Slashdot Mirror
Artificially Intelligent Painters Invent New Styles of Art (newscientist.com)
Dthief shares a report from New Scientist: Now and then, a painter like Claude Monet or Pablo Picasso comes along and turns the art world on its head. They invent new aesthetic styles, forging movements such as impressionism or abstract expressionism. But could the next big shake-up be the work of a machine? An artificial intelligence has been developed that produces images in unconventional styles -- and much of its output has already been given the thumbs up by members of the public. The team [of researchers] modified a type of algorithm known as a generative adversarial network (GAN), in which two neural nets play off against each other to get better and better results. One creates a solution, the other judges it -- and the algorithm loops back and forth until the desired result is reached. In the art AI, one of these roles is played by a generator network, which creates images. The other is played by a discriminator network, which was trained on 81,500 paintings to tell the difference between images we would class as artworks and those we wouldn't -- such as a photo or diagram, say. The discriminator was also trained to distinguish different styles of art, such as rococo or cubism. The clever twist is that the generator is primed to produce an image that the discriminator recognizes as art, but which does not fall into any of the existing styles.
Easier way - just give a kindergarten class a load of paint.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
To be complete, it still needs to explain how it decides to paint what it painted using emphatic words...
Now the robo workers that will replace us in 20 years have something to spend their money on.
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
And there is no better noisy environment than "high art" where paint by numbers picture might win the first prize much to the embarrassment of the officials, and museums mount art works upside down unbeknownst to the patrons as well as the artist!
AI pitted against humans in seeing patterns in noise, is probably a high point, acme, zenith of intelligence. What next? Illusions of grandeur?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It needs to create "art" based on personal emotional experience AND induce such emotional experience in human audience.
Otherwise... it's just a drawing, photo, sculpture, video... but not art.
Just like those "paintings" by monkeys and elephants are not art but paint slapped on canvas.
Or like how birdsong is not art, an anthill is not architecture and dogs urine on the wall is not graffiti.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The clever twist is that the generator is primed to produce an image that the discriminator recognizes as art, but which does not fall into any of the existing styles.
Yet every example I saw on that page was abstract.
What art does is convey feelings. So far, machines have none.
It's like a mountain - it may be beautiful, but in itself, it is not art.
A painting of the same mountain, or dance for it, is an attempt at letting an audience catch a glimpse of the feelings the artist had for the mountain.
What art does is convey feelings. So far, machines have none.
If you lay out a hundred abstract paintings, half made by humans and half by this GAN, do you think you could tell which were made with "feelings"? I doubt if you could do any better than chance. It is silly to say there is a difference if the difference is undetectable.
The AI did not actually create the art. The programmer gave the AI the ability and method for which to create the art, therefore the programmer is the artist and the AI is simply his brush. AI does not exist without the programmer. If it ever does, its name will no longer contain the word artificial.