Could you call an AI meta-meta-designer creative?
It would work out what things can be designed, then define the rules to design them.
It would work out what things can be designed, then define the rules to design them.
Exploring a meta-rule space and finding rule sets that create results that humans find interesting is much harder.
If you skip that you tend to create systems that seem too random, or too repetitive and obvious.
This is why most algorithmic art is so uninteresting. It falls on one side or the other of the randomness/repetition valley, without hitting that sweet spot that the best human creativity finds.
That's not even thinking about emotional associations, intellectual abstractions, social awareness, and models-of-mind. You might need all of them to make a genius-level creative AI, but I'd guess that the more you have, the more likely you are to get something worth keeping.
Truly autonomous behavior is out of reach of our reasoning systems, using most known approaches to AI. But if you put a human in charge of the creative part, and complement it with the automation capabilities that simplify the repetitive parts, the result is a win-win match combining the strengths of both.
Fascinating stuff!
> That's not even thinking about emotional associations, intellectual abstractions, social awareness, and models-of-mind. You might need all of them to make a genius-level creative AI, but I'd guess that the more you have, the more likely you are to get something worth keeping.
I don't agree. I find all of those things boring in art. Mathematics and computer science are much more interesting when you think about how it relates to the mind, and why people may choose to create abstract art instead of metaphorically painting themselves naked.