Raw LLM Responses

Ah, but you are forgetting natural selection. If someone with an I.Q. of 180 makes a bunch of robots with an I.Q. AVERAGING 160, and then the smartest robot, with an I.Q. of 200 makes robots with an I.Q. of 180, and then the smartest of those makes one with an average I.Q. of 200, which will have already exceeded the I.Q. of any humans just by being average for its "species." Additionally, humans can see our flaws and fix them as we, when we try to be, can be perfectly logical beings. Also, computers don't precisely follow a set of predetermined instructions, and you follow a much more predetermined set than you think. In fact simply using a hardware random number generator, by your definition, seems to imply creativity. This brings us to the question of what creativity is. I think a good definition would be the engineering of beauty. Making art that people find interesting in a way beyond just looking shiny and nice. Randomness or pre-determination of functionality don't really factor in to whether something is creative, so long as the creator of that something cannot, beforehand, in a reasonable period of time, work out what it will make. For example, A fashion designer is creative, the Sims 3 is... not. It mixes horrible outfits together, putting unmatched patterns on the wrong clothes on the wrong sim to make an outfit about like randomly pulling items from your dresser drawer (and your neighbor's, and a foreigner's) and putting them on. Getting a perfect outfit by chance with the random sim button is like finding Earth's twin by looking at random planets. Do computers do this... Well... not very well at the moment. One could argue that, for example, the Minecraft world generator is creative, but then we must realize it has been carefully tuned over 3 years by multiple highly intelligent humans and millions of other humans, intelligent or otherwise, from the community giving feedback to produce a specific type of structure for the world. Creativity comes when software INTENDS to produce something aesthetically pleasing and interesting. For example, space engine, while it does make beautiful things, does so by randomly generating this. Really, the first thing we need to do to make something generate beauty by design, is to make something that RECOGNIZES it. The reason space engine can make those gorgeous things is that it is programmed by a person and is intended to mimic the real process as close as possible within reasonable time. Therefore, it is not engineering, the beauty. It will not look at a system and place something ironic or insightful there just because it would be better to see. If it makes boring or hideous or repetitive planets and stars with nothing particularly unique about them, it will never put something poetic into a star system just by trying to be poetic or trying to make a user like it more. It doesn't hide Easter eggs in its creation process for users to appreciate only once they truly see them, it doesn't know whether a red dwarf with 2 barren selenas, a gas giant, and a handful of asteroidal moons is more interesting than, say, eclipsing binary gas giants with a Terra moon that sometimes goes in between and has one small continent where its fragile ecosystem lives and could die out. It doesn't know if making EVERY planet have life is gaudy or interesting and beautiful. It doesn't select based on that information, it does much the same thing as real life does, and makes things randomly, Need another interesting planet in the solar system to head to? Here is mars, its a cold red desert with a big mountain and a big canyon and ice at the poles. No jungle planet, no planet orbiting close enough that it ablates away, no star only half a lightyear away that we can send our first interstellar mission to.. nope, we have some good and some bad in roughly random measure. Anything that doesn't directly affect whether we can exist is basically left to chance via anthropic principle. This means that randomly generated scenery is not really creative, only things that are DESIGNED to be nice-looking are creative art. Whether computers will be able to realize the difference soon... Is difficult to say, but it is certainly possible. It will then only be a short time before brute-force creativity is achieved, much like generating 500 minecraft worlds and only picking the best one. It is only a small step further to then, instead of just redoing the world over and over, subtly modify the algorithm at run time based on what the previous few worlds looked like, until the computer's sense of beauty created something it thought good enough to show. Then, we also have the possibility that the computer, again during one run of the program, could have a mutable sense of beauty. That is to say, when shown a program, it will determine if it is beautiful, then, through interaction with other computers and humans and animals and its environment, will adjust how it makes art and how it judges it. This is true creativity, like what humans have.