Sorry but could you please give a definition of creativity which is not a weaker or more limited version of mine:
Creativity is the preference for low(er) priority edges in a graph
There is virtually no difference between an algorithm and a human except that the human may have better heuristics for what "works", which by definition is a form of bias and an algorithm can assess many orders of magnitude more nodes.
If Lee-Sedol the world champion at Go could be left dumbfounded by what he claimed to be a creative move, a move generated by a laptop performing monte-carlo tree search with an ANN doing pruning, and have his world shattered, then I don't see how anyone else could claim that algorithms can't be creative.
If we go by something like this [1]:
Creativity is defined as the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others. (page 396)
Then the tendency is reweighting of priorities of heuristics, the generation of ideas is walking the varius edges, recognizing is nothing but an evaluation of the new state, and alternatives and posibilities that may be useful is nothing but searching deeper within the graph.
I would appreciate any comments that explain what is wrong with my definition or the comment as a whole. I do not find this downvoting without any form of discussion to be of substance, nor facilitate any discussion, it achieves nothing except leave the author perplexed but without a way of reconciling it, except by assuming that people dislike hearing what they don't want to hear, that is, that human brains are nothing, but heuristic based computational units with lazy evaluation.
Grand parent comment claimed that believing algorithms (and computers) can perform better than humans is hubris, I claim that believing humans are special, is hubris.
Comments
Sorry but could you please give a definition of creativity which is not a weaker or more limited version of mine:
There is virtually no difference between an algorithm and a human except that the human may have better heuristics for what "works", which by definition is a form of bias and an algorithm can assess many orders of magnitude more nodes.
If Lee-Sedol the world champion at Go could be left dumbfounded by what he claimed to be a creative move, a move generated by a laptop performing monte-carlo tree search with an ANN doing pruning, and have his world shattered, then I don't see how anyone else could claim that algorithms can't be creative.
If we go by something like this [1]:
Then the tendency is reweighting of priorities of heuristics, the generation of ideas is walking the varius edges, recognizing is nothing but an evaluation of the new state, and alternatives and posibilities that may be useful is nothing but searching deeper within the graph.
[1] https://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/creativity/define.htm
I would appreciate any comments that explain what is wrong with my definition or the comment as a whole. I do not find this downvoting without any form of discussion to be of substance, nor facilitate any discussion, it achieves nothing except leave the author perplexed but without a way of reconciling it, except by assuming that people dislike hearing what they don't want to hear, that is, that human brains are nothing, but heuristic based computational units with lazy evaluation.
Grand parent comment claimed that believing algorithms (and computers) can perform better than humans is hubris, I claim that believing humans are special, is hubris.