Lee Blake, an author of this fascinating treatise about evolution and creativity, and how each impact differently on our environment, posits artificial intelligence may slow down the extinction rate of species on Planet Earth if correctly used. Although it is human to make mistakes, collective effort and thought can lead to amazing results, even though they may be flawed. The algorithms we use to manipulate cyber devices every day can be used to help us get closer to perfection. RoboticsIf properly programmed, they can come up creative solutions that defy popular belief that creativity is a uniquely human trait. Those creatures that can best manipulate their environment and reduce the impact on other species. In our case, this means too often causing harm. Perhaps I’m a little slow, but I read this piece twice to fully grasp its value. Enjoy. This article was first published inFirstRand Perspectives. Chris Bateman
Creativity Series: Part 3: There is an algorithm for everything
By Lee Blake
Creativity is a dynamic concept
This series has shown that creativity has been seen as the result of individual geniuses whose cognitive abilities alone are responsible for creating the products they create. But it is far more than the mere making of things. Environments are key determinants of creativity. This has been specifically discussed. These determinants are what we call the outside-in view of creativity. This perspective not only allows us to unleash creativity, but also reveals that ideas are recognized and not created. We can also see that creativity is not just the result of evolution, but actually a reflection of that process.
This article will focus on creativity and evolution, which are actually similar processes that are primarily concerned in promoting change. Both creativity and evolution not only affect the species and cultures they are operating in, but also the environment in which they operate. The question is, then, how has our extraordinary ability to alter the environment put the whole world in danger? Is our error-prone creativity (to borrow Hegel’s phrase) perhaps a poor evolutionary strategy as well? Will artificial intelligence (AI), which can think for itself, be able to offer a solution, one of our most recent ideas?
Mind over matter
The main difference between creativity and evolution lies in the fact that evolution happens only in the word of matter, while creativity can occur in both mind and matter. Evolution, on the other hand is complex and surrounded by misperceptions and disputes. For example, it is believed that natural selection is responsible for progress towards an absolute and perfectly balanced state. It is important to remove any implication that premeditation might be involved. Evolution, unlike creativity, has no end goal. It is a blind, trial and error process that occurs in the moment.
They may differ in how they view a driving force but each relies on the simple concept of diversity. Evolutionary and cognitive theories, such as genetic variation or divergent thinking, are more appropriate for diversity. Divergent thinking is the recognition that there are many solutions. Genetic variation is the proliferation many different expressions one gene. The genetic variation process involves trial-and-error. Variations that show environmental fit survive and are deemed to be adaptations. Variations that don’t are considered adaptations.
These processes occur in different domains (mind, matter), but what separates creativity and evolution is the fact that human thinking shifts to what is called convergent thinking. This is basically a process that involves judging. Each solution is then rated and arranged according to their environmental fit. The most adaptable ideas to the environment are then chosen for implementation. So, convergent or divergent thinking is a type of filter process in which we only put into practice those ideas we believe are good or adaptable. Hegel states that it is in this handover, the transition from thinking to action, that we are doomed for error. This could be due a variety of factors, but most likely it is because we lack the brain power necessary to consider all factors in the environment (including species) that are constantly influencing and changing one another.
Adapting to the environment of the species
This last point opens up a whole new world of possibilities: Ideas don’t always adapt to existing formats. However, they may adapt the environment to accommodate the idea. David Byrne demonstrates this idea by using Richard Wagner as an example of a classical composer. Wagner is the individual who can transcend his environment. Wagner stands out from his peers by creating the Bayreuth Festival House (Bayreuth Festival House), a complex musically functional structure that featured many musically useful adaptations. He invented his own format rather than adapting a pre-existing one.
Wagner’s example offers us yet another perspective: perhaps creativity is more versatile then we thought. It can be both an inside and outside-in phenomenon. Realizing the limitations and deficiencies in the environment allows us to make changes that will be more beneficial to our needs. We can also create our own opportunities. This same phenomenon is also seen in evolution, as you may already know. Niche construction is the process by which organisms adapt to and make changes in their own niches or local environments. This is why a mouse digging a hole in the ground is just as niche-building as Wagner building the Bayreuth Festspielhaus.
Opportunities
Scientists believe that species which adjust their local environment to suit their needs also have an impact on local ecosystems and, consequently, the other species living there. Extreme examples such as agriculture, deforestation and climate change clearly show that humans have had a (detrimental!) impact on the global ecosystem more than any other organism. This seems like a poor evolutionary strategy at first glance.
Some argue that human niche construction is more than evolution because it demonstrates purpose or direction. It is creativity, in other words. This means that human niche construction/creativity values progress (or at least some idea of it) over diversity. Natural selection has produced a huge diversity of species that depend upon each other, but human progress has tended towards eliminating this diversity in order to self-select the best. Human-directed progress may fail because of Hegel’s observation, “To act is to err.”
What is a humanity that transcends creativity?
Hegel claimed that perfection was beyond us. It exists in our imaginations, the realm of gods, and maybe (if we’re lucky) computers. Although many believe creativity is beyond machines and therefore are falsely believing it, this is simply not true. As robots move out of laboratories and factories, they will have to adapt to new environments. This has already been happening since 2013, in actuality. A smart AI used trial-and-error to discover a solution for a robot that had broken its legs. It produced an out-of the-box solution where the robot’s feet needed 0% contact with ground. The algorithm suggested that the machine be able to walk upside down, on its elbows. It is quite amazing to see that AI may already be capable creatively and adapting.
1Odling-Smee, F.J., Laland, K.N. Feldman, M.W. Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution (No. 37). Princeton university press.
2Cully, A. and Clune, J., Tarapore. D & Moure. J.B. (2013) Robots are able to Adapt Like Animals
These examples show that it is only a matter if this long-held human phenomenon becomes fully automated and even perfected. This could be a sign that, contrary to what some scholars of human geography have criticized, we are getting closer to the perfect blend of science and technology. It was once thought that technology would only cause environmental destruction but may now be the key to a utopian society. While humans are still necessary components of this progress, AI allows for brute force computations of complex factors.
Is it possible for a society to exist where survival needs and environmental sustainability are balanced? Would it mean that we have to rely on machines to accomplish our creative tasks? This would be a huge price to pay as future generations will not have the opportunity to express their creativity and interact with the world. As things stand now, we could lose this ability or see the extinction of many other species, including our own.
3Ley, D. & Samuels M. (1979), Human Geography
Also, read:
(Visited 30 Times, 30 Visits Today)
