HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015823.jpg
1.38 MB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Book page / manuscript / evidence document
File Size:
1.38 MB
Summary
This document appears to be page 133 of a book or manuscript, marked as evidence with the stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015823. The text discusses the philosophy and mathematics of creativity and artificial intelligence, referencing Daniel Dennett's theories on idea generation versus assessment. It explores the computational difficulty of generating 'interesting' content (like a Leo Tolstoy novel or a Spike Milligan poem) through random processes or sequential counting.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Daniel Dennett | Philosopher/Cognitive Scientist |
Cited for his suggestion that the creative process is a two-part task: generating ideas and critically assessing them.
|
| Leo Tolstoy | Author |
Used as an example of a human with a brain process capable of creating 'something interesting' without generating ran...
|
| Spike Milligan | Comedian/Poet |
Mentioned as the author of a 23-word poem used as a hypothetical example for computer generation.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015823' at the bottom of the page.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"One suggestion put forward by Daniel Dennett is the creative process is a two-part task – generate ideas, then critically assess them."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015823.jpg
Quote #1
"Loop i++ until i == (Something Interesting), Print i"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015823.jpg
Quote #2
"Leo Tolstoy had a process in his brain that allowed him to create something interesting but I want to prove he did not do this by generating random junk and sifting through it."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015823.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,153 characters)
Knowledge
133
133
The Problem
One suggestion put forward by Daniel Dennett is the creative process
is a two-part task – generate ideas, then critically assess them. I can, in
principle, make a program write out every possible book less than 500,000
words long. Provided I don’t store the results this will not collapse the
Universe. This just leaves the problem of writing another program to
read all the output and ring a bell each time it finds some interesting
truth. This second program might be called an appreciation program.
Let’s examine this approach. I can write out a very simple program to do
this – provided I cheat and ignore the complexity of the term ‘something
interesting’. In plain English: Count up from one until I get an interesting
fact, write it down and stop.
One suggestion put forward by Daniel Dennett is the creative process
is a two-part task – generate ideas, then critically assess them. I can, in
principle, make a program write out every possible book less than 500,000
words long. Provided I don’t store the results this will not collapse the
Universe. This just leaves the problem of writing another program to
read all the output and ring a bell each time it finds some interesting
truth. This second program might be called an appreciation program.
Let’s examine this approach. I can write out a very simple program to do
this – provided I cheat and ignore the complexity of the term ‘something
interesting’. In plain English: Count up from one until I get an interesting
fact, write it down and stop.
Loop i++ until i == (Something Interesting), Print i
This generates two problems. We need to make a program that
can tell if something is interesting and it will need to be fast because it
is going to be handed a huge amount of junk. Clearly I have a process
running in my brain that can determine if something is interesting, but it
is quite slow. It takes me an appreciable time to open a book, leaf through
the pages and declare it either junk or interesting. Leo Tolstoy had a
process in his brain that allowed him to create something interesting but
I want to prove he did not do this by generating random junk and sifting
through it. Let’s look at the mathematics.
We know simply counting sequentially through every number
would take too much time, but why not generate random numbers and
run our critical eye over them? Surely this would give a faster result. Let
us try with a short poem. How hard would it be to come across something
as simple as a four-line poem using this technique?
This poem, by the late Spike Milligan, is only 23 words long,
including the title, and I have a powerful computer. Wouldn’t it be
possible to generate it using a computer? Unfortunately, no. We humans
don’t have a good head for large numbers and this problem is much
harder than it appears. Let’s use playing cards to get a feeling for large
numbers.
can tell if something is interesting and it will need to be fast because it
is going to be handed a huge amount of junk. Clearly I have a process
running in my brain that can determine if something is interesting, but it
is quite slow. It takes me an appreciable time to open a book, leaf through
the pages and declare it either junk or interesting. Leo Tolstoy had a
process in his brain that allowed him to create something interesting but
I want to prove he did not do this by generating random junk and sifting
through it. Let’s look at the mathematics.
We know simply counting sequentially through every number
would take too much time, but why not generate random numbers and
run our critical eye over them? Surely this would give a faster result. Let
us try with a short poem. How hard would it be to come across something
as simple as a four-line poem using this technique?
This poem, by the late Spike Milligan, is only 23 words long,
including the title, and I have a powerful computer. Wouldn’t it be
possible to generate it using a computer? Unfortunately, no. We humans
don’t have a good head for large numbers and this problem is much
harder than it appears. Let’s use playing cards to get a feeling for large
numbers.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015823
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document