Do you think one day a computer could write the greatest novel ever?

[kenikki]

I don't, do you?

Artificial intelligence would never override the power of the human mind and emotion.

what do you think?

[Nossa]

I totally agree. What makes a novel or a literary work great is the motional involvement of the author, it's what makes it real, what makes it..well a novel or a play or whatever. Any machine would NEVER know the human nature the way Shakespeare knew it...it would NEVER talk about love the way Donne did...it'll never know what's meant by love of God and faith like Herbert did...and would NEVER make you bored to death the way Jonson make me..lol...it just can't!

[Tuesday]

Pretty interesting question. As far as I know, there is a concept called Singularity that basically states that someday man will create a machine so intelligent that it will be able to create yet another machine that is still more intelligent and so on. It's like an explosion of knowledge or intelligence.

I'm not sure if this would be also applicable on the level of art, though. And even if, I don't think something as "the greatest novel" can exist, anyway. I do think, though, that given enough information, a computer might emulate a certain style pretty good. Sure, it wouldn't be genuine, but that wouldn't matter. A computer doesn't know what pain feels like, but if you give it enough information on it, it could probably produce a pretty good description of it.

[Nossa]

A computer doesn't know what pain feels like, but if you give it enough information on it, it could probably produce a pretty good description of it.

But it'll be more like opening Wikipedia or your dictionary to look for a definition..it's lifeless! ya know

[Tuesday]

But it'll be more like opening Wikipedia or your dictionary to look for a definition..it's lifeless! ya know

Sure, that's what I mean. A computer can never really genuinely experience anything. But then again, there's nothing much today that you might write about that's actually new. I think it might be theoretically possible to make an equation that tells you how to write a love story. Just take character X and character Y, make them feel A and B and so on. Of course what I'm showing is really simple. But just imagine what would be possible if you had a computer that could handle thousands of those factors. I guess you wouldn't be able to discern it from something that a human wrote.

However, I guess all a computer would be ever able to do is retelling these stories, how infinitely varied they may be. And since I believe there are still things we don't know and we have yet to discover, I don't think that a computer will ever be able to outwrite man or woman ;)

[kenikki]

Stories are the selection and arrangement of words. A computer can do that with formulas. A person can do that with experience, ideology, education and emotion. However, we can sense something that is artificial and something a person has written. We all have stories within us and it is only the choices of words and structure that make it original. Each writer has his own style. Orwell writing about politics is way different from Marx.

[Nossa]

Sure, that's what I mean. A computer can never really genuinely experience anything. But then again, there's nothing much today that you might write about that's actually new. I think it might be theoretically possible to make an equation that tells you how to write a love story. Just take character X and character Y, make them feel A and B and so on. Of course what I'm showing is really simple. But just imagine what would be possible if you had a computer that could handle thousands of those factors. I guess you wouldn't be able to discern it from something that a human wrote.

However, I guess all a computer would be ever able to do is retelling these stories, how infinitely varied they may be. And since I believe there are still things we don't know and we have yet to discover, I don't think that a computer will ever be able to outwrite man or woman ;)

I miss understood your point of view..lol..my bad!!:blush:

[Turk]

Sure it can. As far as it's programmed to write a "post-modern" novel.

[Nossa]

Stories are the selection and arrangement of words. A computer can do that with formulas. A person can do that with experience, ideology, education and emotion. However, we can sense something that is artificial and something a person has written. We all have stories within us and it is only the choices of words and structure that make it original. Each writer has his own style. Orwell writing about politics is way different from Marx.

I totally agree..again..lol
I think this is what makes authors different..experience and emotions, or else we can read one novel or one play and that's it..since it's all artificial it's all gonna be the same..we'll be only running in circles if we read all of them.

[kenikki]

Sure it can. As far as it's programmed to write a "post-modern" novel.
:crash:
how do we know that the greatest novel is post-modern?
People cite Shakespeare as the greatest writer of all time because his work transcends years and genres and is about the human condition. His work is hundreds of years old and is in a completely diverse language to ours.
Who knows what the greatest novel would include?

[Tuesday]

Each writer has his own style. Orwell writing about politics is way different from Marx.

I totally agree. In the Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory there is a nice entry on style that includes a great quote that goes along the lines of "Style defies complete analysis. It is something as unique as the voice of a person, his fingerprint or his handwriting."

[Turk]

Think careful, it's funny.

[kenikki]

A computer does not have its own style other than the one that a PERSON has given it.

[JBI]

The one thing every computer programmer (like me) knows is the machine only does what you tell it to. The thing is a stupid box, and doesn't know the first thing about anything. The computer has no mind to create, only to display and calculate. Therefore I doubt that computers will ever replace human beings for art.

[Nossa]

The one thing every computer programmer (like me) knows is the machine only does what you tell it to. The thing is a stupid box, and doesn't know the first thing about anything. The computer has no mind to create, only to display and calculate. Therefore I doubt that computers will ever replace human beings for art.

Well said:)

[kenikki]

The one thing every computer programmer (like me) knows is the machine only does what you tell it to. The thing is a stupid box, and doesn't know the first thing about anything. The computer has no mind to create, only to display and calculate. Therefore I doubt that computers will ever replace human beings for art.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, JBI. Damn. :argue: :lol:

[Virgil]

This is a very interesting question. I agree with the statements below:


I totally agree. What makes a novel or a literary work great is the motional involvement of the author, it's what makes it real, what makes it..well a novel or a play or whatever. Any machine would NEVER know the human nature the way Shakespeare knew it...it would NEVER talk about love the way Donne did...it'll never know what's meant by love of God and faith like Herbert did...and would NEVER make you bored to death the way Jonson make me..lol...it just can't!


A computer can never really genuinely experience anything.


A computer cannot experience anything and the novel is the art of telling experience.

[stlukesguild]

Questions of this nature have been around for ages. Would it not be possible, it was asked, that a machine (with its near infinite ability to explore patterns) programmed with all the various notes audible to the human ear would be able to one day compose a work of music surpassing that of any creation of Bach or Mozart? By the same token, might it not be possible that a machine programmed with the whole of the known alphabets and/dictionaries and their acceptable combinations might surpass the greatest works of Shakespeare? personally, I have no illusions that such will ever be possible for the very fact that a work of art is not merely a pleasing arrangement of forms, notes, or words. These words are the result of the artist's attempt at conveying a experience (be it a feeling, sensation, thought, etc...)... an attempt at communication and an attempt at "meaning". The mere arrangement of forms, notes and words into a pleasing construct involves nothing but logic and pattern (even if the pattern is random). The work of art involves great leaps of logic... and even the illogical. It is an invention of something original in an attempt to convey human experience (which is new for each individual human being) rather than a mere reorganization or arrangement of the formal elements of language or sound.

[Thatch]

The one thing every computer programmer (like me) knows is the machine only does what you tell it to. The thing is a stupid box, and doesn't know the first thing about anything. The computer has no mind to create, only to display and calculate. Therefore I doubt that computers will ever replace human beings for art.
Very true, but look at chess. Why does a computer play chess well? The computer can't play chess well if it wasn't for the programmer giving it "the book". Basically, chess has been documented so well during the past 150 years that all chess has become, in playing against computers, is that we are playing ourselves!

So, the question is not if computers can write a great novel, but how the programmer can go about it to achieve this neat trick. Obviously, given enough time and effort man has always gone where no other creature has gone before.

It's only taken about 150 years of documentation to achieve a strong computer chess player. How long will it take before we find out through ourselves what really moves us and be able to express that in a formula?

Personally I don't care if a computer ever writes a great novel. All it can ever be, IMHO, is a mimic of the greats before us in the same way that a computer chess player can only play well because of the analysis of true chess players who've played throughout the past centuries.
Who knows! ;)

[Taliesin]

Out of blue, this topic reminded us that Vahur Afanasjev somewhere wrote a novel from 36th century which, in its full length was this:
“000101000101010010010010010001.”

[ElissaDido]

Originally posted by stlukesguild

Questions of this nature have been around for ages. Would it not be possible, it was asked, that a machine (with its near infinite ability to explore patterns) programmed with all the various notes audible to the human ear would be able to one day compose a work of music surpassing that of any creation of Bach or Mozart? By the same token, might it not be possible that a machine programmed with the whole of the known alphabets and/dictionaries and their acceptable combinations might surpass the greatest works of Shakespeare? personally, I have no illusions that such will ever be possible for the very fact that a work of art is not merely a pleasing arrangement of forms, notes, or words. These words are the result of the artist's attempt at conveying a experience (be it a feeling, sensation, thought, etc...)... an attempt at communication and an attempt at "meaning". The mere arrangement of forms, notes and words into a pleasing construct involves nothing but logic and pattern (even if the pattern is random). The work of art involves great leaps of logic... and even the illogical. It is an invention of something original in an attempt to convey human experience (which is new for each individual human being) rather than a mere reorganization or arrangement of the formal elements of language or sound.

Amen to that.


Originally posted by Thatch
Very true, but look at chess. Why does a computer play chess well? The computer can't play chess well if it wasn't for the programmer giving it "the book". Basically, chess has been documented so well during the past 150 years that all chess has become, in playing against computers, is that we are playing ourselves!

So, the question is not if computers can write a great novel, but how the programmer can go about it to achieve this neat trick. Obviously, given enough time and effort man has always gone where no other creature has gone before.

It's only taken about 150 years of documentation to achieve a strong computer chess player. How long will it take before we find out through ourselves what really moves us and be able to express that in a formula?

Personally I don't care if a computer ever writes a great novel. All it can ever be, IMHO, is a mimic of the greats before us in the same way that a computer chess player can only play well because of the analysis of true chess players who've played throughout the past centuries.
Who knows!

Well... imo, chess uses logic. And writing novels take something more than sheer logic as the others have said. It often takes emotions and experiences... not merely how the moves are to be executed. So it isn't really a good comparison.

[Thatch]

Well... imo, chess uses logic. And writing novels take something more than sheer logic as the others have said. It often takes emotions and experiences... not merely how the moves are to be executed. So it isn't really a good comparison.

Absolutely! But my comparison was to show that chess could be dominated in approximately 150 years. Who knows how long it may take to conquer the emotions and to pin point how they develop. I'm not talking about just making a database of what we have, but how to manipulate that database based on our emotions to produce an effect. The "how" is up to the programmer, a person.

A computer program is logical as far as the execution of the program goes, but that doesn't mean that a progam will be logical in itself since it is written by a person. A program can take into account as many variables as you like, and based on how those variables interact the programmer can program the computer to do what he/she wants it to do. As I said, it'll be a neat trick but I believe it can be done.

And on another note, computers can't even play Fischer Random chess all that well, yet it is still chess based on logic. Why? Because FRC is still in its infancy and the computer has no "book" to follow. The only position that the computer has an edge on is position #518, and that's our standard chess position. The amount of compilation/analysis needed for a computer to play FRC well is 960 times what it is now, unless someone finds a shortcut. :)

[barbara0207]

As far as I remember, in Huxley's "Brave New World" novels and film scripts are written by or with the help of computers. It works just because the only "literature" that is allowed in that state is shallow entertainment to keep people satisfied and to keep them from deep thoughts. (Btw, many TV scripts today seem to be written that way ... :D )

I think that level is the only one that can ever be achieved by a computer - on the grounds of machines lacking deep thoughts, emotions and creativity, as many of you mentioned before.

[Annamariah]

Roald Dahl wrote an interesting short story about a machine that could write great books. It's called "The Great Automatic Grammatizator" and it was published in a short story collection "Someone Like You". I think it's really worth reading :)

[kathycf]

Asimov wrote a short novella called The Bicentennial Man in which a robot displays sentience and pursues creative endeavors. Not writing so much but sculpture. Science fiction, perhaps, but who knows what may happen 200 or 300 years from now? If you had asked someone in the year 1922 would it be possible to sit in front of a machine and connect with people all across the world, I am sure he or she would probably have laughed at you.

I think the key part of the robot's creativity was the fact that he was sentient.

[Geoff Shipley]

In a sense it already has! Im not about to argue as to which one because im speaking of the human brain. Quite the machine! In the grand scheme of things the closest element to carbon based life is silicone based (computer chips) My chem teacher tries to make me pay attention by relating everything to science fiction. I guess it worked this time atleast.

In terms of computers though maybe someday, but 'the greatest' will always be a relative term. Someday when robots are consumers maybe they will invest in comp-lit. And maybe we'll dable in it if we get curious enough as to what exactly the "robot condition" is. My science fiction tangent has actually reminded me of a book i have to finish. "A Choice of Gods" by Clifford D. Simak. The amiable acetic robot's search for a soul. And i think that is exactly why machines will never write the greatest work(atleast in our eyes) The soul(choose any deffinition you like) seems to be vital for the sake of art.

[Walter]

I'll be the troglodyte here -- if there are none others already -- to suggest that this is a tired old question.

Take out the notion of "best" and ask if a computer might ever write a novel.
Or instead of "best," consider whether a computer might write a novel that is "good enough," or a novel that is "satisfactory."

I'm here to suggest that the answer to all those questions is "yes!" Unequivocally!

Ask not whether the pile of unthinking unfeeling silicon is actually playing "real" chess; ask if it can conquer the World Champion -- and without thinking, at that.
I'm sure everyone here knows the answer to that question.
To those who say "but it is only trying all the moves," I say "so what!"

If you want a tough game of chess, try a computer.
If you want an enjoyable reading experience, try a computer (someday).

[Walter]

And BTW, don't you think that, no matter what capability level is achieved by computers, "man" will always find a particular way to describe himself as superior? Or do you actually fear that he may not be superior, and that is what all this discussion is about?

[BroadwayBaby]

no, I think too much of the author goes into what they write, emotion and such, it all goes into the novel, it's more than a computer could do...

[Mortis Anarchy]

No. And I hope it never happens.

[Walter]

Well, hope that it may never happen. But it has already been tried in a rudimentary sense, some time ago, in Just this Once by Scott French. Here's a review, mine, that you may find interesting:

The degree of your enjoyment in reading Just This Once will depend entirely upon the perspective and expectations that you yourself bring to the reading. Because, you see, the book was written by a computer, and you might well wonder just how much talent a computer can possibly have for writing an enjoyable story. The author (and programmer), Scott French, explains:

"I spent nearly eight years and $50,000 of my own money studying computational linguistics, natural language programming, Artificial Intelligence to program the best Expert System on the market to think and write like Jacqueline Susann."

And, according to the front flap, he also input two Jacqueline Susann novels for a data base. In a highly sophisticated form, elegant pastiche might be words that come to mind for the result. However, French claims:

"Just this Once is not a rehash of another book. It is the novel Jacqueline Susann would write if she were alive today" [1993].

Warming to its task, the computer begins the first chapter, "The Doll House", by telling us:

"Silent vibrations of power emanated from the four men who occupied the plush velvet chairs surrounding the antique cherry wood table supposed to have once been owned by Napoleon.
Actually, the chances were good that this meeting was more than the result of an idle rumor. Nick Salerio was a man with a flair for class."

In the next section of the book, "In the Beginning," we meet Carol:

"It was a normal summer day. The mercury was stuck at 106 degrees in the non-existent shade. The sudden air-conditioned atmosphere inside the building struck her like a small hurricane, almost knocking her off her feet with the unexpected man-made wind, both the artificial coldness and the indoor acres of of brilliant gold and black furnishings grabbing her senses unexpectedly.
Somehow she made her way to the cage. The girl inside smiled and said 'Can I help you?' "

Later, in the "Hollywood" section:

"Lisa glanced at the brightly lit "recording" sign in the hall of S&L Records, kicked the soundproof wall and threw the door to the control room open. A surge of raw 110-decibel sound struck her with the force of a breaking wave.
'Hey!' The sound engineer leapt to his feet and started across the room to intercept her. 'You can't come in --' He stopped in his tracks as recognition set in. 'Oh, uh, oh, it's you, uh, Miss ...' The man was stuttering.

Finally, for a technical flourish 300 pages later, the story closes with a cliff-hanger ending that leads to the title for the book,

"I deserve it. I deserve some enjoyment in my life. I deserve feeling like this."

The story is set in show business, behind the scenes in a casino in Las Vegas, and in a Hollywood recording studio, It has a plot, and events, and characters, and they interact. There are love, and death, and suspense, all described in a style which, naturally, is quite reminiscent of Jacqueline Susann. What more can one want from a computer? Even with some coaching from its programmer?

It would be unfair of course to expect the computer to surpass the genuine Jacqueline Susann, writing Valley of the Dolls. On the other hand, when one imagines a computer starting up and facing a blank sheet of paper, I think it is fair to call the book a quite creditable job, and in a first attempt at that! I enjoyed the story and was left quite bemused by the fact of its having come out of a computer. It's a strange feeling!

So, if you see a copy of the book at a price comparable to your own level of expectation, then I suspect that you too may be as pleasantly surprised as I was. If, however, you want the genuine article, then of course you should simply read Valley of the Dolls. I enjoyed that too.

[ozbey]

I don't think so.Human mind is unique.Because of this,only human mind could write the greatest novels.

[emmsi_*tobyrox*]

Noooooooooo! It could write a decent plot, perhaps using a random generator or something, but it would be INCAPABLE of emotion!!!

[Walter]

I have no particular vested interest in being right or wrong. Only time will tell. However, I have followed with some interest the progression whereby computers have successively surmounted one hurdle after another, accomplishing more and more difficult things that we have said they "couldn't do." I expect that trend will continue for quite some time yet. I think the day will yet arrive where we will not be able to tell whether particular novels have been written by computer or by humans. They may not be the world's greatest novels, just as not all human novels are the world's greatest, yet we read them, but they will be the beginning of the trend -- all provided, of course, that there is a need or market motivation for such a trend.
If I were a betting man, that is the side I would be betting on.

[plainjane]

Noooooooooo! It could write a decent plot, perhaps using a random generator or something, but it would be INCAPABLE of emotion!!!


Perhaps like some people, incapable of emotion, but capable of simulating emotion?

Very interesting premise Walter, I have to agree that it is feasible. And interesting.

[Walter]

.. . . but capable of simulating emotion?

PlainJane
There, exactly there, I think you have your finger on the nub of the matter. Computers by their own processes may produce results which are ordinarily viewed as the result of thinking when they are produced by humans. Does that mean the computer is thinking? Not necessarily, it may merely be emulating the results of human thinking. So one can rapidly get involved in complicated issues of how one defines "thinking" in the first place.

Let's take a simple example.
Computers are good at adding numbers, and can easily add a sum of ten numbers. it is one of the things they are really good at!
People are taught early to also add a sum of ten numbers.

So let's agree that the computer is not thinking when it does it.
I ask, is the human being "thinking" when he is adding the same ten numbers?

One might say yes, by simply saying that any human brain process is "thinking," while any computer process is "not thinking." And I would have no particular complaint with that, if we all agreed to use the same terminology in a conversation. We might rapidly conclude that computers never ever think, and never will. But still they might write novels.

Let's turn it around.
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, we concede that adding ten numbers is not really much in the way of thinking, because we do it largely by rote and without much thought, and perhaps the computer does the same.

Well then I ask, of all the mental process we actually do do in our day, how many are truly "thinking?" In the sense that the computer cannot emulate the same thing.

One is in deep water when one tries to define the meaning of thinking (and, not so incidentally, the meaning of meaning).

So, yes, I believe computers will emulate, or simulate, ever greater areas of what we call human thinking. Including writing novels. But perhaps never the greatest --- but, also, who will be able to tell?

[Aiculík]

Greatest novel ever, no, I don't think so.

But it could write some novel. Like, e.g. "novels" from "red library" - you know, those silly super romantic love stories... They are all written by simple pattern - one of the two is cold, refusing, and blonde and the other kind, passionate and dark (in those pretending to be "inteligent" reading, this may be switched :)). One is rich and successful and the other less so or even not at all. Etc., etc., etc. I think that computer could be able to write such novel, or even be better at it.

But novels like Foucalt's Pendulum, One Hundred Years of Loneliness or Crime and Punishment? No. Never.

[Walter]

I think it unwise to sell computer capabilities as short as that.

[Walter]

For those who are unfamiliar with the Turing Competition, the following link might make interesting reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

[Lioness_Heart]

I guess technically, a program could be created where the computer generates random words, and eventually, after it's been run MANY times, 'the greatest novel ever' may have been produced

But that would take many billions of runnings of the program, just to get to something that makes sense.

Although if you count the greatest book as being one with lots of sales, I'm sure loads of people would buy a book written by a computer, just for novelty value.

But seriously... no way

What makes literature so special is the way that it explores what it is to be human... and how could a machine create that?

[Walter]

But that would take many billions of runnings of the program, just to get to something that makes sense.

That is not the way computers play chess, even though many people think so. That is not the way the computers do anything non-trivial. The numbers involved are way too large for even large computers. They proceed "smarter" than that, in general, when solving large problems.

[Walter]

I hope not to bore, but that post above by PlainJane, about simulating emotion, has sparked a string of free associations.

Would a computer have to be able to ride a horse to write a Western?

Would a computer have to be able to shoot a gun to write a detective story?

Would a computer have to be able to fall in love to write a love story?

Would a computer have to have a soul . . . .

But, you get the idea.

[plainjane]

For those who are unfamiliar with the Turing Competition, the following link might make interesting reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

Great article Walter, thanks for posting. I had not heard of it, and particularly enjoyed the section on "Objections and Replies". Very perceptive.

Here is an interesting link... http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/comphis.htm and an exerpt from it towards the end, in case some don't have the inclination to scroll to the near bottom.

In 1994 Kasparov lost to Fritz 3 in Munich in a blitz tournament. The program also defeated Anand, Short, Gelfand, and Kramnik. Grandmaster Robert Huebner refused to play it and lost on forfeit, the first time a GM has forfeited to a computer. Kasparov played a second match with Fritz 3, and won with 4 wins, 2 draws, and no losses.


and even I have heard of Deep Blue...

In February 1996, Garry Kasparov beat IBM's DEEP BLUE chess computer 4-2 in Philadelphia. Deep Blue won the first game, becoming the first computer ever to beat a world chess champion at tournament level under serious tournament conditions. Deep Blue was calculating 50 billion positions every 3 minutes. Kasparov was calculating 10 positions every 3 minutes. DEEP BLUE had 200 processors.
Actually Deep Blue was the reason I found this link, I remembered that much. :D

[Walter]

Great summary of the situation, PlainJane!
That is about as I remember it: Computer wreaks havoc among Grand Masters. :) And those are famous names! Needless to say my computer completely flattens me when I play it. I'd rather read novels written by the machine, if it could. :)

[Enchanted]

I totally agree with the premise that a computer would not be able to emulate human emotion

but, as someone has already stated before, I think a mutual companionship between a programmed computer and a talented author could make literary history! I say this because the random plots that a computer can generate would be immensely valuable. In the study of literature, we learn that there are a series of classic archetypical plots...and all novels basically repeat that plot skeleton. With that...the apparent "randomness" of a computer might be exactly the spark needed to create a unique plotline, and after being patched up by a talented author...it would be awesome!

That said, it is the "patching up by an author" part that worries me...I think even if the computer produces something brilliantly arbitrary yet with immense potential...it is the revisioning and the filtering by the author that will inevitably mould it into one of the human archetypical plots. So truthfully, though this companionship may be able to bring out a "great novel"...the "uniqueness" of the novel may still be questioned.

[Walter]

Do you mean emulate human emotions within itself; or produce sentences on a page which have indicators of emotional content; or produce sentences on a page which induce emotional response in the reader?

[applepie]

I think computers may one day write books, but great ones??? I don't think they will be considered great literature. There is no way that a computer can put the emotion that a true writer does into their work. They could use a computer to simulate passion, but I think it would always come off feeling like what it is... an imitation.