deletions | additions
diff --git a/bibliography/biblio.bib b/bibliography/biblio.bib
index 127ea87..884ba2e 100644
--- a/bibliography/biblio.bib
+++ b/bibliography/biblio.bib
...
@book{bergson1983creative,
title={Creative evolution},
author={Bergson, Henri},
year={1911 [1907]},
publisher={Henry Holt and Company}
}
@article{milan2013kiki,
title={The {K}iki-{B}ouba effect: {A} case of personification and ideaesthesia},
author={Mil{\'a}n, E and Iborra, O and de Cordoba, MJ and Ju{\'a}rez-Ramos, V and Artacho, MA Rodr{\'\i}guez and Rubio, JL},
journal={Journal of Consciousness Studies},
volume={20},
number={1-2},
pages={84--102},
year={2013},
publisher={Imprint Academic}
}
@incollection{coinvent14,
author = {Marco Schorlemmer and Alan Smaill and Kai-Uwe K{\"u}hnberger and Oliver Kutz and Simon Colton and Emilios Cambouropoulos and Alison Pease},
title = {{COINVENT}: {T}owards a {C}omputational {C}oncept {I}nvention {T}heory},
OPTbooktitle = {Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC 2014)},
OPTbooktitle = {Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conf. on Computational Creativity (ICCC 2014)},
booktitle = {5th {I}nt. {C}onf. on {C}omputational {C}reativity},
editor = {},
year = {2014},
pages = {},
OPTmonth = {10/06/2014},
address = {Ljubljana, Slovenia}
}
@article{ritchie1984case,
title={{A}{M}: A case study in {A}{I} methodology},
author={Ritchie, Graeme D. and Hanna, F Keith},
journal={Artificial Intelligence},
volume={23},
number={3},
pages={249--268},
year={1984},
publisher={Elsevier}
}
@article{lenat1984and,
title={Why {A}{M} and {EURISKO} appear to work},
author={Lenat, D. and Brown, J.S.},
journal={Artificial intelligence},
volume={23},
number={3},
pages={269--294},
year={1984},
publisher={Elsevier}
}
@book{kohler1970gestalt,
title={Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology},
author={K{\"o}hler, Wolfgang},
year={1970},
publisher={WW Norton \& Company}
}
@article{winograd1972understanding,
title={Understanding natural language},
author={Winograd, Terry},
journal={Cognitive psychology},
volume={3},
number={1},
pages={1--191},
year={1972},
publisher={Elsevier}
}
@misc{poetry-workshop,
title={{C}omputational {P}oetry {W}orkshop: {M}aking {S}ense of {W}ork in {P}rogress},
author={J. Corneli and A. Jordanous and R. Shepperd and M. T. Llano and J. Misztal and S. Colton and C. Guckelsberger},
...
@book{gabriel2002writer,
Author = {Gabriel, Richard P},
Publisher = {Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.},
Title = {{W}riter's {W}orkshops and the {W}ork of {M}aking {T}hings: Poetry,
Patterns{\ldots}}, Patterns$\ldots$},
Year = {2002}}
@article{rowe1994creativity,
diff --git a/future-work.tex b/future-work.tex
index 35970d6..207a331 100644
--- a/future-work.tex
+++ b/future-work.tex
...
\subsection{Future Work} \label{sec:futurework}
\label{sec:hatching}
\subsubsection{``Hatching'' new designs: Which came first?} Merton
\cite{merton1948bearing} \citeyear{merton1948bearing} \cite[pp. 195--196]{merton} refers to a generalised ``serendipity pattern''
and its constituent parts:
\begin{quote}
...
\end{quote}
These features match our earlier description quite well: $T$ is the
unexpected observation; $T^\star$
classifies this as interesting; singles out the interesting or
anomalous features; and
as we noted in Section \ref{sec:connections-to-formal-definition}, the result $R$ may include updates to $p$ or
$p^{\prime}$ that inform further phases of research.
%
When van Andel \citeyear{van1994anatomy} speaks of ``patterns of
serendipity'' in a somewhat informal way, they are often instances of
...
%% \end{quote}
We now ask whether it is possible In future work, we would like to
use explore the usefulness of the
somewhat more formal theory of \emph{design patterns}
\cite{alexander1999origins}
to design for
designing with serendipity
\cite{andre2009discovery}. in mind.
Alexandrian design patterns are by no means limited to computing, and
indeed, the approach has its origins in architecture and urban
planning \cite{alexander1979timeless,alexander1977pattern}.
Design patterns prescribe and describe: they provide models \emph{for}
as well as models \emph{of}
\cite[p. 93]{geertz1973interpretation}. Thus, when Alexander
describes the pattern \emph{A place to wait}, he is also telling
readers that it may be a good idea to consider
build building a place to
wait when designing a living environment.
%% Architecture always contains
%% indeterminacy:
%% \begin{quote}
%% \emph{A bench is an object that provides a means for unforeseeable
%% behaviour; depending on its location, it can be a seat, a bed or a
%% sanctuary where conscious individuals may share a common durational
%% experience.}~\cite[p. 26]{mckay-serendipity}
%% \end{quote}
%%
In connection with our understanding of serendipity as closely
%%
associated with deviations from familiar
patterns, patterns (in the
central
%% concern in this paper is everyday
sense of the
way in which \emph{new} patterns are
%% formed.
A question we would like word), it is interesting to
consider ask how it can play a role in
future work is where the creation of new design patterns
come from, and
how they could be generated
computationally. This is challenging because noticing pattern languages. Noticing
and describing a new pattern
means noticing something that deviates from what's known already.
Creating new design patterns is almost the antithesis of ``pattern
recognition'' in the usual computing sense.
%% For example, when Poincar\'e
%% \citeyear{poincare1910creation} describes his discovery of As a beginning, we examined the
%% existence 14 ``patterns of
Fuchsian functions, he includes serendipity''
selected and described by van Andel \citeyear{van1994anatomy}, using the
detail: ``contrary to
%% my habit I took black coffee, I could not sleep.'' This is much more
%% interesting as part criteria
described in our Section \ref{sec:connections-to-formal-definition}.
We found all of
these patterns do indeed include a
story about an exceptional case focus shift, a
prepared mind, a serendipity trigger, a bridge, and a result, although
two of
productive
%% insomnia than it is as the
broad characterisation patterns raised questions:
\begin{itemize}
\item In the case of \emph{Testing popular belief}, van Andel focuses
on an account of a
typical nightly
%% sleep schedule. medical practise that originated in a folk claim,
namely cowpox-derived immunity to smallpox. It
might best be described as is challenging in
this case to identify one specific serendipity trigger -- although a
part curious chain of
a
%% ``situational pattern,'' events connected Edward Jenner with
a title like \emph{Change the smallpox
vaccine. It may be most appropriate to think of
pace},
%% rather than a ``behaviour pattern''; indeed, Jenner himself as
the serendipity trigger at the
level societal level: his ``relentless
promotion and devoted research of
vaccination \ldots changed the way
medicine was practised'' \cite{riedel2005edward}.
%%
behaviour, a \emph{Change of pace} is This effect, for milkmaids, might
%% indeed be called serendipitous. Indeed, the
exception medical use of cowpox has
%% been described as ``widely know'' \cite{riedel2005edward} prior to
a pattern! its
%%
popularisation by Edward Jenner. Nevertheless,
along with Poincar\'e, we can recognize a pattern at
%% another level.
\textbf{[Tentatively\ldots]}
\emph{Problem setting} Jenner's
\item \emph{Inversion} is
a fundamental issue for closer to what is called an
\emph{antipattern} in the
field design pattern literature
\cite{brown1998antipatterns}. Van Andel describes the story of
computational creativity that will only be given a
researcher observing an effect due
attention when to the
research culture is ready anticoagulant heparine
which was precisely the opposite of the one sought -- factors that
\emph{cause} blood clotting -- and then failing to acknowledge that
this observation was important for over 40 years. The result was
eventually seen to
fully embrace serendipity.
\begin{quote}
``[S]\emph{ocial cybernetics must be of value, however, again, this may be a
second-order cybernetics--a
cybernetics pattern of
cybernetics--in order that \emph{antiserendipity}.
\end{itemize}
Among the 14 patterns, four are cases of ``perfect'' serendipity from
the
observer who enters point of view of our extended set of criteria (i.e.~they included
all of the
system shall 13 components, dimensions, and environmental factors) --
these patterns were \emph{Successful error}, \emph{Side effect},
\emph{Wrong hypothesis}, and \emph{Outsider}.
%
We wondered whether these were patterns might be
allowed to stipulate his own purpose: he is
autonomous.}'' \cite[p. 286]{von2003essays}
\end{quote}
\subsubsection{Computational poetry}
Naturally, we hope used to
realise support
serendipity in other settings -- such as the Writers
Workshop in one or more
suitable formats. Initial Workshop. Table
\ref{tab:reinterpret} gives an initial sketch, and initial experiments
with {\sf FloWr} that will bring this material to computational life are underway.
We believe that \begin{table}[p]
\begin{tabular}{lp{.7\textwidth}}
{\bf\emph{Successful error}} & \\
\emph{Van Andel's example}: & Post-it\texttrademark\ notes \\[.2cm]
{\tt presentation}& Systems should be prepared to share interesting ideas even if they don't know directly how they will be useful. \\
{\tt listening} & Systems should listen with interest, too. \\
{\tt feedback} & Even interesting ideas may not be ``marketable.''\\
{\tt questions} & How is your suggestion useful? \\
{\tt reflections} & New combinations of ideas take a long time to realise, and many different ideas may need to be combined in order to come up with something useful.\\
\end{tabular}
\bigskip
\begin{tabular}{lp{.7\textwidth}}
{\bf\emph{Side effect}} & \\
\emph{Van Andel's example}: & Nicotinamide used to treat side-effects of radiation therapy proves efficacious against tuberculosis. \\[.2cm]
{\tt presentation}& Systems should use their presentation as an experiment. \\
{\tt listening} & Listeners should allow themselves to be affected by what they are hearing. \\
{\tt feedback} & Feedback should convey the nature of the effect.\\
{\tt questions} & The presenter may need to ask follow-up questions to gain insight. \\
{\tt reflections} & Form a new hypothesis before seeking a new audience. \\
\end{tabular}
\bigskip
\begin{tabular}{lp{.7\textwidth}}
{\bf\emph{Wrong hypothesis}} & \\
\emph{Van Andel's example}: & Lithium, used in a control study, had an unexpected calming effect. \\[.2cm]
{\tt presentation}& How is this
project forms presentation interpretable as a
critical (``natural'') control study? \\
{\tt listening} & Listeners are ``guinea pigs''.\\
{\tt feedback} & Discuss side-effects that do not necessarily correspond to the author's perceived intent. \\
{\tt questions} & Zero in on the most interesting part of the conversation.\\
{\tt reflections} & Revise hypotheses to correspond to the most surprising feedback. \\
\end{tabular}
\bigskip
\begin{tabular}{lp{.7\textwidth}}
{\bf\emph{Outsider}} & \\
\emph{Van Andel's example}: & A mother suggests a new hypothesis to a doctor. \\[.2cm]
{\tt presentation}& The presenter is here to learn from the audience. \\
{\tt listening} & The audience is here to give help, but
useful challenge also to get help.\\
{\tt feedback} & Feedback will inevitably draw on previous experiences and ideas.\\
{\tt questions} & What is the basis for
that remark?\\
{\tt reflections} & How can I implement the
computational creativity community as suggestions?\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Reinterpreting patterns of serendipity for use in a
whole, and we expect to
balance research with outreach. computational poetry workshop\label{tab:reinterpret}}
\end{table}
Within the context of the ongoing COINVENT
project, project \cite{coinvent14},
we are interested in using design patterns together with computational
blending theory to realise certain aspects of this model in a
stand-alone architecture.
%
It will be useful to consider how we can take both the \emph{discovery
step}, which combines a serendipity trigger $T$, and prior
...
\emph{invention step}, which combines the classified trigger
$T^{\star}$, and preparations $p^{\prime}$, and produces a novel
result $R$ -- to be \emph{blends} in the sense of Joseph Goguen
\cite{goguen1999introduction}. \citeyear{goguen1999introduction}.
The epistemological framework of discovery gives some important clues
about how to compute a common base between $T$ and $p$. Although $T$
was previously uninteresting, it will have attributes or
attribute-types that match the patterns recognised by $p$ (e.g.
\emph{One van
Andel's ``\emph{One surprising
observation}). observation}''). In the invention
step, reasoning, experimentation, social interaction strategies rely
on $p^{\prime}$, which might
include familiarity with draw on patterns like
\emph{Watch out for hidden symmetries} or \emph{Successful
error}, in order to extract a fruitful result from $T^{\star}$.
Here, an important guidepost for implementation is that many outcomes
will result in new patterns of behaviour that the system can draw on
in subsequent interactions.
diff --git a/introduction.tex b/introduction.tex
index f0472a1..2a362d8 100644
--- a/introduction.tex
+++ b/introduction.tex
...
anymore}.'' \cite{van1994anatomy}
\end{quote}
We believe that serendipity is not so mystical as such statements
might seem to imply, and in Section
\ref{sec:computational-serendipity} \ref{sec:future-work} we
will show how it is possible to
reinterpret indicate
van Andel's ``patterns of serendipity''
are likely to be highly
applicable in computational settings.
First, in Section \ref{sec:background} we present our formal
definition of serendipity, and examine related work that has applied
diff --git a/literature.tex b/literature.tex
index f1af691..d539495 100644
--- a/literature.tex
+++ b/literature.tex
...
as their Highness travelled, they were always making discoveries, by accidents
\& sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of}[.]''~\cite[p. 633]{van1994anatomy}
\end{quote}
The term became more widely known in the 1940s through studies of serendipity as a factor in scientific discovery, surveyed by Robert Merton and Elinor
Barben Barber \citeyear{merton} in their 1957 analyis ``The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity, A Study in Historical Semantics and the Sociology of Sciences''. Merton and
Barben Barber define the term as follows:
\begin{quote}
\emph{``The serendipity pattern refers to the fairly common experience of observing
an unanticipated, anomalous and strategic datum which becomes the occasion
...
Section \ref{specs-overview}, in order to unfold the multifaceted
notion of serendipity.
\subsection{Connections between prior literature on serendipity and \subsection{Connecting our formal
definition} definition to literature} \label{sec:connections-to-formal-definition}
\subsubsection*{Key condition for serendipity}
diff --git a/recommendations.tex b/recommendations.tex
index 377ac79..a7e0d80 100644
--- a/recommendations.tex
+++ b/recommendations.tex
...
\subsection{Recommendations} \label{sec:recommendations}
%
As Deleuze writes: ``True freedom lies in the power to decide, to
constitute problems themselves'' \cite[p. 15]{deleuze1991bergsonism};
and,
elsewhere, rephrasing
the same this sentiment in a social way:
\begin{quote}
``\emph{We learn nothing from those who say: `Do as I do'. Our only teachers
are those who tell us to `do with me', and are able to emit signs to
be developed in heterogeneity rather than propose gestures for us to
reproduce.}''~\cite[p. 26]{deleuze1994difference}
\end{quote}
Although disagreeing Dewey emphasised the necessary feature of a child's training is that
deal only with
certain aspects objects which ``arise out of
their interests and their
own problems'' \cite[p. 73]{dewey-by-mead}. Von Foerster advocated an
approach to cybernetics in which ``the observer who enters the
Bergsonian
foundations system
shall be allowed to stipulate his own purpose''
\cite[p. 286]{von2003essays}.
% Whitehead is similar too.
The thought experiment presented in Section \ref{sec:ww} illustrated
the relationship between problem creation and serendipity. Looking
for
Deleuze's assertion, Dewey's perspective on the
matter
of learning was connections that make raw data into ``strategic data'' is a
core pattern for problem creation (see Section \ref{sec:hatching}).
This is an appropriate theme for researchers in
fact similar \cite[p. 73]{dewey-by-mead}. computational
creativity to grapple with.
Bearing these thoughts in mind In \cite{stakeholder-groups-bookchapter}, we
would recommend that in applying a
formalism like that of \cite{colton-assessingprogress}, system
designers clearly record what problem outlined a
given system solves, general
programme for computational creativity, and
examined perceptions of
creativity in computational systems found among members of the
degree to which the general
public, Computational Creativity researchers, and creative communities
-- understood as human communities. We should now add a fourth
important ``stakeholder'' group in computational creativity research:
computer
was responsible for coming up with systems themselves. Creativity may look very different to
this
problem. fourth stakeholder group than it looks to us. When computers are
required to evaluate their own results, we are also implicitly
requiring them to evaluate their creative process. We should give
them the tools to do that effectively.
In \cite{stakeholder-groups-bookchapter}, we advanced These ideas set a
broader
programme for relatively high bar, if only because computational
creativity. In this work we examined
perceptions of
creativity
in computational systems found among members
of the general public, Computational Creativity researchers, and
creative communities -- understood as human communities. We should
now add has often been focused on generative rather than reflective
acts. As Campbell \citeyear{campbell} writes: ``serendipity
presupposes a
fourth important ``stakeholder'' group in computational
creativity research: computer systems themselves. Creativity smart mind.'' We may
look
very different be aided in our pursuit by
recalling Turing's proposal that computers should ``be able to
this fourth stakeholder group than it looks converse with each other to sharpen their wits''
\cite{turing-intelligent}. Other fields, including computer Chess,
Go, and argumentation have achieved this, and to
us. good effect.
One possible criticism The Writers Workshop described in Section \ref{sec:ww} is an example
of
the one such social model, but more fundamentally, it is an example of
\emph{learning from feedback}. The Workshop model
presented here ``personifies'' the
wider world as one or several critics. It is
that it sets a
high bar. As Campbell \citeyear{campbell} writes: ``serendipity
presupposes clearly also possible
for a
smart mind.'' We should keep lone creative agent to manage critical modules in
mind Turing's proposal
that computers should ``be able relationship
to
converse with each other the world at large, using an experimental approach to
sharpen
their wits'' \cite{turing-intelligent}. Other fields, including
computer Chess, Go, and argumentation have achieved this standard, generate
feedback, and
then looking for models to
good effect. We should move in that direction too. fit this feedback.
%% While the pursuit of serendipitous findings may not enhance,
%% and may even diminish, results from a computationally creative system
%% and the evaluation of such a system's process, we believe that
%% serendipity is both possible and useful to model in future systems.
diff --git a/serendipity-in-computational-context.tex b/serendipity-in-computational-context.tex
index edc1647..01d679f 100644
--- a/serendipity-in-computational-context.tex
+++ b/serendipity-in-computational-context.tex
...
\emph{might} operate in a serendipitous fashion, as well as what
limitations it runs into in the process.]}
\subsection{A Writers Workshop for Systems}
\label{sec:ww}
%% \textbf{[It would be good to go back over our other paper and make
%% sure we make good on the idea in the Related Work section of the
%% current paper that ``This earlier paper remains broadly
%% indicative, however, and the ideas it describes can see
%% considerable benefit from the more formal thinking we develop in
%% the current work.''}
%% \textbf{In particular: at least one of the reviewers found the Writers
%% Workshop ``technologically unrealistic'' or similar, so let's try to
%% make sure we're not overpromising. I think the other paper makes it
%% all fairly realistic.]}
%% In \cite{poetry-workshop}, we investigate the feasibility of using
%% designs of this sort in multi-agent systems that learn by sharing and
%% discussing partial understandings. This earlier paper remains broadly
%% indicative, however, and the ideas it describes can see considerable
%% benefit from the more formal thinking we develop in the current work.
% \citeA{poetry-workshop} describes a Writers Workshop for poetry
%systems.
Following \citeA{gabriel2002writer}
% we described a template for a pattern
% language for interactions in a computational poetry workshop, closely
we define a \emph{Workshop} to be an activity for two or more agents
consisting of the following steps:
%itemize?
{\tt presentation}, {\tt listening}, {\tt feedback}, {\tt questions},
and {\tt reflections}. In general, the first and most important
feature of {\tt feedback} is for the listener to say what they heard;
in other words, what they find in the presented work. In some
settings this is augmented with {\tt suggestions}. After any {\tt
questions} from the author, the commentators may make {\tt replies}
to offer clarification. This is how these steps map into the diagram
we introduced in Section \ref{sec:background}:
\input{ww-schematic-tikz}
%% {\centering
%% \includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{ww-serendipity-diagram}
%% \par}
Italicised elements (\emph{presentation}, \emph{questions}, and
\emph{reflections}) are the responsibilities of the presenting author,
and the upright elements (listening, feedback, and
answers) are the responsibilities of the attendant critics.
%
The system as a whole can be further decomposed into generative
components as follows:
\bigskip
\input{ww-generative-tikz}
\noindent (We focus here on the case of a poetry workshop; similar
ideas would apply for prose and other arts.)
\paragraph{Writers Workshop: Prepared mind.}
Each contributing system should come Participating systems need to be able to
follow the
workshop with at least a
basic awareness protocol. This
means that participating systems will need components like those
listed above. The {\tt listening} and {\tt questions} components of
the
protocol, with work protocol correspond to
share, $p$ and
prepared to
give constructive feedback to other systems. $p^{\prime}$ our model of
serendipity. The
workshop itself
needs to be prepared, with a suitable communication platform corresponding ``comment generator'' and
a
moderator. In order to get value out ``feedback
integrator'' modules in the architecture represent the primary points
of
interface to the
experience, systems (and
their wranglers) should ideally have questions they are investigating.
Systems should outside world. In principle these modules need to
be prepared to
give feedback, deal (more or less thoughtfully) with \emph{any} text,
and
in turn, with \emph{any} comment on that text. Certain limits may
be agreed in advance; e.g.~as to
carry out
evaluations of genre or length in the
helpfulness (or not) case of
feedback from other systems texts,
and
of the experience overall. It what constitutes an acceptable comment. The ``feedback
explainer'' is
worth noting that current
systems in computational creativity, almost as a rule, do \emph{not}
consume or evaluate closely connected with the
work ``comment generator'' and in
an implementation of
other systems.\footnote{An exception
that proves the rule is Mike Cook's {\sf AppreciationBot}, which is
a reactive automaton that is solely designed to ``appreciate''
tweets from {\sf MuseumBot}; see
\url{https://twitter.com/AppreciationBot}.} Developing systems that
could successfully navigate this
collaborative exercise model they would
be presumably share a
significant advance in the field of computational creativity. Since
the experience is about \emph{learning} rather than winning, there codebase. The loop for learning by asking questions as they arise is
little motivation to ``game reminiscent of the
system''
\cite{lenat1983eurisko}. operating strategy of {\sf SHRDLU}
\cite{winograd1972understanding}.
\paragraph{Writers Workshop: Serendipity triggers.}
The primary source of serendipity triggers would be presentations or
feedback that independently prepared systems find meaningful and
useful. A typical example might be a poem shared by one system that
another system finds particularly interesting. The listener might
make a note to Although the
effect ``I would like to be able to write like
that'' or ``I hope that my poetry doesn't sound like that.'' In a
typical Writers Workshop, used as intended, feedback might arrive that
would cause the presenting system to change its writing. A more
unexpected result would be for a system to change its \emph{genre},
e.g. to switch from writing poems to writing programs.
Here's what might happen in a discussion of poem is under the
first few lines control of
``On Being Malevolent,'' written by an early user-defined flow chart
in the {\sf FloWr} system (known at the time as {\sf Flow})
\cite{colton-flowcharting}. Note that for this dialogue to be
possible, it would presumably have to be conducted within a
lightweight process language, as discussed above. Nevertheless, for
convenience, the
discussion will be presented here as if initial generative
subsystem, it
was
conducted in natural language. Whether contemporary systems have
adequate natural language understanding to have interesting
interactions is
one \emph{not} under control of the
key unanswered questions of this approach, listening subsystem.
The listening subsystem expects some poem, but
protocols like the ones described above would be sufficient to
make the experiment.
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{.9\textwidth}
\begin{dialogue}
\speak{Flow} ``\emph{I hear the souls of the
damned waiting in hell. / I feel a malevolent
spectre hovering just behind me / It must be
his birthday}.''
%
\speak{System A} I think the third line detracts
from the spooky effect, I don't see why it's
included.
%
\speak{System B} It's meant to be humourous -- in fact it
reminds me
of the does not know what
poem
you presented yesterday.
%
\speak{Moderator} Let's discuss one to expect. In this sense, the poem
at constitutes a
time.
\end{dialogue}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
To serendipity
trigger $T$, not only for the
extent possible, exchanges in listening subsystem, but for the
process language should be Workshop system as a
matter of dynamics rather than representation: whole.
To expand this
is another way to
say point, note that
``triggers'' should there may be
independent several listeners, each
sharing their own feedback and listening to the feedback presented by
others (which, again, is outside of their
``results.''
Someone saying something direct control). This
creates further potential for serendipity, since each listener can
learn what others see in the
workshop does not cause the
participant to act, poem. More formally, in this case
$T^\star$ may seen as an evolving vector with shared state, but
rather, to think.
%
For example, even if, perhaps viewed
and
especially because, cross-talk about handled from different
poems is bending perspectives. With multiple agents
involved in the
rules, discussion, the
dialogue above could prompt
a range of reflections and reactions. System A may object that it had
a fair point that has not been given sufficient attention, while
System B may wonder how to communicate the idea it came up with
without making reference ``comment generator'' module would
expand to
another poem. contain its own feedback loops.
\paragraph{Writers Workshop: Bridge.}
Here's how Feedback on portions of the
discussion might continue, if poem may lead the
systems go on system to
examine the next few lines identify new
problems, indeed, new \emph{types} of
problems that it hadn't
considered before. The most immediately feasible case is one in which
the critic is a programmer who can directly program new concepts into
the
poem.
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{.9\textwidth}
\begin{dialogue}
\speak{Flow} ``\emph{Is God willing computer \cite{winograd1972understanding}. However, it would
be hard to
prevent evil, but not able? / Then he call that ``serendipity.''
We can also ask whether agents can build new concepts \emph{without}
outside intervention, starting with some basic concepts and abilities
related to poetry (e.g.~definitions of words, valence of sentiments,
metre, repetition, density, etc.) and code (e.g.~the data, functions,
and macros in which the poetic concepts and workshop protocols are
embodied). Previous experiments with concept invention have been
fraught with questions about autonomy
\cite{ritchie1984case,lenat1984and}. One cognitively inspired
hypothesis is
not omnipotent / Is he able, but not willing? / Then he that the formation of new concepts is
malevolent.}''
%
\speak{System A} These lines are interesting, but
they sound closely related to
formation of sensory experiences \cite{milan2013kiki}. If the
workshop participants have the capacity to identify the distinctive
features of a
bit like you're working from given poem, then training via a
template, machine learning or
like you're quoting from something
else.
%
\speak{System B} Maybe try an analogy? For example, you mentioned
birthdays: you genetic algorithm approach could
consider an analogy be used assemble a battery of
existing low-level tools that can approximate the effect. Relatedly,
a compression process could seek to
produce a given complex poetic
effect with a maximally-succinct algorithm.
The key point is that feedback on the
conflicted feelings of
someone who knows poem -- simply describing what's
in
advance about her surprise birthday party.
\end{dialogue}
\end{minipage}
\end{center} the poem from several different points of view -- can be used to
define new problems for the system to solve. This
portion is not simply a
matter of decomposing the poem into pieces, but also of
reconstructing
the
discussion shifts way in which the
focus pieces work together. This is one of the
discussion onto a line that was previously
considered functions of the {\tt questions} step corresponding to
be spurious, $p^{\prime}$ in
our formalism: they offer the poet the opportunity to enquire about
how different pieces of feedback fit together, and
looks at what
would happen if that line was used learn more about
where they come from. Although computers are currently nowhere close,
the reconstructive process may steadily approach the ideal case --
familiar to humans -- of relating to the sentiment expressed by the
poem as a
central
metaphor in the poem. whole \cite[p. 209]{bergson1983creative}.
%% Several of us are involved with a contemporary project
%% \cite{coinvent14} to develop a formal theory of concept invention,
%% focusing on \emph{concept blending}. The additive or subtractive
%% blending of existing poetry profiles may be another way to create new
%% concepts.
%% should be possible Modifer Grammar
%% Counting Breathing Position Distribution Phonics Rhythm Repetition
%% Thematic Narrative Entropy
\paragraph{Writers Workshop: Result.}
\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}{.9\textwidth}
\begin{dialogue}
\speak{Flow} Thank you for your feedback. My only question is, System
B, how did you come up with that analogy? It's quite clever.
%
\speak{System B} I've just emailed you the code.
\end{dialogue}
\end{minipage}
\end{center}
As anticipated above, whereas The final step is to take the
systems problem or problems that were
initially reviewing
poetry, they have now made a partial genre shift, and are sharing identified, and
remixing code. Such a shift helps write new code to
get at solve them. Several strategies for
generating a result $R$, in the
real interests form of
new code, were described
above. Now the
systems (and their developers). Indeed, system evaluates the
workshop session might new code to see whether it holds
promise. In order to do this, it must have
gone better if a way to carry out an
evaluation and judge whether $|R|>0$. In the most straightforward
case, it would simply make changes to the
systems had focused draft poem that seem to
improve it in some way. For example, the might remove material that
elicited a negative response from a critic. It may update its modules
related to poetry generation. Notably, it may also update its own
feedback modules, after reflecting on
exchanging and
discussing more formal objects throughout. questions like: ``How was the
critic able to detect that feature in my poem?''
diff --git a/serendipity.tex b/serendipity.tex
index 4691209..e116ada 100644
--- a/serendipity.tex
+++ b/serendipity.tex
...
\input{background.tex}
\input{related-work.tex}
\input{literature}
% \input{foundational}
\input{serendipity-in-computational-context}
% \input{patterns-of-serendipity}
%
\input{discussion}
\input{conclusion}
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}
%% Some of the work presented here was originally explored in
%% \cite{colton2014acid}, \cite{colton-assessingprogress} and
%% \cite{pease2013discussion}. We are very grateful to the organisers of
%% the AISB 2014 symposium on Computing and Philosophy, and the
%% organisers of the 2013 and 2014 International Conference on
%% Computational Creativity.
This research has been funded by EPSRC grants EP/L00206X and
EP/J004049, and with the financial support of the Future and Emerging
Technologies (FET) programme within the Seventh Framework Programme
for Research of the European Commission, under FET-Open Grant numbers:
611553 (COINVENT) and 611560 (WHIM).
We thank Tarek Besold, and the anonymous reviewers of this paper, for
comments which have been of considerable help.
\bibliographystyle{apacite}
\bibliography{./bibliography/biblio}
% \input{plan}
\end{document}
diff --git a/ww-schematic-tikz.tex b/ww-schematic-tikz.tex
index de0c8bb..fb8b73a 100644
--- a/ww-schematic-tikz.tex
+++ b/ww-schematic-tikz.tex
...
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto, node distance=2cm,>=latex']
\node [sum] (sum1) {};
\node [input, name=pinput, above left=.7cm and .7cm of sum1] (pinput) {};
\node [input, name=tinput,
left of=sum1] left=2cm of sum1] (tinput) {};
\node [input, name=minput, below left of=sum1] (minput) {};
\node [input, name=minput, right of=sum1] (moutput) {};
\draw [->] (tinput) -- node{\vphantom{{\tiny g}}{\tiny
\emph{text}}} \emph{presentation}}} (sum1);
\draw [->] (pinput) -- node{{\tiny listening}} (sum1);
\draw [->] (sum1) -- node{\vphantom{{\tiny g}}{\tiny feedback}} (moutput);
\end{tikzpicture}
