The Creativity Post: Can a computer system successfully draft, evaluate, and drive a narrative? Computational creativity researchers have considered this question for decades. MEXICA: 20 Years-20 Stories is the first book of short stories produced by a creative agent capable of evaluating and making judgments about its own work.
3 comments:
I love the idea of computer generated creativity. I can understand where skeptics are coming from, there is something magical about creation and creativity that seems impossible to recreate non-organically. But our brains are nothing but biological supercomputers. Instead of a circuit board, we have cells. Our brain uses certain algorithms to make what seems organically created. No matter how obscure and complex those algorithms are, they do exist and are discoverable. If a non-organic brain uses those same algorithms to create stories and narratives, how is that creation any different than that that comes out of our own human brains. I do think that to say true creation is unachievable with electronic brains puts a limit on the evolution of artificial intelligence. Do people think that that level of creation is unattainable, or are we afraid of being replaced? Shall we allow our human selfishness to limit the capabilities of artificial intelligence? Onward with the robot revolution.
I am not sure how I feel about this computer generated creativity. I completely support the use of technology as an addition or an enhancement to the world of art, and I think that without technology the world of art, and especially theatre, art would be impossible. But a set of stories created entirely by a computational machine really freaks me out. I understand where Sydney is coming from, that this non-organic thought is creating something we have never seen before, but it creeps me out. I think it is kind of foolish to try to reduce the creative writing process down into a algorithm because, for me at least, it takes out the human-ness that art holds. I think that technology should be used more as a enhancement or an extension of a human in the artistic process, and when it becomes an independent entity like this ... perhaps it needs a new artistic category? You can argue that the creation of Mexica itself makes it a human extension, but it has its own thoughts?? I do not trust artificial intelligence. I am not here for the robot revolution.
I think that the one of the things that makes humans so interesting and uniquely different from the rest of the world is that we have been able to make art that has changes and evolved along with history. Part of this article really intrigued me because we are now in an age where technology is creeping into just about every part of our culture and society, and this totally includes our human art forms. So, I think that part of this new "computer generated creativity" machine is very cool, and is a great example how creativity and art are beginning to collide with technology. On the other hand, I very much agree with Katie that when technology replaces the thing that is so great about art and creativity (the storytelling part of art), it becomes less artful and important. In all, while this new technology might be new and shiny, that does not mean that taking the humanity out of art is really meaningful.
Post a Comment