2.5 Ada Lovelace
1815-1852
https://gyazo.com/6dd25079e74b8e3615ff77bef8008177
"The Analytical Engine(Computer) has no pretensions to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform" コンピュータが何かを創造するというのは考えられない。私たちが指示した通りにしか動かないのだから。 1843年
ラブレスがまとめた解析機関のプログラム - 世界最初のプログラム・コード
$ f(x)=\frac{x}{e^{x}-1}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{B_{n}}{n !} x^{n}
https://gyazo.com/da98f20fce8d7d2d9fcb97978a74e048
1842
Regarded as the first computer programmer!
The Analytical Engine might act upon other things besides number, were objects found whose mutual fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations, and which should be also susceptible of adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the engine...Supposing, for instance, that the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science of harmony and of musical composition were susceptible of such expression and adaptations, the engine might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent.
コンピュータで音楽が作れることを予言
Ada saw something that Babbage in some sense failed to see. In Babbage's world his engines were bound by number...What Lovelace saw—what Ada Byron saw—was that number could represent entities other than quantity. So once you had a machine for manipulating numbers, if those numbers represented other things, letters, musical notes, then the machine could manipulate symbols of which number was one instance, according to rules. It is this fundamental transition from a machine which is a number cruncher to a machine for manipulating symbols according to rules that is the fundamental transition from calculation to computation—to general-purpose computation—and looking back from the present high ground of modern computing, if we are looking and sifting history for that transition, then that transition was made explicitly by Ada in that 1843 paper.2 Calculator から Computer へのコンセプトの変化を予見した人物
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K5p_tBcrd0&t=36m29s
Lovelace Test
Creativity, the Turing Test, and the (Better) Lovelace Test
Selmer Bringsjord, Paul Bello & David Ferrucci
> Assume that Jones activates A and that a stunningly belletristic story o is produced. We claim
that if Jones cannot explain how o was generated by A, and if Jones has no reason
whatever to believe that A succeeded on the strength of a fluke hardware error, etc.
(which entails that A can produce other equally impressive stories), then A should
at least provisionally be regarded genuinely creative. An artificial computational
agent passes LT if and only if it stands to its creator as A stands to Jones.
DefLT | Artificial agent A, designed by H , passes LT if and only if
A outputs o;
A‘s outputting o is not the result of a fluke hardware error, but rather the result of processes A can repeat;
H (or someone who knows what H knows, and has H ‘s resources — for example, the substitute for H might be a scientist who watched and assimilated what the designers and builders of A did every step along the way) cannot explain how A produced o.