Lemdro.id

-2 points

6 months ago

We’ll soon see whether or not it’s the same thing.

Only a 50 years ago or so, some well-known philosophers off AI believed computers would write great poetry before they could ever beat a grand master at chess.

report

[ - ]

Prunebutt@slrpnk.net

3 points

6 months ago

Chess can be easily formalized. Creativity can’t.

report

[ - ]

3 points

6 months ago

The formalization of chess can’t be practically applied. The top chess programs are all trained models that evaluate a position in a non-formal way.

They use neural nets, just like the AIs being hyped these days.

report

[ - ]

Prunebutt@slrpnk.net

3 points

6 months ago

The inputs and outputs of these neural nets are still formal notations of chess states.

report

[ - ]

1 point

6 months ago

What on odd thing to write. Chess i/o doesn’t have to be formalized and language i/o can be.

report

[ - ]

Buddahriffic@lemmy.world

3 points

6 months ago

I think the relevant point is that chess is discrete while art isn’t. Or they both are but the problem space that art can explore is much bigger than the space chess can (chess has 64 square on the board and 7 possibilities for each square, which would be a tiny image that an NES could show more colours for or a poem with 64 words, but you can only select from 7 words).

Chess is an easier problem to solve than art is, unless you define a limited scope of art.

report

[ - ]

1 point

6 months ago

We could use “Writing a Sonnet” as a suitably discrete and limited form of art that’s undeniably art, and ask the question “Can a computer creatively write a sonnet”? Which raises the question “Do humans creatively write sonnets?” or are they all derivative?

Humans used to think of chess as an art and speak of “creativity” in chess, by which they meant the expression of a new idea on how to play. This is a reasonable definition, and going by it, chess programs are undeniably creative. Yet for whatever reason, the word doesn’t sit right when talking about these programs.

I suspect we’ll continue to not find any fundamental difference between what the machines are doing and what we are doing. Then unavoidably we’ll either have to concede that the machines are “creative” or we are not.

report