Rise of the Machines

As man races through technological advancements, moving further and further toward the kind of existence only envisioned in science fiction films, we, as a captivated audience, can only speculate on what this future may hold. With man creating machines that are ever more able to imitate and appear to take on human life, how long is it before they no longer need our input and are 'living' and acting creatively for themselves. Or is this out of our reach? Surely man must truly understand every facet of his own mind before successfully engineering that of another?

Man has now reached a level in the creation of artificial intelligence that it can now consider the applications of, say, a robot that thinks and acts for itself, even one that can program itself and possibly others. But it is still only consideration, the level of technology required for this to be a reality remains far from our reach. For now we have imitation; robotics acting through human programming and built to resemble us.



The capability of this female robot in imitating human movement and our outward characteristics may not quite stand up against the real thing, but in some cases, it can be enough to convince people that these robots are of an independent intelligence; arguably a prerequisite for creativity. Though obviously this is not the case, rather an example of complex animatronics and programming.

So what is it a machine needs in order to be creative of it's own freewill, in other words to program itself? Not speaking in any technical terms, it could be said that a machine requires a self-awareness, an ability for observation and curiosity; perhaps a certain element of personality? A man named Alan Turing (1912-1954), the founder of computer science, devised a simple but ingenius test in order to determine whether or not a machine held these abilities, and therefore the ability to think for itself. In order for the machine to be successful in proving its intelligence and pass the test it must be deceitful under interrogation, it must be creative! I have only touched on Turing's theories, but you can find out more here at Alan Turing's Homepage

No machine, as of yet, has passed the Turing test, so we can only wonder what great things will be achieved by computer scientists in the future. Will machines ever reach a level where they are effectively re-creating themselves, even bettering themselves for their own means? In popular culture, namely science fiction, we have enjoyed this notion in films such as The Terminator and literature such as I, Robot by Isaac Asimov. I say enjoy, but it seems we embrace these thoughts with a certain sense of trepidation; fearful that our own creations will turn against us! But I guess this is a possible eventuality that must be factored into the equation; would intelligent machines, as a collective 'species', necessitate such atrocities as war?

Creativity in the Animal Kingdom

It can be said that we, as humans, are the only truly intelligent species on the planet; in that we are the only example of a species that can intelligently question the nature of our own being. Is it then possible that we are also the only species capable of creativity? Can an animal use its intuition and knowledge to act in a creative manner, or is it simply an act of imitation?

The term 'imitation' is often clouded with the misconception that it implies a kind of thoughtless 'copying' , but in this case it is a far more complex subject area. There must be a conscious connection between the action and its consequence. There are countless examples in scientific experiments of imitation in the animal kingdom; ranging from animals such as budgerigars and rats, to chimps and orangutans.

Take for example this video of an elephant, one of the most intelligent animals on the planet, painting an image of what appears to be a graphic representation of another elephant;



I'm sure there are some who would like to think that the elephant has a conscious awareness of what it is doing, that it's aware it is producing a representation of its own image through freewill - behaviour that would have to fall under the definition of creative. But rationally speaking it appears as though, through a system of repitition and reward (such as you might employ with the teaching of a domestic animal), the elephant has been taught to imitate and carry out an action knowing it will be rewarded, most likely with food. The elephant is not acting creatively, merely following a path it knows to have a desired end result.

But what of animals who act independently of human interference, those who can appear to act creatively as a means for survival. The following clip shows, amongst other things, a chimpanzee utilising stones as a hammer and anvil in order to break the hard shell of a nut it wishes to eat.



A fascinating clip which serves to highlight the evolutionary link between humans and chimpanzees. The ability to be creative is what seperates us as humans from other living organisms; but what we see here is arguably an example of a species, outside of our own, using creative thought in a purposeful way. Is this example merely some form of imitation being put to use after a chance encounter or experience? I'm not sure. What I do know is it would only have taken the actions of one chimpanzee in order to make this 'creative' behaviour commonplace among its culture.