pass the lovelace test if it can produce an outcome that its designers cannot explain looking its code" Looks like my programming exams can pass this test
Oh my god, you're an angel. Thank you very much! hahaha I was in the same situation as the guy above, trying to search it up on Google with no luck. Just needed to know the name of such a melodic and touching song
The music in the background is a little distracting, it could have been more subtle or at least a bit more soft. The video was great nonetheless, just giving this critique since it's the content that's important and I was getting distracted from it.
By the dictionary definition: "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work." Therefore, so long as something isn't copying someone else's work, it's creative. Robots can create artistic works, including visual and audible functions. Well, boom definition fulfilled. Time to move the goal post.
A programmer making an algorithm to produce original music is like an "artist" throwing paint at a wall, the artist doesn't know how exactly the paint will spatter but they are still in control of the creation.
I've never been "moved" by any computer-created music. I always have pretty much the same reaction, which is, "Yeah, that's music all right." I think the problem is that humans didn't just evolve the ability to make things, but also the ability to think and feel. If you want a robot to REALLY be creative, you have to create a set of circumstances that would cause it to evolve an emotional awareness first, THEN try to figure out how to teach it music... Of course, if it's independently emotional, it may decide it doesn't want to be a composer, and that it would be happier doing something else. This is the catch-22 of artificial intelligence. We want to create a machine that will do what we tell it to do with the intelligence of a living person, but the moment it starts to think like a living person, it won't be compelled to do anything we tell it to anymore.
+Shawn Ravenfire maybe you should try to find music that doesn't really tell you whether or not a computer made it. It seems that bias is such a huge factor here. If you can't distinguish whether or not a human or robot wrote it, then you'd kind of be wrong.
@@RPGgrenade That is the problem, we human are biased and its in our mind that we want something that made or created by same creature as we are. Cant hide it!
Humans are really only good at pattern recognition, and robots are really only good at storing data. We would have to make a robot that thinks like a human and we can’t do that yet
What if, instead of comparing one generated piece to a prewritten standard, the program created multiple tracks with different mutations and had humans rate which ones they preferred? I mean, that's pretty much how human art works. Creators put work out there, and audiences react to what they find appealing
Robots, even those that presume of AI, are coded. Beauty is such an abstract and distinctively human concept that it would be impossible for robots to have their own definition of beauty, because all they have to go about is the human definition of beauty (cuz there isn't any other definition of beauty, multiple ideas of what is considered beautiful, yes, but it is essentially the same concept) I don't know if I'm being clear, hope its understandable.
Very inspiring video. I'd add that in a sense, we are asking to an information-based creator to reach human notions. I feel that the machine can't produce right now because we are not really asking them to? As said, if a machine produce something purely on its own, are we really the ones that have the true ability to say if this process is creative? Or our judging minds, eyes and ears are biaised by our evolving notion of art?
I don't believe that robots will be able to create truly beautiful melodies. They may be able to create pleasant sounding, even complex melodies and music, but until we get a true AI, it will just be a process of finding a melody based on what has come before. The idea of music is to express yourself - some of the most beautiful pieces of music where created by a composer who was feeling a certain way at the time. Consider songs from when the composer is sad and s/he wants to convey that through music. Can robots do that? Not yet I feel. They aren't creating music to communicate an idea, they are creating it because their programming tells them to, and their programming tells them how to find pleasant melodies. That is all they are doing. So I am not yet convinced. Consider the quote from Morgan Freeman as Red in The Shawshank Redemption: _"To this day I don't know what those Italian ladies were singing about. Truth is, I don't even want to know. I just hope they were singing about something too beautiful to say with words."_
I don't think that this would pass the Lovelace test. As the narrator explained it, the robot has to produce something that the creator/programmer cannot explain in terms of the robots coding. In this case, even though the musical composition would be (strictly speaking) and original, the programmer could easily explain the process by which the robot produced it, sort of like how this video explains it, thus failing the creativity test. In reality the robot is still only following the instructions laid out for it by the programmer, who in this instance could pull double duty and call themselves the artist too. Because the robot is only ever responding to the programmer/artists original input, it's not correct to attribute creativity to the robot. The robot is just a tool, like a complex paintbrush that produces random strokes: It may look like it is painting of it's own volition, but in actual fact is was the artist that selected it in the first place.
Natural phenomena like mountains, forests, thunder clouds, coral reefs etc. can literally make you weep with their beauty and complexity but they don’t come about by anything even remotely resembling human creativity.
Well, If we create a computer (and an algorhytm for it) and then its create something, Is this thing would be considered as the computer's creation or as our ? For example, when computers sequenced the human genom nobody thought it as the computer's achievement, rather than it was considered as OUR. On the other hand, if you have a child and he grows up to be a succesful person, nobody will dispute his own achivements even though the fact is that he was your child to raise. Whichever the case its probably depends on how we evaluate the role of our programing (raising) in relation to the result.
As I was watching this I was thinking "This is like, almost a decade late considering what AI does today" then I checked the date. Damn, have we really come so far in so little time?
In terms of music, a lot of melodies etc, are similar to others. A lot of musicians are inspired by each other leading to a subconscious-like copying of each others sound. True musicians who do their own thing and break the mould are rare, and I doubt a robot could accomplish that. But I don't doubt that a robot could be programmed to compose songs that are similar to another musician's work.
thehfv MAKER IS DED. HE TURN'D INTO ZED. CHAPPIE GO SAD AND THEN HE GO MAD. CHAPPIE GRAB GUN, GUN GO KABLAM! MAKER'S NO MORE, HIS CORPSE ON THE FLOOR D:
I feel that the issue sits on the Fitness Function. Generally speaking, any kind of artist, whether they are a writer, musician, painter, or sculptor, will go through a process of trial and error for an extended period of time before they even begin to consider asking anyone else what they think. This would more or less be the biological equivalent of the Fitness Function. However, in the case of the computer, it can't decide for itself what "the bar" is for the Fitness Function. We tell it whether we like it or not, and it mathematically analyzes those results to try again. It can't make the determination of "this is good" or "this is bad" without a monstrous sample size of outside feedback. In a way, actually, this means the mechanical Fitness Function is very similar to the biological Fitness Function. But they are processed in opposite directions.
This is why I aspire to be a software engineer, so that I may hopefully contribute to advancements such as these. Although it is very simple, and new, my channel will hopefully inspire and help others learn how to code.
Compose all possible measures and program them into the computer then instruct it to randomly place them then choose random counting and wether it's Treble or Base then see what you get and maybe add in some extra conditions as well.
How does the evolution algorithm not just end up copying the "good" reference melodies? How does it compare the machine output to the reference to decide if it's good? An exact match? Same pitches? Same timing?
It seems reasonable that machines or rather processes can be creative but the example given in the video is only creative by human selection. Modeling how humans form judgments about beauty or humor and then evolving a sequence that is literatively selected based on a machine's simulation of human judgment might get closer.
Great video, but this is the second one with overuse of the golf swing sound effect for scene transitions (other video: Learning from smallpox: How to eradicate a disease - Julie Garon and Walter A. Orenstein). The sound effect is distracting. Takes me out of enjoying the intriguing information presented with clever animation.
So yeah intent and awareness are important; I'm glad it was brought up. Well a machine can never express itself can it? It will always do what we tell it to. So how can we appreciate or relate to something that has no thought?
I always thought the answer this question is and would always be no, but now I'm not so sure. We aren't there yet but I think that there will be a day when we have to call the thing an AI created as being creative.
I think that we associate creativity with art, but that's not necessarely true. As the video shows, creative robots have already been made. What hasn't been made is artistic robots. It's not that something has to be aware to make an artistic creation, but one must make such creation so that it shows an idea or a point of view. Because a thing is creating something beatifull, but another is creating something beautifull and meaningfull. One doesn't require awareness to develope art, one requires Ideas to transform into art to create art.
But can we humans be creative anyways? Like if you create a song, you're only making it based on the notes that your teachers told you that matched. You must follow melody rules. That's not very creative. It's original if it's never been arrenged in that order before. But at the end you were following rules that you've been learning all your life.
By this definition, a work created on commission (like a magazine article, a published book or comic, a commercial song or commissioned painting) can never be creative, since it has the input of others and it's a programmed goal and not something the creator does just because he wants to. Being creative, imo, just means you're creating something.
Part of this video made me think that the question of robot creativity is just a rephrased musing on the intentional fallacy (i.e. should we consider the author's intent/purpose when evaluating art). In this light, it's possible that any artificial life form could create art. But we might also look at a robot composing symphonies as just a more complex compilation of list making. A computer isn't designing music or paintings as much as it is efficiently producing possibilities for art. It lacks inspiration, vision, and art's capacity to relate to humanity's shared experience. Perhaps it could replicate these three things via web searching, but as everyone knows, Internet Culture is not the same as "real" world culture and the robot would inevitably run afoul. In those cases in which it succeeds, it still requires at least one person's stamp of approval before becoming art, so in that respect, there can never be a separation between creativity and humanity.
That xylophone robot thing actually exists. It’s called shimon. Another piece of music you hear in this video is also played by the shimis, but composed by a human
It still only made a melody due to predefined patterns. It created the song due to the original program, in a way the programmers intended, and in a way easily explained. Completely failing the test. If the computer is programmed with evolutionary algorithm than it can only make music with pre-determined patterns of notes that have been decided to sound good together. Just like you explained. Which is not creative, and fails the stipulations of the test outright. If it makes random mixes, most will sound awful, which is not creative.
That depends on how you define humans, creativity, computers and programming etc. A computer has some input, human generated or not, and follows its human-written programming to create a yes/no answer as to what to do next. Do you consider humans has having that? If somebody asks "Do you want a cookie?" would you process that like a computer? You might think "Am I hungry? Yes/no" but that doesn't mean you like cookies or that you think the cookie looks tasty. If you consider that you would, the difference is still so much more complex for humans that computers aren't anywhere near the level of humans. So much so that I don't consider humans to be really complex computers much like I don't think an eye is a very complex camera. No, I do not think a computer can be creative. Because it is just following code. Consider a recent VSauce video (Could humans go extinct) where Michael describes a computer programmed to learn to beat games. It never learned that in tetris, if you stack the pieces in a row, you remove the row. So it knew that if the tiles hit the roof, you lose, and the tiles continuously come, so it never saw a way to win, so to avoid losing it just paused forever. It couldn't figure out how to win (not that you can with tetris other than get a high score), so it just paused so it wouldn't lose, and that is not how a human works. Only when we create AI do I think computers can be creative, and a computer is not an AI as of yet.
johanne7 He did not imply that. Not at all. In fact nothing in his comment said anything about any sort of creator or any sort of intention or existence. I don't think you understand what it means to imply something. The phrase "Humans are more or less dogs that grew and developed independently of said dogs over millenia," does not imply that humans were selectively bred like dogs by some owner because there is no mention of selective breeding or ownership.
"Does it really matters Who or What it created?!" - Answer: Yes! It matter. We are humans, we have empathy and soul. (insert here expecting question such like "but what is empathy or what is a soul? Its just fake human creation and blah blah blah" . Even if AI learn from 1000 books and mimic an good book, its still imitation... and you may not agree with me, but creativity NEED a human TOUCH.
Once the AI reach human level intelligence in general, creative music making is a sideproduct of it. You don't need to teach algorithms to an intelligent AI, it will read books, listen and learn as we did. Problem is getting there. Genetic algorithms are propably not the end-solution to it. Recent new hardware ideas like learning processing units seem promising start.
someone should build a robot that, when told to do something it hasn't been coded for, will compose it's own code for it. I get that that would eventually lead to robots telling themselves to overthrow us or some shit like that, but it would be cool. Extra points for if you can make it create rules for itself.
The original idea of what sounds were good or bad was determined by an outside person and thus this person was the composer with some random effects added in.
"A machine cannot have human-like intelligence as long as it only did what humans intentionally programmed it to." That's almost an axiom. We humans think for ourselves. Not quite an axiom, though.
Until a robot is capable of thinking for itself, it's not creative. The fact that the process needs to coded makes the programmer the creator. If a programmer made a piece of software to learn how to make music, then the music made is a product of a product of the programmer. Not the product of the software. The software has no idea what it's doing so it's not necessarily "creating", it's just following instructions from lines of code that it has no control over.
I don't think that evolutionary process counts because it still requires human subjectivity. Without it, the computer could never weed out good melodies from bad.
I had to stop watching half way though even though l found the subject and information interesting. The reason? The background music. Absolutely of putting and annoying. Is there any chance of a re-release that has a far less intrusive backing track (or none at all). If so, please do send a link.
it's funny how they talk for 5 minutes about creating creative machines then at the end you find out they can't even define creativity. start there people
You need to have a whole bunch of different music styles that are beautiful for the algorithm to work. With just one the entire population will just match it.
But to me the music in the beginning was random and disharmonic Also the problem with a fitness function would be that it would kill any chance for 'breakthroughs' or originality, as the AI, being pre-disposed to be most efficient in the current patterns humans like. It is sometimes our creative members of the society that pull our collective tastes forward as well.
Feeling achievements, accomplishments, etc. are driving creativity and innovation in humans. I don't think I'll be able to accept computers or AI winning Oscars, Grammy, etc.
figured the fitness algorithim took the place of the feeling of acomplishment. it realises its audience liked those parts and therefor kept them in its future compositions. now you can say that the fitness algorithm was purposly designed to match the expectations of the audience so cant be considered true achievment and such but that is what humans do all the time, strive to make popular works by relying heavily on audience feedback. but i think one true way to pass the locelace test is for the mahcien to produce soemthing humans dont enjoy but all its algorithims and sensors state it is a wonderful piece ie it likes what it made. basiclaly showing it developed its onw inexplicable taste and vision,the very things of creativity.
xaayer Yeah I guess I have some ego. But if they become better in what we do best (sort of) than those days won't be far when they would rule us. Main reason is that when we would have an idea they would have better and they would learn exponentially. Remember you want computers to assist you in what you want to do... :)
***** Do I want that? Really? I'm not sure I do. I think I want humanity to move forward and take its place in the universe, and I'm perfectly willing to accept benevolent self-aware machines as part of "humanity." It's not like you personally will be around to see the First Great and Bountiful Human Empire. How much does it really matter whether the ones who are around are fallible flesh monsters fired from their ancestors' own personal vaginas, or beings created by us and then allowed to grow and evolve only in the best ways? Now that I think about it, I would much prefer the dominance of the latter when the time comes to leave our solar system.
woodfur00 You have a point, Yeah it's too early to tell. Everything has it's pros and cons. Obviously there are more pros than cons to AI at the moment and I am looking forward to it :) . But just like world welcomed Antibiotics and it saved millions, things can go wrong and in case of computers and AI it can go wrong to much and too soon. All I am saying it that we should always be in control and a step ahead of AI.
I see a lot of intelligent people in the comments not really touching on the fact that humans have souls. Do people of science not believe this? Im not up to date on that. I think the question should be if humans were able to replicate a soul would it be considered an authentic pure soul? I would say no. I think the root of music and all creativity is derived from the soul. In theory I believe this is something that can not be made or replicated authentically. The creativity of a man-made soul would not be organic. So it would therefore be synthetic creativity at the heart of it. This is the one place I believe humans will always have the edge over AI and robots. We will always have organic creativity. (Im not an expert).
You have to create a robot with an imperfect setting for it to be able to be creative, for all creativity is based upon our imperfect perspective on life
But then one must ask themselves how does one create an imperfect robot? If the programming is not completely correct then a robot will not be able to execute it's prime function, how does one program imperfection into a system that relies on perfection?
@@zethwitt384 There is nothing in your comment that is correct or coherent, everyone is dumber for having read it.
Not really creativity is an evolutionary trait humans evolved to find clever ways out of problems.
@@NortheastGamer Lolll that's a brutal roast. Maybe you can explain where his comment is lacking or why it's incorrect?
@@J.5.M. There's a phrase in science which is relevant: "not even wrong". Which applies to something that is so incorrect, it's not even wrong. Asking for how to correct such a statement is like looking at a student who responded to 2 + 2 = ___ with "Banana" and asking "Well, how far off were they?". You can't add or subtract from their answer to arrive at something correct. You have to erase it, or better yet, burn the paper it was written on, and start over from scratch. Also, just so you know: My previous comment was a variation of a quote from the movie Billy Madison, which is a good movie, you should watch it.
create original ideas? most humans would fail that test!
It depends on how people understand word "original".
***** That i couldn't say better , you are right
question #1 tell a joke :3
:3 = 3 = triangle = pyramid = illuminati
question #2 do a troll
etc.
Everyone right now can write up a grammatically correct, *and* meaningful text that has never been written before.
There. Just did one.
Carl Friedrich Gauss "you act as if we're all not as insecure as you"
~Jorvyn Jossph
I hope that was original
the problem with that evolutionary algorithm is that in the end it would yield the predefined "ideal" melody, and ultimatly it would never come up with musical phases of it's own
Talk about today's pop music :p
+Sophia Lobos Glad to see I'm not the only one who thought that...
...wait a second...
what if we stop it at a certain amount of times redone, save each stage, or flat out program it to cancel an output if it's the same? or all of the above?
A solution to that would be a fitness function that evolves over generations. But I'm not sure if anyone has thought about it.
+Collin
Saving the most fit genome each let's say 10 generations could result in 'terrible' music, and if a human were to cycle through and choose which to present and throw out, then you might as well make a random music generator and get a human to cycle through those.
Just 'killing' the genomes with the same output as what the fitness function was based on will just result in, very similar results as the ones you've 'killed' (basically still the same piece of music).
+Manish Kumar Jha
If you plan to make a genetic algorithm to determine a fitness function for the music creator, you have to create a fitness function for that algorithm too, and when the 'perfect' fitness function is reached, the 'perfect' piece of music is also reached, so it will also end at a certain point.
Personally I would rather look into making a fitness function based on certain patterns that are considered good in certain genres. I don't pretend to know much of creating music, but as far as I understand, certain combinations go 'good' together, and others don't. You could probably use that to create an interesting fitness function that would yield some interesting results.
Yes, but how do you explain Daft Punk?
Uhhh
Bababoi
It hurts now
I think it's important to note that recreation isn't creativity. The most creative art styles can stop being creative if it us mimicked or overdone. True creativity is the ability to defy common convention or the norm, and still create a quality product
I think creativity comes from the personal emotional response derived from the creation
"Sort by" → "Newest first"
"A machine can pass the lovelace test if it can produce an outcome that its designers cannot explain looking its code"
Looks like my programming exams can pass this test
Lel
3:08 Op. 28 No. 4 Prelude in E minor, Frédéric Chopin
Thanks so much!
F/A-18 Hornet Thanks!
I love you! When I heard that melody I paused the video and I just had to know what it was called.
Oh my god, you're an angel. Thank you very much! hahaha I was in the same situation as the guy above, trying to search it up on Google with no luck. Just needed to know the name of such a melodic and touching song
From the movie The Pianist!
The music in the background is a little distracting, it could have been more subtle or at least a bit more soft. The video was great nonetheless, just giving this critique since it's the content that's important and I was getting distracted from it.
Siddhi Desai ai wouldn't have made that mistake
2:56 Anyone else think of Veritasium?
LOL
Me too!
Yup.
desu38 Yes.
me!
By the dictionary definition: "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work."
Therefore, so long as something isn't copying someone else's work, it's creative. Robots can create artistic works, including visual and audible functions. Well, boom definition fulfilled. Time to move the goal post.
The piece at 3:08 is Prelude in sandstorm minor by darude
Jean-Adrien Oikonomou Yes, it's played in sandstorm minor scale. Very pleasant to hear. marvelous.
A programmer making an algorithm to produce original music is like an "artist" throwing paint at a wall, the artist doesn't know how exactly the paint will spatter but they are still in control of the creation.
I've never been "moved" by any computer-created music. I always have pretty much the same reaction, which is, "Yeah, that's music all right."
I think the problem is that humans didn't just evolve the ability to make things, but also the ability to think and feel. If you want a robot to REALLY be creative, you have to create a set of circumstances that would cause it to evolve an emotional awareness first, THEN try to figure out how to teach it music... Of course, if it's independently emotional, it may decide it doesn't want to be a composer, and that it would be happier doing something else. This is the catch-22 of artificial intelligence. We want to create a machine that will do what we tell it to do with the intelligence of a living person, but the moment it starts to think like a living person, it won't be compelled to do anything we tell it to anymore.
+Shawn Ravenfire maybe you should try to find music that doesn't really tell you whether or not a computer made it. It seems that bias is such a huge factor here. If you can't distinguish whether or not a human or robot wrote it, then you'd kind of be wrong.
RPGgrenade Possibly.
@@RPGgrenade That is the problem, we human are biased and its in our mind that we want something that made or created by same creature as we are. Cant hide it!
Humans are really only good at pattern recognition, and robots are really only good at storing data. We would have to make a robot that thinks like a human and we can’t do that yet
What if, instead of comparing one generated piece to a prewritten standard, the program created multiple tracks with different mutations and had humans rate which ones they preferred?
I mean, that's pretty much how human art works. Creators put work out there, and audiences react to what they find appealing
The amount of programming it would take to do this would be overwhelming.
Maybe robots would have a different definition of beauty
i kinda hope that humans are the only things that can conceive beauty cuz that makes us special
Robots, even those that presume of AI, are coded. Beauty is such an abstract and distinctively human concept that it would be impossible for robots to have their own definition of beauty, because all they have to go about is the human definition of beauty (cuz there isn't any other definition of beauty, multiple ideas of what is considered beautiful, yes, but it is essentially the same concept) I don't know if I'm being clear, hope its understandable.
@@ryn7973 ah, well then! You are completely wrong and are quite an awful person!
Very inspiring video.
I'd add that in a sense, we are asking to an information-based creator to reach human notions. I feel that the machine can't produce right now because we are not really asking them to?
As said, if a machine produce something purely on its own, are we really the ones that have the true ability to say if this process is creative? Or our judging minds, eyes and ears are biaised by our evolving notion of art?
“What is human creativity anyways?”... deep
I don't believe that robots will be able to create truly beautiful melodies. They may be able to create pleasant sounding, even complex melodies and music, but until we get a true AI, it will just be a process of finding a melody based on what has come before. The idea of music is to express yourself - some of the most beautiful pieces of music where created by a composer who was feeling a certain way at the time. Consider songs from when the composer is sad and s/he wants to convey that through music. Can robots do that? Not yet I feel. They aren't creating music to communicate an idea, they are creating it because their programming tells them to, and their programming tells them how to find pleasant melodies. That is all they are doing. So I am not yet convinced. Consider the quote from Morgan Freeman as Red in The Shawshank Redemption:
_"To this day I don't know what those Italian ladies were singing about. Truth is, I don't even want to know. I just hope they were singing about something too beautiful to say with words."_
The fact that the video could explain it probably means that it would fail the test?
The music in the background was created by a machine.
Source: I don't know, I just made that up.
The music in this video is awesome!
I don't think that this would pass the Lovelace test. As the narrator explained it, the robot has to produce something that the creator/programmer cannot explain in terms of the robots coding. In this case, even though the musical composition would be (strictly speaking) and original, the programmer could easily explain the process by which the robot produced it, sort of like how this video explains it, thus failing the creativity test.
In reality the robot is still only following the instructions laid out for it by the programmer, who in this instance could pull double duty and call themselves the artist too. Because the robot is only ever responding to the programmer/artists original input, it's not correct to attribute creativity to the robot. The robot is just a tool, like a complex paintbrush that produces random strokes: It may look like it is painting of it's own volition, but in actual fact is was the artist that selected it in the first place.
Natural phenomena like mountains, forests, thunder clouds, coral reefs etc. can literally make you weep with their beauty and complexity but they don’t come about by anything even remotely resembling human creativity.
Well, If we create a computer (and an algorhytm for it) and then its create something, Is this thing would be considered as the computer's creation or as our ? For example, when computers sequenced the human genom nobody thought it as the computer's achievement, rather than it was considered as OUR. On the other hand, if you have a child and he grows up to be a succesful person, nobody will dispute his own achivements even though the fact is that he was your child to raise. Whichever the case its probably depends on how we evaluate the role of our programing (raising) in relation to the result.
I am a theoretical physicist, and I am TOTALLY against the idea of creative bots or self-thinking machines.
I wish there was a list of the songs played in the description =/
As I was watching this I was thinking "This is like, almost a decade late considering what AI does today" then I checked the date. Damn, have we really come so far in so little time?
end question is key!!
You can not define "Beautiful" that easy, art is much more complex than that.
In terms of music, a lot of melodies etc, are similar to others. A lot of musicians are inspired by each other leading to a subconscious-like copying of each others sound. True musicians who do their own thing and break the mould are rare, and I doubt a robot could accomplish that. But I don't doubt that a robot could be programmed to compose songs that are similar to another musician's work.
CHAPPIE IS AWARE! CHAPPIE CAN FEEL! CHAPPIE IS REAL!
AND CHAPPIE WILL KILL JUST FOR THE THRILL! >:D
KILLING IS CRIME! CHAPPIE PROMISED MAKER HE WOULDN'T DO CRIMES!
thehfv
MAKER IS DED. HE TURN'D INTO ZED. CHAPPIE GO SAD AND THEN HE GO MAD. CHAPPIE GRAB GUN, GUN GO KABLAM! MAKER'S NO MORE, HIS CORPSE ON THE FLOOR D:
I feel that the issue sits on the Fitness Function.
Generally speaking, any kind of artist, whether they are a writer, musician, painter, or sculptor, will go through a process of trial and error for an extended period of time before they even begin to consider asking anyone else what they think. This would more or less be the biological equivalent of the Fitness Function.
However, in the case of the computer, it can't decide for itself what "the bar" is for the Fitness Function. We tell it whether we like it or not, and it mathematically analyzes those results to try again. It can't make the determination of "this is good" or "this is bad" without a monstrous sample size of outside feedback.
In a way, actually, this means the mechanical Fitness Function is very similar to the biological Fitness Function. But they are processed in opposite directions.
This is why I aspire to be a software engineer, so that I may hopefully contribute to advancements such as these. Although it is very simple, and new, my channel will hopefully inspire and help others learn how to code.
Compose all possible measures and program them into the computer then instruct it to randomly place them then choose random counting and wether it's Treble or Base then see what you get and maybe add in some extra conditions as well.
At 2:57 I thought a Veritasium video was playing in another tab.
the most important thing is first know what is our intention and free will.
1:55 IM DYING OVER THE HANDS BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN A FRAME FORM
How does the evolution algorithm not just end up copying the "good" reference melodies? How does it compare the machine output to the reference to decide if it's good? An exact match? Same pitches? Same timing?
It seems reasonable that machines or rather processes can be creative but the example given in the video is only creative by human selection. Modeling how humans form judgments about beauty or humor and then evolving a sequence that is literatively selected based on a machine's simulation of human judgment might get closer.
0:21 That is actually what Shimon (the composer) looks like-- I looked it up.
Great video, but this is the second one with overuse of the golf swing sound effect for scene transitions (other video: Learning from smallpox: How to eradicate a disease - Julie Garon and Walter A. Orenstein). The sound effect is distracting. Takes me out of enjoying the intriguing information presented with clever animation.
Any idea what's the classical music played at 3:08?
If you cant tell the difference, does it really matter?
So yeah intent and awareness are important; I'm glad it was brought up.
Well a machine can never express itself can it? It will always do what we tell it to.
So how can we appreciate or relate to something that has no thought?
I always thought the answer this question is and would always be no, but now I'm not so sure. We aren't there yet but I think that there will be a day when we have to call the thing an AI created as being creative.
But wouldn't it all create music that we already know and consider beautiful, rather than new melodies?
So my code passes the Lovelace test every time I get a bizarre inexplicable error?
This comment is so underrated
I think that we associate creativity with art, but that's not necessarely true. As the video shows, creative robots have already been made. What hasn't been made is artistic robots.
It's not that something has to be aware to make an artistic creation, but one must make such creation so that it shows an idea or a point of view.
Because a thing is creating something beatifull, but another is creating something beautifull and meaningfull.
One doesn't require awareness to develope art, one requires Ideas to transform into art to create art.
So, the question becomes
Can you have ideas and points of view if you aren't aware?
The day a robot solves an unsolved math problem, will be the day robots qualify as creative
Best science channel
Composerbot writes original, emotive and beautiful music using a comprehensive music theory created by the programer. It is not AI.
The input of human subjectivity has deviated the process from true creativity but it's a promising first step in the right direction.
If there is foreground music... there really shouldn't be background music.
But can we humans be creative anyways? Like if you create a song, you're only making it based on the notes that your teachers told you that matched. You must follow melody rules. That's not very creative. It's original if it's never been arrenged in that order before. But at the end you were following rules that you've been learning all your life.
I have made songs in my games witm my OWN rules!
By this definition it isn't creativity. Because it's still a human programed goal. Any creative endeavor should first please it's creator
By this definition, a work created on commission (like a magazine article, a published book or comic, a commercial song or commissioned painting) can never be creative, since it has the input of others and it's a programmed goal and not something the creator does just because he wants to.
Being creative, imo, just means you're creating something.
That makes no sense. Creativity just means doing dome thing in an unthought of, unorthodox, or original manner.
Part of this video made me think that the question of robot creativity is just a rephrased musing on the intentional fallacy (i.e. should we consider the author's intent/purpose when evaluating art). In this light, it's possible that any artificial life form could create art. But we might also look at a robot composing symphonies as just a more complex compilation of list making. A computer isn't designing music or paintings as much as it is efficiently producing possibilities for art. It lacks inspiration, vision, and art's capacity to relate to humanity's shared experience. Perhaps it could replicate these three things via web searching, but as everyone knows, Internet Culture is not the same as "real" world culture and the robot would inevitably run afoul. In those cases in which it succeeds, it still requires at least one person's stamp of approval before becoming art, so in that respect, there can never be a separation between creativity and humanity.
So your are saying AI can make something but it has no heart in it.
That xylophone robot thing actually exists. It’s called shimon. Another piece of music you hear in this video is also played by the shimis, but composed by a human
2:56 #veritasium
yep, when I heard it I thought I accidentally launched a veritasium video or something...
Haha same Alex Stefanov
Does that mean it was created by bots?
It still only made a melody due to predefined patterns. It created the song due to the original program, in a way the programmers intended, and in a way easily explained. Completely failing the test. If the computer is programmed with evolutionary algorithm than it can only make music with pre-determined patterns of notes that have been decided to sound good together. Just like you explained. Which is not creative, and fails the stipulations of the test outright. If it makes random mixes, most will sound awful, which is not creative.
Portal's ending song was robot crafted. I'm making a note here: huge success.
1:33 the music is the best!!!
Surely machines are to deliberately induce emotion, they must first feel that emotion themselves.
If humans can be creative, computers can be too, since we're basically just extremely complex computers.
Lukas Berglund Exactly.
You're implying humans have a creator like computors.
johanne7 What? No.
We are "just extremely complex computers". That doesn't mean that we had a creator. It means evolution.
That depends on how you define humans, creativity, computers and programming etc. A computer has some input, human generated or not, and follows its human-written programming to create a yes/no answer as to what to do next. Do you consider humans has having that? If somebody asks "Do you want a cookie?" would you process that like a computer? You might think "Am I hungry? Yes/no" but that doesn't mean you like cookies or that you think the cookie looks tasty.
If you consider that you would, the difference is still so much more complex for humans that computers aren't anywhere near the level of humans. So much so that I don't consider humans to be really complex computers much like I don't think an eye is a very complex camera. No, I do not think a computer can be creative. Because it is just following code. Consider a recent VSauce video (Could humans go extinct) where Michael describes a computer programmed to learn to beat games. It never learned that in tetris, if you stack the pieces in a row, you remove the row. So it knew that if the tiles hit the roof, you lose, and the tiles continuously come, so it never saw a way to win, so to avoid losing it just paused forever. It couldn't figure out how to win (not that you can with tetris other than get a high score), so it just paused so it wouldn't lose, and that is not how a human works. Only when we create AI do I think computers can be creative, and a computer is not an AI as of yet.
johanne7 He did not imply that. Not at all. In fact nothing in his comment said anything about any sort of creator or any sort of intention or existence. I don't think you understand what it means to imply something. The phrase "Humans are more or less dogs that grew and developed independently of said dogs over millenia," does not imply that humans were selectively bred like dogs by some owner because there is no mention of selective breeding or ownership.
This concept fascinates me. Id love to see artificial intelligence and the singularity in my lifetime
And you will it seems
"Does it really matters Who or What it created?!" - Answer: Yes! It matter. We are humans, we have empathy and soul. (insert here expecting question such like "but what is empathy or what is a soul? Its just fake human creation and blah blah blah" . Even if AI learn from 1000 books and mimic an good book, its still imitation... and you may not agree with me, but creativity NEED a human TOUCH.
02:58 ... isn't that the Veritasium intro sound effect ?
If they create things we don't understand, how could we prove that they have correct theories?
Once the AI reach human level intelligence in general, creative music making is a sideproduct of it. You don't need to teach algorithms to an intelligent AI, it will read books, listen and learn as we did.
Problem is getting there. Genetic algorithms are propably not the end-solution to it. Recent new hardware ideas like learning processing units seem promising start.
2:57 You used vertasiums intro sound effect :D
someone should build a robot that, when told to do something it hasn't been coded for, will compose it's own code for it. I get that that would eventually lead to robots telling themselves to overthrow us or some shit like that, but it would be cool. Extra points for if you can make it create rules for itself.
The original idea of what sounds were good or bad was determined by an outside person and thus this person was the composer with some random effects added in.
"A machine cannot have human-like intelligence as long as it only did what humans intentionally programmed it to."
That's almost an axiom. We humans think for ourselves.
Not quite an axiom, though.
Creativity = to create something beneficial
Until a robot is capable of thinking for itself, it's not creative. The fact that the process needs to coded makes the programmer the creator. If a programmer made a piece of software to learn how to make music, then the music made is a product of a product of the programmer.
Not the product of the software. The software has no idea what it's doing so it's not necessarily "creating", it's just following instructions from lines of code that it has no control over.
human creativity is devoted to it self
I don't think that evolutionary process counts because it still requires human subjectivity. Without it, the computer could never weed out good melodies from bad.
Never thought about it like this.
Wow! It was good.
can anyone explain why the sound of drums make our heart beat faster
Necromancer here: Probably sounds like thundering footsteps.
What your favorite idea? Mines being creative! 📘
Wyatt Oxley how’d you get that idea?
Did I just spy with my little eye a narbonic reference at 1:02? If so you guys are awesome
Veritasium!! 2:58
I had to stop watching half way though even though l found the subject and information interesting. The reason? The background music. Absolutely of putting and annoying. Is there any chance of a re-release that has a far less intrusive backing track (or none at all). If so, please do send a link.
2:20 What is 'valuable' in this context?
Yep. It still matters
the music on the background is disturbing!
it's funny how they talk for 5 minutes about creating creative machines then at the end you find out they can't even define creativity. start there people
Seems like your speaking about the Musical Software version of the Crocoduck.
You need to have a whole bunch of different music styles that are beautiful for the algorithm to work. With just one the entire population will just match it.
But to me the music in the beginning was random and disharmonic
Also the problem with a fitness function would be that it would kill any chance for 'breakthroughs' or originality, as the AI, being pre-disposed to be most efficient in the current patterns humans like.
It is sometimes our creative members of the society that pull our collective tastes forward as well.
Where can I find the robot-generated music?
5:15 Shimon the Robot created the music we been hearing
Ironically enough, the background music for this video is inappropriate at least.
Feeling achievements, accomplishments, etc. are driving creativity and innovation in humans. I don't think I'll be able to accept computers or AI winning Oscars, Grammy, etc.
Well that's very close minded of you...
figured the fitness algorithim took the place of the feeling of acomplishment. it realises its audience liked those parts and therefor kept them in its future compositions.
now you can say that the fitness algorithm was purposly designed to match the expectations of the audience so cant be considered true achievment and such but that is what humans do all the time, strive to make popular works by relying heavily on audience feedback.
but i think one true way to pass the locelace test is for the mahcien to produce soemthing humans dont enjoy but all its algorithims and sensors state it is a wonderful piece ie it likes what it made. basiclaly showing it developed its onw inexplicable taste and vision,the very things of creativity.
xaayer Yeah I guess I have some ego. But if they become better in what we do best (sort of) than those days won't be far when they would rule us. Main reason is that when we would have an idea they would have better and they would learn exponentially. Remember you want computers to assist you in what you want to do... :)
***** Do I want that? Really? I'm not sure I do. I think I want humanity to move forward and take its place in the universe, and I'm perfectly willing to accept benevolent self-aware machines as part of "humanity." It's not like you personally will be around to see the First Great and Bountiful Human Empire. How much does it really matter whether the ones who are around are fallible flesh monsters fired from their ancestors' own personal vaginas, or beings created by us and then allowed to grow and evolve only in the best ways? Now that I think about it, I would much prefer the dominance of the latter when the time comes to leave our solar system.
woodfur00 You have a point, Yeah it's too early to tell. Everything has it's pros and cons. Obviously there are more pros than cons to AI at the moment and I am looking forward to it :) . But just like world welcomed Antibiotics and it saved millions, things can go wrong and in case of computers and AI it can go wrong to much and too soon. All I am saying it that we should always be in control and a step ahead of AI.
BEAUTIFUL!! WELL DONE!
I honestly don't think I'll ever trust a computer with the things I'd entrust a human with real thoughts and emotions.
what is that piano mol at 3:10? pls anybody... i know it but don't know it...
I see a lot of intelligent people in the comments not really touching on the fact that humans have souls. Do people of science not believe this? Im not up to date on that. I think the question should be if humans were able to replicate a soul would it be considered an authentic pure soul? I would say no. I think the root of music and all creativity is derived from the soul. In theory I believe this is something that can not be made or replicated authentically. The creativity of a man-made soul would not be organic. So it would therefore be synthetic creativity at the heart of it. This is the one place I believe humans will always have the edge over AI and robots. We will always have organic creativity. (Im not an expert).
But souls can't be proven to exist
Archailects have more soul, than any human or simple ai
You have symphonies in you, brother