I read an interesting article this morning that questions the very notion of a human soul or spirit, especially when it comes to human creativity and mechanical intelligence. It was basically about David Cope's software that creates beautiful music. But really, after reading about the extensive amount of work and passion that Cope engendered to devise his 'Emily Howell' program, I would have to argue that even though the music appears to be composed by the machine (through random combination's), surely the fact that Cope's had so much involvement in making that occur must mean that he is the composer and the music his to claim? The program and the resulting music would not exist without the programmer. However, having said this, because he programmed Emily with intricate combination's from the creative genius of Johann Sebastian Bach, might the resulting music be perceived instead as a collaboration between Cope, Bach & Emily?
In Cope's view, and I quote: all music — and, really, any creative pursuit — is largely based on previously created works. Call it standing on the shoulders of giants; call it plagiarism. Everything we create is just a product of recombination.
I agree that we are indeed inspired by the works of others and take from them to some extent, and it is in this very particular recombination or re-making, after the fact that creativity is revealed. So, having said this, am I now saying that since the mechanical intelligence, called Emily is responsible for this recombination, she is the composer? Perhaps, rather than make this a we human, versus 'machine' debate in which the human is almost always going to win because we feel naturally drawn to our own species and perceive it as superior, that we could say instead, that human and non human alliances are producing creative outcomes not previously seen or heard.
In Cope's view, and I quote: all music — and, really, any creative pursuit — is largely based on previously created works. Call it standing on the shoulders of giants; call it plagiarism. Everything we create is just a product of recombination.
I agree that we are indeed inspired by the works of others and take from them to some extent, and it is in this very particular recombination or re-making, after the fact that creativity is revealed. So, having said this, am I now saying that since the mechanical intelligence, called Emily is responsible for this recombination, she is the composer? Perhaps, rather than make this a we human, versus 'machine' debate in which the human is almost always going to win because we feel naturally drawn to our own species and perceive it as superior, that we could say instead, that human and non human alliances are producing creative outcomes not previously seen or heard.
Well you know I have often criticized the view that somehow we are in a coalition with machines. Do cars drive people? If you stand back and look at the car/driver combination it is easy to imagine accelerator pressing on foot, steering wheel turning hands, car driving body. You could say that a car is driving a body, but not with accuracy, not with sincerity, not justly, not reasonably :)
ReplyDeleteWell, machines have no self interest so I guess in that sense 'they' are not in coalition with our enterprises, but I was primarily interested in thinking about ways 'we' think about machines - that we are invariably threatened by their existence, even though we have always made and used them to our advantage, and in doing so we have formed not only a dependency and reliance upon them, but would find it difficult to be totally without them. My emphasis was on the word 'alliance', which generally means friendship to advance common goals, but I suppose, even in this sense a machine cannot be seen to have a common goal unless it is pre-programmed into its system. Alliance here (in the sense that I used it in my post), was intended to solicit a recognition of the machinic in ourselves and things not like us.
ReplyDeleteWas addressing the breathless article; the idea of a creative machine, that "the software had somehow captured Bach’s spirit". Kirsty Beilharz and her peers have a much more sophisticated approach to the same potentials (she calls it sonification) offered by that kind of tech.
ReplyDeleteBach's spirit - I wonder what is meant by that? The ability of the music to 'touch' or affect human emotion?
ReplyDeleteI read it as a ghost-in-the-machine kind of thing - more science fiction :)
ReplyDeleteReally?! I thought the writer was arguing that the spirit - energy was conveyed just as well through mechanical means as it was by Bach's complicated compositions - either way, I wouldn't give a damn what/who had created the composition as long as I was moved or excited by the music :)
ReplyDeleteBut authorship matters to those who understand texts in terms of an author's intentions. Labelling the machine a composer might fulfil some longing for everything that is made to have some well defined place in a symbolic order of things?
ReplyDeleteI agree and machines cannot 'intend' towards anything. I love the way we almost always get back to defining in some way what is human.
ReplyDelete