You may be right. Purpose might be too strong a term in that not every creative endeavor has a clear teleology, but I do think that every creative endeavor has an intent, even if it they might not be able to articulate it outside of the creative work itself. In fact, that was the basic point I was trying to make, that what is essentially human about creative works is the intent.

However, I disagree that a computer can’t be programmed to do something without a rational purpose (after all, what is a random variable). What they don’t have is motivation that comes from life experience. Computers don’t strike out in little league, fall in love, have children and so on.

This is part of the reason why algorithms work very well within specific genres, but fail when it comes to creating new ones.

Hope to see you again.

- Greg

I think that great artists like Dali, Hemingway, Michelangelo, Mozart, etc. didn’t have a purpose as much as they had inspiration. We’ve all heard about “starving artists”, and there are many who don’t achieve commercial success in their lifetimes. Maybe these folks grew an illogical ‘sense of purpose’ where they just had to get their art out, regardless of it being a bad career choice. They saw a flower and had to paint it, they heard the music in their heads and had to play it. (Rodriguez?) So, if following their human inspiration makes no logical sense, a computer would have to be programmed to be inspired and driven to do something without a rational purpose. I suppose given infinite processing power that the infinite monkey theorem could be applied, and in some cases succeed, but whose human sensibilities would curate all of the infinite machine nonsense? I’m not sure using that theorem is realistic any more than saying an alien could land and improve on / relieve us of all human effort. Possible, but how probable?

There’s a post on my EdRodPOV . com blog with my thoughts on how breakthrough innovation usually requires inspiration, and how the best way to “get” inspiration is to train your brain through the practice and sharing of art. Feel free to comment if you have a chance to read it. I’m following you on Twitter now so, “I’ll be back”. Best, E

That’s a very important point one that I’ve written about before (http://www.digitaltonto.com/2012/are-computers-the-problem/) and one that I plan to spend a considerable amount of time on over the next year.

In short, I think two things are key:

1. There are some things that computers will never do. They will never strike out at a little league game, have their heart broken or see their child born. It is through seeking fulfillment that we form intent and human’s role will increasingly be enhancing the lives of other humans.

2. We need to reorganize our institutions to adapt to this new reality, by leveraging the respective skill sets of both machines and humans. In reality, we’ve been doing this for a century, but as the skill sets of machines are exponentially increasing, we’re going to have to completely rethink how we make decisions.

As I said, I’ll be spending quite a bit of time on this in the coming year. Expect to see two posts out in the next month or so. One about the “Simulation Economy” and one on revisiting the “Productivity Paradox.”

Until then, have a safe and happy New Year!

- Greg

Thanks for adding some context that I, as an utterly unartistic person, am unable to do.

My concerns go a bit deeper than what you’ve described. In a very real sense, we are creating a new life form, without giving it much thought. Most of the discussions you have about machine intelligence go something like:

“But computers can’t…”

“Actually they already are..”

And then kind of a stunned silence.

It just doesn’t seem like we’ve had anything like the level of discussion that we had about earlier technologies, like nuclear power or even TV. I’ll be writing a lot more about this topic next year.

Thanks for all your support. Have a great New Year!

- Greg

A great provocative post.

For me, with an early back ground in computer/electronic music, I think I have been dealing with this concern/topic for 25 + years. I use to give lectures to local music clubs in the mid 80s to attempt to relieve their fear of electronic music and let them know that they will not being going to classical concerts that had no musicians. Now I suppose could add no composer.

Even in the late 80s with our Amiga computers, electronic composers like myself were eager to use algorithms to generate midi data including rhythmic, pitch and even tonal information to include in our recorded or interactive compositions. At the time the critique most often levied against us was that we were not the creators, the computer was. My defense was – Intent. “Being a composer” – ie creator, “does not necessarily mean that I need to deliberate over every sonority, every pulse, every little sonic event. It is my intent to illicit an intellectual and emotional response through my application of craft that makes me a composer”

I now work in a much wider media and communication spectrum (Marketing,Comm and learning development) and as people more and more have been identified as data points to move one way or another, I find that now I, like you, am more uncomfortable about the shift to algorithmic creation and big data. (The two I think are related). That is not to say that I deny it or even deny the potential business benefits. But I do think there is a human downside – just because this stuff run amok will sap a little humanness out of us. To make this even more conflicting, as a composer, I would not hesitate to turn to algorithms to help me create an electronic piece. it really comes down to your last statement:

“Our ability to form our own intent. It is only through creating a purpose that is uniquely our own that we can fully embody the human spirit.”

The sense of discomfort I think comes from knowing that algorithmic creation (and big data) will be utilized without that intent.

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about the whole thing, much like I do about Big Data and privacy, but one way or another, we’re going to have to deal with it. We’re all going to be increasingly “flying by wire.”

- Greg

- Greg