Preface 1.5: Notes Towards the Complete Works of Shakespeare
Watch the video and then characterize the value the film makers saw in this experiment. After you've done that, explain why you do or do not think this project is worthwhile.
From what I saw in this video, the film makers are trying to make the point that animals are not like machines. They do not "generate random letters" like a computer program. The experiment itself shows that this is true. For example, in the samples of letters that the monkeys typed out on the keyboard, there is an abundance of "j"s and "l"s throughout. A computer that is spitting out random letters would probably never generate 32 "l"s in a row.
Do I think that the project was worthwhile? Actually, I do. The experiment was not executed in order to prove whether or not monkeys could actually type the works of Shakespeare. The results neither proved nor disproved that old adage about monkeys at keyboards. Rather, the results allow us to see just how far we have grown from simple primates. While we may have evolved from the primate, we are far more advanced. The experiment shows that monkeys are a long long way from writing Shakespeare, let alone a sentence. I believe that this project was worthwhile because it not only shows the difference between animals and machines, but also the difference between humans and our close relatives.
After watching the video twice, I still don't fully understand what the researchers were trying to achieve. The main question was stated in the beginning of the video as, “What are the differences between animals and artificial life?” and they say it is getting increasingly different to distinguish the differences. Thus, the researchers appear to believe that life and evolution is simply a series of patterns with no individual thought, just as how a computer operates. With this experiment, perhaps they expected to see a pattern develop within the typings of the monkeys. I don’t see it as being a worthwhile experiment, but I don’t believe that these researchers expected to get any solid, hard evidence either. Rather, it appears that they wanted to “test out” this familiar idea of an animal typing the works of Shakespeare by accident, with the intention of proving it to be implausible. They can’t honestly have expected a coherent sentence within the short week time frame.
The researchers say they are trying to prove the differences between actual life and artificial life. I see how the experiment will give them some answers, seeing how computers hardly ever put the same letter twice, but in all honesty, that experiment looked like a waste of time and money. There is no way the monkeys would have been able to type a word. Besides, if the monkey started typing in English, I think they would have issues other than their experiment. -Lauren Tucker
I see that the true question here is not the differences between animals and artificial life, but the potential of them. Animals are, shockingly, as limited as a machine in pertinence to their product. An animal is limited by their nature, instinct, and environment. A machine is much the same. A machine is made to adapt to any situation and to create most anything, but the limitations set for them are set by the programmers. A machine is made, much like an animal, to perform a particular task and follow a set of base guidelines. The only difference, so long as we stay on this depersonalized level, is that the base guidelines and overall purpose of a machine can be remastered and even completely scraped. An animal can learn new tasks, but they will tend to stay closer to their original purpose and stay true to their nature. Now, in relation to aforementioned project, a machine has a more efficient probability of randomly writing out the works of Shakespeare since they need nothing more than to do the task. They do not need food or water since they do not perform base metabolic processes, and they lack nature or instinct to pull them from the task at hand. An animal, on the other hand, has a nature to tell them that they are bored, instinct to tell them what to do and when, and basic needs to pull them from the task. In short, an animal is not designed to do the task of randomly pushing buttons until the complete works of Shakespeare make way to paper, but a machine can be. -Cheyenne Cooley
I agree with the previous posts. The experiment was created to prove the differences between animal life and artificial life. Although this is a concept that I have never taken time to think about previously, I understand why this question could be important. In a world where technology is used for as many tasks as possible. Differences between artificial life and actual life need to be made known and embraced. I think the experiment is valuable. The experiment showcased the main difference between animal life and artificial life. Artificial life is random and provides information without reason. Animal life has the ability to feel and make decisions for themselves, such as pushing a button multiple times then moving on to a new one because that is what they wanted to do. I would like to see what would have happened if the monkeys were given access to the keyboards for an extended time period. It would also be interesting to see if the results would differ if the monkeys spent time observing a human type before they were given access to the computers.
From what I saw in this video, the film makers are trying to make the point that animals are not like machines. They do not "generate random letters" like a computer program. The experiment itself shows that this is true. For example, in the samples of letters that the monkeys typed out on the keyboard, there is an abundance of "j"s and "l"s throughout. A computer that is spitting out random letters would probably never generate 32 "l"s in a row.
ReplyDeleteDo I think that the project was worthwhile? Actually, I do. The experiment was not executed in order to prove whether or not monkeys could actually type the works of Shakespeare. The results neither proved nor disproved that old adage about monkeys at keyboards. Rather, the results allow us to see just how far we have grown from simple primates. While we may have evolved from the primate, we are far more advanced. The experiment shows that monkeys are a long long way from writing Shakespeare, let alone a sentence. I believe that this project was worthwhile because it not only shows the difference between animals and machines, but also the difference between humans and our close relatives.
After watching the video twice, I still don't fully understand what the researchers were trying to achieve. The main question was stated in the beginning of the video as, “What are the differences between animals and artificial life?” and they say it is getting increasingly different to distinguish the differences. Thus, the researchers appear to believe that life and evolution is simply a series of patterns with no individual thought, just as how a computer operates. With this experiment, perhaps they expected to see a pattern develop within the typings of the monkeys.
ReplyDeleteI don’t see it as being a worthwhile experiment, but I don’t believe that these researchers expected to get any solid, hard evidence either. Rather, it appears that they wanted to “test out” this familiar idea of an animal typing the works of Shakespeare by accident, with the intention of proving it to be implausible. They can’t honestly have expected a coherent sentence within the short week time frame.
The researchers say they are trying to prove the differences between actual life and artificial life. I see how the experiment will give them some answers, seeing how computers hardly ever put the same letter twice, but in all honesty, that experiment looked like a waste of time and money. There is no way the monkeys would have been able to type a word. Besides, if the monkey started typing in English, I think they would have issues other than their experiment.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Tucker
I see that the true question here is not the differences between animals and artificial life, but the potential of them. Animals are, shockingly, as limited as a machine in pertinence to their product. An animal is limited by their nature, instinct, and environment. A machine is much the same. A machine is made to adapt to any situation and to create most anything, but the limitations set for them are set by the programmers. A machine is made, much like an animal, to perform a particular task and follow a set of base guidelines. The only difference, so long as we stay on this depersonalized level, is that the base guidelines and overall purpose of a machine can be remastered and even completely scraped. An animal can learn new tasks, but they will tend to stay closer to their original purpose and stay true to their nature. Now, in relation to aforementioned project, a machine has a more efficient probability of randomly writing out the works of Shakespeare since they need nothing more than to do the task. They do not need food or water since they do not perform base metabolic processes, and they lack nature or instinct to pull them from the task at hand. An animal, on the other hand, has a nature to tell them that they are bored, instinct to tell them what to do and when, and basic needs to pull them from the task. In short, an animal is not designed to do the task of randomly pushing buttons until the complete works of Shakespeare make way to paper, but a machine can be.
ReplyDelete-Cheyenne Cooley
I agree with the previous posts. The experiment was created to prove the differences between animal life and artificial life. Although this is a concept that I have never taken time to think about previously, I understand why this question could be important. In a world where technology is used for as many tasks as possible. Differences between artificial life and actual life need to be made known and embraced. I think the experiment is valuable. The experiment showcased the main difference between animal life and artificial life. Artificial life is random and provides information without reason. Animal life has the ability to feel and make decisions for themselves, such as pushing a button multiple times then moving on to a new one because that is what they wanted to do. I would like to see what would have happened if the monkeys were given access to the keyboards for an extended time period. It would also be interesting to see if the results would differ if the monkeys spent time observing a human type before they were given access to the computers.
ReplyDelete