TedTest

From the Ted Talk by Gil Weinberg: Can robots be creative?

Unscramble the Blue Letters

How does this music make you feel? Do you find it beautiful? Is it cirtaeve? Now, would you cghane your answers if you learned the composer was this robot? Believe it or not, people have been glipanprg with the qotsieun 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 pmrmograer, wtroe that a macinhe could not have human-like itnclenelige as long as it only did what humans intentionally prmgreomad 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 outocme that its designers cannot explain baesd on their original code. The Lovelace Test is, by design, more of a thohugt experiment than an objective scientific test. But it's a pacle 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 alrogihtm using random number generators, chaotic functions, and fuzzy logic to generate a sequence of musical notes in a way that would be impossible to trcak. But although this would yield countless original melodies never heard before, only a tiny fairtocn of them would be worth lientsing 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 biolocaigl elviutoon, are one promising approach to making machines generate original and valuable aittrisc 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, cinmoibng others, and replacing random notes. Now that we have a new generation of phrases, we can apply selection using an operation clelad a fitness fuotincn. Just as biological fitness is determined by external environmental pressures, our fitness function can be determined by an earexntl melody chosen by huamn musicians, or music fans, to represent the ultimate beautiful melody. The algorithm can then compare between our musical phrases and that beutuafil melody, and select only the phrases that are most similar to it. Once the least similar seeuenqcs are weeded out, the algorithm can rlapepy mutation and recombination to what's left, select the most similar, or fitted ones, again from the new goteaneirn, 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 ahtsetiec in the pocesrs, 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 cionmg from the progamermrs, 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 miknag 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 sevihrs down your spine, does it really matter who or what cearted it?

Open Cloze

How does this music make you feel? Do you find it beautiful? Is it ________? Now, would you ______ your answers if you learned the composer was this robot? Believe it or not, people have been _________ with the ________ 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 __________, _____ that a _______ could not have human-like ____________ as long as it only did what humans intentionally __________ 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 _______ that its designers cannot explain _____ on their original code. The Lovelace Test is, by design, more of a _______ experiment than an objective scientific test. But it's a _____ 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 _________ using random number generators, chaotic functions, and fuzzy logic to generate a sequence of musical notes in a way that would be impossible to _____. But although this would yield countless original melodies never heard before, only a tiny ________ of them would be worth _________ 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 __________ _________, are one promising approach to making machines generate original and valuable ________ 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, _________ others, and replacing random notes. Now that we have a new generation of phrases, we can apply selection using an operation ______ a fitness ________. Just as biological fitness is determined by external environmental pressures, our fitness function can be determined by an ________ melody chosen by _____ musicians, or music fans, to represent the ultimate beautiful melody. The algorithm can then compare between our musical phrases and that _________ melody, and select only the phrases that are most similar to it. Once the least similar _________ are weeded out, the algorithm can _______ mutation and recombination to what's left, select the most similar, or fitted ones, again from the new __________, 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 _________ in the _______, 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 ______ from the ___________, 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 ______ 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 _______ down your spine, does it really matter who or what _______ it?

Solution

outcome
process
evolution
sequences
track
external
reapply
making
listening
artistic
called
fraction
thought
shivers
function
grappling
generation
programmer
human
aesthetic
algorithm
coming
intelligence
wrote
programmed
place
beautiful
change
biological
question
based
programmers
created
creative
combining
machine

Original Text

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?

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation	frequency
lovelace test	2
fitness function	2

Important Words

acts
ada
aesthetic
algorithm
algorithmic
algorithms
answers
apply
approach
art
artifcial
artificial
artistic
awareness
based
basic
beautiful
biological
blow
built
call
called
case
change
chaos
chaotic
chosen
code
combining
coming
compare
complex
complexity
composer
computer
considered
countless
create
created
creating
creation
creative
creativity
design
designers
determined
developed
distinguish
dynamos
english
environmental
evolution
evolutionary
experiences
experiment
explain
external
extremely
fair
fans
feel
find
fitness
fitted
form
formalized
fraction
function
functions
fuzzy
generate
generation
generations
generators
genetic
glance
grappling
happen
heard
heart
high
human
humans
idea
ideas
importantly
impossible
initial
initiatives
intelligence
intelligent
intention
intentionally
interconnected
intuition
jury
lady
lead
learned
left
listening
lives
logic
long
lovelace
machine
machines
making
mathematician
matter
melodies
melody
mimic
mimics
mind
model
music
musical
musically
musicians
mutation
mutations
natural
neurons
notes
number
objective
operation
order
organisms
original
outcome
outcomes
paintings
parts
pass
people
phrases
piece
place
poetry
population
presence
pressures
process
processes
produce
programmed
programmer
programmers
promising
proposes
quality
question
random
randomness
reapply
recombination
repeat
replacing
represent
reproduction
require
result
robot
satisfy
scientific
scrutinizing
sculptures
select
selection
send
sequence
sequences
shape
shivers
similar
spine
start
step
switching
system
test
theoretically
thought
tiny
track
ultimate
understand
valuable
weeded
weep
worth
wrote
years
yield