Slashdot Mirror
Darwinian Poetry: From Bad to Verse
For those who say design cannot take place through the process of selection, behold:
Darwinian Poetry.
Cull the prosaic or nonsensical snippets of text, reinforce the rest, and, slowly... genius? Guess we'll find out. Yes, the poems actually
have sex.
Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming use the principles of natural selection to evolve solutions to problems that hopefully get better and better.
Dadaism "A western European artistic and literary movement (1916-23) that sought the discovery of authentic reality through the abolition of traditional culture and aesthetic forms."
Here is an example Dadaist poem -
People who can't develop a taste
for the primeval
but rather wrangle in this world
and in their noseless faces
daily brush and paint and lacquer
three abundant heraldic
stylized moustaches
one above another.
Now, let's find something in between, jwz has just done that - DADADO..
DadaDodo is a program that analyses texts for word probabilities, and then generates random sentences based on that. Sometimes these sentences are nonsense; but sometimes they cut right through to the heart of the matter, and reveal hidden meanings.
---
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
Maybe it's not "inspired" poetry, but it is an interesting experiment, nonetheless. If people moderating "generations" of peoms, can produce something that people would be interested in... well then it's good poetry, regardless of it's origins.
I remember reading a few years ago about a pogram that was written to randomly write music in the style of certain composers (in this case, Bach and Mozart). Then as an experiment, they held a concert for music scholars. This concert had three pieces played: a very obscure piece by Bach (which is easy to find, since his repetiore has well over 1000), a piece written by someone in the style of Bach, and a piece generated by this program in the style of Bach. Then they were asked to guess which piece was the one composed by Bach....and as I'm sure you guessed, the computer generated one was the winner.
If I can find a link, I will post it, but this was a few years ago.
It's a noble experiment, I think, and not something that should be immediatly shunned just because it wasn't written by humans.
How could I say to men: "Speak louder, shout! For I am deaf!"? -Ludwig van Beethoven
I see two possible designs: One is to evolve many simple, deterministic algorithms which produce one poem when run. This is most similar to what Darwinian Poetry does, evolving individual poems. The other approach is to evolve a smaller population of algorithms with access to an entrophy source, which produces many different poems. I think the latter approach would lead to machines with a basic, ingrained understanding of what makes a good poem.
So what I'd do is make virtual machine, neural network, or cellular automata, with access to a random number generator, which somehow outputs indexes into a word list. Each time the page reloads, two machines from the population would be run, and their output presented, and the user would select the best one.
Unless the algorithm allows for the individuals to understand what they write, it's little more than a bunch of random paragraphs moderated by a bunch of random people. Hmm.
Litigious bastards
I remember reading a few years ago about a pogram that was written to randomly write music in the style of certain composers (in this case, Bach and Mozart)....
It's a noble experiment, I think, and not something that should be immediatly shunned just because it wasn't written by humans.
Oh, but it was written by humans! Just not directly. A human had to take the time, and develop some sort of algorithm for determining what comprises a "Bach" piece of literature.
Humans then had to encode this - had to develop the intimate understanding of what it means to be "Bach" and then write the software that conforms to this vague, entirely subjective concept of "Bach".
The program, once written, wasn't acting on its own. It's clearly acting in accordance with explicit and careful instruction on the part of the programmer(s) who put it together.
Just because we can make a machine that can do X, that machines do X and aren't somehow human - they are as human as their creator.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
...is that you have to have faith in a stochastic process.
Now, I haven't looked at their code, so I don't know what the selection fitness criteria are. Obviously humans play a part in selection for survival; selection for reproduction seems to be completely random -- and that's okay.
But, assuming that the selction mechanism isn't completely asswacked, I feel sure that some "good" poetry will be eventually produced. ("Good" in the eyes of the same people who made the selection choices, of course. If you never vote, you have no place to complain.) Why do I feel this?
Because I have faith in evolutionary programming. It's remarkably good at solving problems with a nonlinear fitness landscape. Finicky local minima, discontinuous fitness evaluation -- all that nasty stuff that kills traditional problem-optimization algorithms, and tends to show up in all the "interesting" problems -- genetic approaches are all over that stuff. It isn't completely random, of course, and that's the saving grace. That's the part that we have faith in.
Yes, as you say, two good poems interchanged at random snip points will statistically be likely to become bad poems. But bad poems die. (Again, assuming the selection mechanism isn't horked over by a sixth-grader who votes for anything containing the word "boobies" no matter how poor the poetry.) And there will be lots and lots of poems. Most of them will be bad. They die, and over time, eventually, statistically, the good ones gain an edge.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Not true.
Lately it is becoming clear that sexual selection is playing a much greater part than previously thought. In fact, Darwin himself had this in his work, but was largely ignored later, probably because it was about sex.
It is logical. To have children, you must both survive AND reproduce. In the second part of this, the largest influence in your success is in the hands (or better say minds) of the opposite sex. The human instance of your opposite sex does have intelligence (although it often does not look so.)
There is also an excellent theory that says that, in fact, the human mind itself is a product of sexual selection, and this nicely explains humor, art, poetry, language, as those are all things that attract us to the opposite sex.
Also, if you actually take a look at the situation of humans, including most intelligent animals, the biggest competition comes not from some random environmental factors, but from the members of your own species. You compete against other guys for sex. Even survival itself is not "intelligence free", as some of your predators can be, and usually are, intelligent.
I recommend those two books on this topic: "Mating Mind" and "Red Queen".
Interestingly enough, prior to the whole "theory of evolution" thing catching on, the Darwin family already had a claim to fame. Erasmus Darwin, Chuck's father (or was it grandfather?) was a moderately successful poet. A lot of his stuff is reportedly pretty lewd too. So I guess this stuff is just coming full-circle in a weird sort of way.
-Lux