The Creativity Code: How AI is learning to write, paint and think

Maths, the secret to a happy marriage

Sergey Brin and Larry Page may have cracked the code to steer you to websites you don’t even know you’re looking for, but can an algorithm really do something as personal as find your soulmate? Visit OKCupid and you’ll be greeted by a banner proudly declaring: ‘We use math to find you dates’.

These dating websites use a ‘matching algorithm’ to search through profiles and match people up according to their likes, dislikes and personality traits. They seem to be doing a pretty good job. In fact, the algorithms seem to be better than we are on our own: recent research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looked at 19,000 people who married between 2005 and 2012 and found that those who met online were happier and had more stable marriages.

The first algorithm to win its creators a Nobel Prize, originally formulated by two mathematicians, David Gale and Lloyd Shapley, in 1962, used a matching algorithm to solve something called ‘the Stable Marriage Problem’. Gale, who died in 2008, missed out on the award, but Shapley shared the prize in 2012 with the economist Alvin Roth, who saw the importance of the algorithm not just to the question of relationships but also to social problems including assigning health care and student places fairly.

Shapley was amused by the award: ‘I consider myself a mathematician and the award is for economics,’ he said at the time, clearly surprised by the committee’s decision. ‘I never, never in my life took a course in economics.’ But the mathematics he cooked up has had profound economic and social implications.

The Stable Marriage Problem that Shapley solved with Gale sounds more like a parlour game than a piece of cutting-edge economic theory. To illustrate the precise nature of the problem, imagine you’ve got four heterosexual men and four heterosexual women. They’ve been asked to list the four members of the opposite sex in order of preference. The challenge for the algorithm is to match them up in such a way as to come up with stable marriages. What this means is that there shouldn’t be a man and woman who would prefer to be with one another than with the partner they’ve been assigned. Otherwise there’s a good chance that at some point they’ll leave their partners to run off with one another. At first sight it isn’t at all clear, even with four pairs, that it is possible to arrange this.

Let’s take a particular example and explore how Gale and Shapley could guarantee a stable pairing in a systematic and algorithmic manner. The four men will be played by the kings from a pack of cards: King of Spades, King of Hearts, King of Diamonds and King of Clubs. The women are the corresponding queens. Each king and queen has listed his or her preferences:

For the kings:

For the queens:

Now suppose you were to start by proposing that each king be paired with the queen of the same suit. Why would this result in an unstable pairing? The Queen of Clubs has ranked the King of Clubs as her least preferred partner so frankly she’d be happier with any of the other kings. And check out the King of Hearts’ list: the Queen of Hearts is at the bottom of his list. He’d certainly prefer the Queen of Clubs over the option he’s been given. In this scenario, we can envision the Queen of Clubs and the King of Hearts running away together. Matching kings and queens via their suits would lead to unstable marriages.

How do we match them so we won’t end up with two cards running off with each other? Here is the recipe Gale and Shapley cooked up. It consists of several rounds of proposals by the queens to the kings until a stable pairing finally emerges. In the first round of the algorithm, the queens all propose to their first choice. The Queen of Spades’ first choice is the King of Hearts. The Queen of Hearts’ first choice is the King of Clubs. The Queen of Diamonds chooses the King of Spades and the Queen of Clubs proposes to the King of Hearts. So it seems that the King of Hearts is the heart-throb of the pack, having received two proposals. He chooses which of the two queens he prefers, which is the Queen of Clubs, and rejects the Queen of Spades. So we have three provisional engagements, and one rejection.

First round

The rejected queen strikes off her first-choice king and in the next round moves on to propose to her second choice: the King of Spades. But now the King of Spades has two proposals. His first proposal from round one, the Queen of Diamonds, and a new proposal from the Queen of Spades. Looking at his ranking, he’d actually prefer the Queen of Spades. So he rather cruelly rejects the Queen of Diamonds (his provisional engagement on the first round of the algorithm).

Second round

Which brings us to round three. In each round, the rejected queens propose to the next king on their list and the kings always go for the best offer they receive. In this third round the rejected Queen of Diamonds proposes to the King of Diamonds (who has been standing like that kid who never gets picked for the team). Despite the fact that the Queen of Diamonds is low down on his list, he hasn’t got a better option, as the other three queens prefer other kings who have accepted them.

Third round

Finally everyone is paired up and all the marriages are stable. Although we have couched the algorithm in terms of a cute parlour game with kings and queens, the algorithm is now used all over the world: in Denmark to match children to day-care places; in Hungary to match students to schools; in New York to allocate rabbis to synagogues; and in China, Germany and Spain to match students to universities. In the UK it has been used by the National Health Service to match patients to organ donations, resulting in many lives being saved.

And it is building on top of the puzzle solved by Gale and Shapley that the modern algorithms which run our dating agencies are based. The problem is more complex since information is incomplete. Preferences are movable and relative, and shift even within relationships from day to day. But essentially the algorithms are trying to match people with preferences that will lead to a stable and happy pairing. And the evidence suggests that the algorithms could well be better than leaving it to human intuition.

You might have detected an interesting asymmetry in the algorithm that Gale and Shapley cooked up. We got the queens to propose to the kings. Would it have mattered if we had invited the kings to propose to the queens instead? Rather strikingly it does. You would end up with a different stable pairing if you applied the algorithm by swapping kings and queens.

The Queen of Diamonds would end up with the King of Hearts and the Queen of Clubs with the King of Diamonds. The two queens swap partners, but now they’re paired up with slightly lower choices. Although both pairings are stable, when queens propose to kings, the queens end up with the best pairings they could hope for. Flip things around and the kings are better off.

Medical students in America looking for residencies realised that hospitals were using this algorithm to assign places in such a way that the hospitals did the proposing. This meant the students were getting a worse deal. After some campaigning by students who pointed out how unfair this was, eventually the algorithm was reversed to give students the better end of the deal.

This is a powerful reminder that, as our lives are increasingly pushed around by algorithms, it’s important to understand how they work and what they’re doing, because otherwise you may be getting shafted.

The battle of the booksellers

The trouble with algorithms is that sometimes there are unexpected consequences. A human might be able to tell that something weird was happening, but an algorithm will just carry on doing what it was programmed to do, regardless of how absurd the consequences may be.

My favourite example of this centres on two second-hand booksellers who ran their shops using algorithms. A postdoc working at UC Berkeley was keen to get hold of a copy of Peter Lawrence’s book The Making of a Fly. It is a classic published in 1992 that developmental biologists often use, but by 2011 the text had been out of print for some time. The postdoc was after a second-hand copy.

Checking on Amazon, he found a number of copies priced at about $40, but then was rather shocked to see a copy on sale for $1,730,045.91. The seller, profnath, wasn’t even including shipping in the bargain. Then he noticed that there was another copy on sale for even more! This seller, bordeebook, was asking a staggering $2,198,177.95 (plus $3.99 for shipping of course).

The postdoc showed this to his supervisor, Michael Eisen, who presumed it must be a graduate student having fun. But both booksellers had very high ratings and seemed to be legitimate. Profnath had had over 8000 recommendations over the last twelve months, while bordeebook had had over 125,000 during the same period. Perhaps it was just a weird blip.

When Eisen checked the next day to see if the prices had dropped to more sensible levels, he found instead that they’d gone up. Profnath now wanted $2,194,443.04 while bordeebook was asking a phenomenal $2,788,233.00. Eisen decided to put his scientific hat on and analyse the data. Over the next few days he tracked the changes in an effort to work out if there was some pattern to the strange prices.

Eventually he spotted the mathematical rule behind the escalating prices. Divide the profnath price by the bordeebook price from the day before and you always got 0.99830. Divide the bordeebook price by the profnath book on the same day and you always got 1.27059. Each seller had programmed their website to use an algorithm that was setting the prices for books they were selling. Each day the profnath algorithm would check the price of the book at bordeebook and would then multiply it by 0.99830. This algorithm made perfect sense because the seller was programming the site to slightly undercut the competition at bordeebook. It is the algorithm at bordeebook that is slightly more curious. It was programmed to detect any price change in its rival and to multiply this new price by a factor of 1.27059.

The combined effect was that each day the price would be multiplied by 0.99830 × 1.27059, or 1.26843. This ensured that the price would grow exponentially. If profnath had set a sharper factor to undercut the price being offered by bordee-book, you would have seen the price collapse over time rather than escalate.

The explanation for profnath’s algorithm seems clear, but why was bordeebook’s algorithm set to offer the book at a higher price? Surely no one would buy the more expensive book? Perhaps they were relying on their bigger reputation with a greater number of positive recommendations to drive traffic their way, especially if their price was only slightly higher, which at the start it would have been. As Eisen wrote in his blog, ‘this seems like a fairly risky thing to rely on. Meanwhile you’ve got a book sitting on the shelf collecting dust. Unless, of course, you don’t actually have the book …’

Then the truth suddenly dawned on him. Of course. They didn’t actually have the book! The algorithm was programmed to see what books were out there and to offer the same book at a slight markup. If someone wanted the book from their reliable bordeebook’s website, then bordeebook would go and purchase it from the other bookseller and sell it on. But to cover costs this would necessitate a bit of a markup. The algorithm thus multiplied the price by a factor of 1.27059 to cover the purchase of the book, the shipping and a little extra profit.

Using a few logarithms it’s possible to work out that the book most likely first went on sale forty-five days before 8 April at about $40. This shows the power of exponential growth. It only took a month and a half for the price to reach into the millions! The price peaked at $23,698,655.93 (plus $3.99 shipping) on 18 April, when finally a human at profnath intervened, realising that something strange was going on. The price then dropped to $106.23. Predictably bordeebook’s algorithm offered their book at $106.23 × 1.27059 = $134.97.

The mispricing of The Making of a Fly did not have a devastating impact for anyone involved, but there are more serious cases of algorithms used to price stock options causing flash crashes on the markets. The unintended consequences of algorithms is one of the prime sources of the existential fears people have about advancing technology. What if a company builds an algorithm that is tasked with maximising the collection of carbon, but it suddenly realises the humans who work in the factory are carbon-based organisms, so it starts harvesting the humans in the factory for carbon production? Who would stop it?

Algorithms are based on mathematics. At some level they are mathematics in action. But they don’t really creatively stretch the field. No one in the mathematical community feels particularly threatened by them. We don’t really believe that algorithms will turn on their creators and put us out of a job. For years I believed that these algorithms would do no more than speed up the mundane part of my work. They were just more sophisticated versions of Babbage’s calculating machine that could be told to do the algebraic or numerical manipulations which would take me tedious hours to write out by hand. I always felt in control. But that is all about to change.

Up till a few years ago it was felt that humans understood what their algorithms were doing and how they were doing it. Like Lovelace, they believed you couldn’t really get more out than you put in. But then a new sort of algorithm began to emerge, an algorithm that could adapt and change as it interacted with its data. After a while its programmer may not understand quite why it is making the choices it is. These programs were starting to produce surprises, and for once you could get more out than you put in. They were beginning to be more creative. These were the algorithms DeepMind exploited in its crushing of humanity in the game of Go. They ushered in the new age of machine learning.

5 (#ulink_291742d1-b008-5563-b5a2-18bbbd874856)

FROM TOP DOWN TO BOTTOM UP (#ulink_291742d1-b008-5563-b5a2-18bbbd874856)

Machines take me by surprise with great frequency.

Alan Turing

I first met Demis Hassabis a few years before his great Go triumph at a meeting about the future of innovation. New companies were on the lookout for investment from venture capitalists and investors. Some were going to transform the future, but most would flash and burn. The art was for VCs and angel investors to spot the winners. I must admit when I heard Hassabis speak about code that could learn, adapt and improve I dismissed him out of hand. I couldn’t see how, if you were programming a computer to play a game, the program could get any further than the person who was writing the code. How could you get more out than you were putting in? I wasn’t the only one. Hassabis admits that getting investors to give money to AI a decade ago was extremely difficult.

How I wish now that I’d backed that horse as it came trotting by! The transformative impact of the ideas Hassabis was proposing can be judged by the title of a recent session on AI: ‘Is machine learning the new 42?’ (The allusion to Douglas Adams’s answer to the question of life, the universe and everything from his book The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy would have been familiar to the geeky attendees, many of whom were brought up on a diet of sci-fi.) So what has happened to spark this new AI revolution?

The simple answer is data. It is an extraordinary fact that 90 per cent of the world’s data has been created in the last five years. 1 exabyte (10) of data is created on the internet every day, roughly the equivalent of the amount of data that can be stored on 250 million DVDs. Humankind now produces in two days the same amount of data it took us from the dawn of civilisation until 2003 to generate.

This flood of data is the main catalyst for the new age of machine learning. Before now there just wasn’t enough of an environment for an algorithm to roam around in and learn. It was like having a child and denying it sensory input. We know that children who have been trapped indoors fail to develop language and other basic skills. Their brains may have been primed to learn but didn’t encounter enough stimulus or experience to develop properly.

The importance of data to this new revolution has led many to speak of data as the new oil. If you have access to data you are straddling the twenty-first-century’s oilfields. This is why the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon are sitting pretty – we are giving them our reserves for free. Well, not exactly for free as we are exchanging our data for the services they provide. When I drive in my car using Waze, I have chosen to exchange data about my location in return for the most efficient route to my destination. The trouble is, many people are not aware of these transactions and give up valuable data for little in return.

At the heart of machine learning is the idea that an algorithm can be created that will find new questions to ask if it gets something wrong. It learns from its mistake. This tweaks the algorithm’s equations such that next time it will act differently and won’t make the same mistake. This is why access to data is so important: the more examples these smart algorithms can train on the more experienced they will become, and the more each tweak will refine them. Programmers are essentially creating a meta-algorithm which creates new algorithms based on the data it encounters.

People in the field of AI have been shocked at the effectiveness of this new approach. Partly this is because the underlying technology is not that new. These algorithms are created by building up layers of questions that can help reach a conclusion. These layers are sometimes called neural networks because they mimic the way the human brain works. If you think about the structure of the brain, neurons are connected to other neurons by synapses. A collection of neurons might fire due to an input of data from our senses. (The smell of freshly baked bread.) Secondary neurons will then fire, provided certain thresholds are passed. (The decision to eat the bread.) A secondary neuron might fire if ten connected neurons are firing due to the input data, for instance, but not if fewer are firing. The trigger might depend also on the strength of the incoming signal from the other neurons.

Already in the 1950s computer scientists created an artificial version of this process, which they called the perceptron. The idea is that a neuron is like a logic gate that receives input and then, depending on a calculation, decides either to fire or not.

Let’s imagine that the perceptron receives three input numbers. It weights the importance of each of these. In the diagram here (#ulink_1468f28b-963c-5343-b9b5-fbb792f14569), perhaps x

is three times as important as x