Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • How does this music make you feel?

  • Do you find it beautiful?

  • Is it creative?

  • Now, would you change your answers

  • if you learned the composer was this robot?

  • Believe it or not,

  • people have been grappling with the question of artificial creativity,

  • alongside the question of artifcial intelligence,

  • for over 170 years.

  • In 1843, Lady Ada Lovelace,

  • an English mathematician considered the world's first computer programmer,

  • wrote that a machine could not have human-like intelligence

  • as long as it only did what humans intentionally programmed it to do.

  • According to Lovelace,

  • a machine must be able to create original ideas

  • if it is to be considered intelligent.

  • The Lovelace Test, formalized in 2001, proposes a way of scrutinizing this idea.

  • A machine can pass this test if it can produce an outcome

  • that its designers cannot explain based on their original code.

  • The Lovelace Test is, by design, more of a thought experiment

  • than an objective scientific test.

  • But it's a place to start.

  • At first glance,

  • the idea of a machine creating high quality, original music in this way

  • might seem impossible.

  • We could come up with an extremely complex algorithm

  • using random number generators, chaotic functions, and fuzzy logic

  • to generate a sequence of musical notes

  • in a way that would be impossible to track.

  • But although this would yield countless original melodies never heard before,

  • only a tiny fraction of them would be worth listening to.

  • With the computer having no way to distinguish

  • between those which we would consider beautiful

  • and those which we won't.

  • But what if we took a step back

  • and tried to model a natural process that allows creativity to form?

  • We happen to know of at least one such process

  • that has lead to original, valuable, and even beautiful outcomes:

  • the process of evolution.

  • And evolutionary algorithms,

  • or genetic algorithms that mimic biological evolution,

  • are one promising approach

  • to making machines generate original and valuable artistic outcomes.

  • So how can evolution make a machine musically creative?

  • Well, instead of organisms,

  • we can start with an initial population of musical phrases,

  • and a basic algorithm

  • that mimics reproduction and random mutations

  • by switching some parts,

  • combining others,

  • and replacing random notes.

  • Now that we have a new generation of phrases,

  • we can apply selection using an operation called a fitness function.

  • Just as biological fitness is determined by external environmental pressures,

  • our fitness function can be determined by an external melody

  • chosen by human musicians, or music fans,

  • to represent the ultimate beautiful melody.

  • The algorithm can then compare between our musical phrases

  • and that beautiful melody,

  • and select only the phrases that are most similar to it.

  • Once the least similar sequences are weeded out,

  • the algorithm can reapply mutation and recombination to what's left,

  • select the most similar, or fitted ones, again from the new generation,

  • and repeat for many generations.

  • The process that got us there has so much randomness and complexity built in

  • that the result might pass the Lovelace Test.

  • More importantly, thanks to the presence of human aesthetic in the process,

  • we'll theoretically generate melodies we would consider beautiful.

  • But does this satisfy our intuition for what is truly creative?

  • Is it enough to make something original and beautiful,

  • or does creativity require intention and awareness of what is being created?

  • Perhaps the creativity in this case is really coming from the programmers,

  • even if they don't understand the process.

  • What is human creativity, anyways?

  • Is it something more than a system of interconnected neurons

  • developed by biological algorithmic processes

  • and the random experiences that shape our lives?

  • Order and chaos, machine and human.

  • These are the dynamos at the heart of machine creativity initiatives

  • that are currently making music, sculptures, paintings, poetry and more.

  • The jury may still be out

  • as to whether it's fair to call these acts of creation creative.

  • But if a piece of art can make you weep,

  • or blow your mind,

  • or send shivers down your spine,

  • does it really matter who or what created it?

How does this music make you feel?

字幕與單字

影片操作 你可以在這邊進行「影片」的調整,以及「字幕」的顯示

B1 中級 美國腔

TED-Ed】機器人能不能有創意?- Gil Weinberg (【TED-Ed】Can robots be creative? - Gil Weinberg)

  • 595 41
    稲葉白兎 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字