Re: Creativity Machine Patented
Dan Clemmensen (Dan@Clemmensen.ShireNet.com)
Sun, 31 Aug 1997 18:03:44 -0400
Natasha V. More (fka Nancie Clark) wrote:
>
> I am absolutely delighted that finally, finally the acknowledgement
> "creativity" as an important component of our future is being recognized in
> more than one field.
> Dr Stephen Thaler's approach is a milestone in achieving strides in AI,
> however the article itself does make assumptions that are debatable.
>
> It is my view that in the future, near and far, that "creativity" will be
> understood and appreciated more than ever. This includes not only the
> psychological ramifications of creativity, but also the practical
> applications of creativity as being as vital in our thinking as intelligence
> is. The "Creativity Augmentum" in the 21st Century, as I see it, will
> certainly be worth investing in.
>
I don't think that technical creativity is a separate
quality from artistic creativity or any other kind of
creativity. I focus on technical creativity only because
I'm interested in its effects on technically-augmented
enhancement of intelligence.
My 14-year-old is just starting high school at Thomas
Jefferson High School of Science and Technology.
TJHSST is arguably the best high school in the country.
Interstingly, one of the major concerns that many students
have before deciding to go there is that they will be
required to be science nerds. A few of the students are
in fact science nerds, but the percentage of students
with strong interests and abilities in the arts appears
to be much higher than in other high schools, and the
students are encouraged to take courses and to participate.
Interestingly, if in fact a post-human SI evolves to the
point of being limited only by the laws of physics, then
esthetics and creativity will be the only remaining
determinates of the SI's actions. In effect, everything the
SI does will be art.