[1] An exchange between a philosopher and a computer musician.
This is a response to Humans in the Loop by Ge Wang, and
Experimental Creative Writing with the Vectorized Word by
Allison Parrish
I will be responding to the conversation of human-mediated
algorithmic design as discussed in the essay,
Humans in the Loop by Ge Wang, and video
Experimental Creative Writing with the Vectorized Word by
Allison Parrish
The image above is from Artful Design, and is the basis
for the essay Humans in the Loop by Ge Wang. The pinnacle
of discussion in Music 256A at the Center for Computer Research
in Computer Music (CCRMA – pronounced “karma”) at Stanford
University is the balance between technological intelligence and
human agency in the domain of creativity and design. The
essay Humans in the Loop discusses two types of
artificial intelligence:
The former refers to the concept of designing a “perfect”
algorithm so one only needs to press a big red button to
automate the complete and absolute execution of a task. The
latter refers to a continuous cycle of execution and feedback
where AI is a tool which extends our own human agency. Such is
the case in Alison Parish’s vectorized creative writing. Parish
uses an algorithm which places the phonetics of words into a
vector space and creates literary pieces based on
human-generated expressions which manipulate words based on
their defined vector. However, both the essay and the video
failed to touch on a rather important aspect of both full
automation and designing with a human in the loop: what
initiates the need or desire for design in the
first place – the human or the algorithm? I liken this dilemma
to that of potential, kinetic, and activation energy in the laws
of physics. An object of immense potential energy may forever
remain at rest if the proper activation energy is not
applied.
Earlier in Artful Design it was stated that the ability
to design grants us the power of a God. However, it was never
discussed what would persuade us to divinely create in the first
place – why start? I believe that the answer to this
question is the inherent curiosity of human nature. Therefore,
the concept of a big red button would never be fruitful for two
reasons. First, there would always have to be spontaneous human
desire to press the button, and there would have to be a
Theory of Mind[A] – unique to the
Human Condition – to initiate a design of such an
algorithm. In other words, the creation and implementation of
perfect and absolute algorithms for design CANNOT exist
in a vacuum. Instead, such algorithms extend our own creativity
and curiosity.