Google’s Trippy AI Neural Nets Put On an Art Show

Google has it's Neural Net doing artwork and they sold some paintings at an art exhibit. Would you be any of it?

Almost every day, machines outmatch humans on some task. They identify faces and places better than us. They beat us at bedeviling board games.

Can machines outdo Picasso?

Google thinks they should at least have a chance. On Friday night, they did.

San Francisco played host to “DeepDream,” an event that its organizers, members of Google’s research and virtual reality divisions, call the first ever art exhibition produced by neural nets — the in-vogue artificial intelligence tool that roughly mimics the human brain. The artworks were auctioned off to benefit the Gray Area Foundation for the Arts.

“It’s just random noise,” explained Mike Tyka, a Google researcher and the show’s most prolific artist. That is, the coder feeds visual data into the neural nets, unable to predict what will emerge.

Blaise Agüera y Arcas, a Google researcher, gave the evening’s keynote.

“I used to think that art was some peculiar thing that humans do,” he said. “But now I think when we meet the aliens, they’ll have a similar concept.”

recode.net...

I prefer the artwork of Ernie Barnes but it looks pretty good.

When we meet the aliens?

a reply to: neoholographic


There seems the attempt to present a mosaic pattern so as to offer modern techniques that in effort try to express something beyond a 2D setting.

Am not certain this AI has feelings but otherwise it would relate to a human influences.

It is interesting but the link in and of itself present that somehow AI has exceeded mans capacity to think. Clearly drone aircraft can exceed human tolerance towards G forces. AI also has offered from some generally interesting responses to games. This I am sure has brought of issues of developing an AI that can address every possible permutation, just as in aChess Game. And defeat an enemy, more efficiently. Than a person who is trained as a Military tactician and is rated with an IQ of 180+.

What happens when on creates an intelligence that cannot feel pain, anguish, solace or dreams to name a few?

In explanation this could have something to do with why people fear AI....

I doubt it has feelings, because it´s just lines of code. There has to be a mechanism spawning feelings and such a thing does not develop simply on it´s own. Think of it like evolution if you believe in it. Otherwise you (the human) would need to give the instance a context around feelings and a mechanism that spawns them linked to the decicion making process feed back between those two. Now we have a problem, how do we define feelings and the connections to our own thought processes? We can to a certain limit but not without bias. Because all humans, some more, some less have bias.

We needed feelings to function in a community so we developed them or had them from the beginning and it added to our success. Unless this scenario is reached by the AI (or better say the AIs that identified and found themselfes), there is no need for the AI to evolve feelings. From a intelectual standpoint, personal feelings are controproductive when it comes for the greater good. Exactly what people fear.

Now, I don´t know much about the way they introduce new code to the AI at google or else or if it has self optimizing features and the possibility to evolve into a new evolution stage bearing a child-instance inheriting structures from the parent-instance (that´s how we do it).

Edit: To go a little bit deeper into that but keeping it simple...(I also will not use correct AI description like strong/true/false AI for simplicity).
Imagine you´re running your AI/self learning software the first time. After some more time and work and exploring, the SOCRs (self optimizing cluster routines) will have detected some runtime related optimizations. Think of it like a human trying different things and reflecting about it.

For that to happen withing the structures of an AI, you need to give it the possibility to benchmark itself(human:reflect), develop different angles of problem solving(human:analyzing) and in the end, benchmark them. That´s the point some say it´s becoming "concious" to a small scale the first time.

Of course you need to give the whole thing a kickstart and the tools for that. You also need it to give it some kind of treshold to trigger the single evolution states (humans: age of fertility). Like in our world, some child instances will run (humans:live) to a certain point until the database breaks (human:memory loss) or anything happens that crashes the instance (or even the machine hosting it). Some will flourish some not.

Parallelism it is if you don´t want to halt the parent instance to a point you can compare those two(human:judge/analyze other people) and let a second instance of the first parent instance decide for one. Hint: bias problem for parent AI if feelings present).
Beside the problem of aviable computing power (at least with boolean systems we use 0/1) for one AI, you have the problem that you need at least two AIs active after the first evolution stage.

Can you see the matroska problem? Although, it´s inverted so think of it that the smaller one has the bigger one inside.
img.alibaba.com...


Here is a quick and easy visual for the idea, won´t post shematics
i.imgsafe.org...

Own Opinion: With everything I know and have done with self learning software/AI since around 1997, I grew big respect. Not fear but a healthy respect. And then some Mr. Zuckerberg comes along and acts like all the (way more knowledgeable) people voiceing their concerns about reckless AI development are paranoid freaks.

a reply to: verschickter


My impression is that what makes the Mona Lisa beyond price is the content that relates to its origin. As a work of art for its own sake it is a painting of a woman face and in that context if it were not for the history of its artist, would be acknowledged as mundane.

a reply to: Kashai
It´s a little bit more than the origin, it´s also about how it´s painted. Not just a women face but I think I know what you mean. But that´s another point I could write a huge post. It comes back to feelings and personal preferences carved again by the community itself. We are a product of our environment and so is the AI.

a reply to: neoholographic

Our machine overlords have the realism and artistic proficiency to impress and catch the brain's attention, but methinks they may not have the heart and soul generated by great artists. Human consciousness knows the difference. Try again, and refine the code to contain, analyze, and duplicate the mixture of mathematics and aesthetics (obtained by colour, paint strokes, facial construction and expression, size-of-object comparison, arranged by position in the artwork, etc.) of a thousand or so works considered "great". Then, with the aim of trying to pull off a masterpiece with computer code working independently, see if it can eventually create something which enters into that hierarchy.

a reply to: verschickter


Which in potential define AI as in and of itself a work of art.

In that sense a representation not an actual facsimile or copy.

I find it interesting that Leonardo da Vinci never painted images of Royals or those otherwise in power, in the earthy sense.

originally posted by: Kashai
Which in potential define AI as in and of itself a work of art.

A "strong AI" (search the definition) would define be defined intellectual, not art. Because if it can reproduce (although not necessary for a strong AIs definition), it can perform intellectual work like we humans do and interact with it´s environment, those three things would define it as something living. Like a plant, animal, human (=animal that considers itself superior and calls itself human)

a reply to: verschickter


Nonetheless AI inherently cannot feel pain....It cannot experience the opposite of pleasure and react to the difference.

Reproduction is one quality that makes us sentient but so is suffrage and the fact we will all reach a certain time in our lives where we cannot even make it to a toilet due to age.

If a robot removes one of two of its capacities to hear sounds, it will not feel what Picasso did when he did the same thing.

a reply to: Kashai
I do not want to say you are wrong with your first paragraph but you´re also not right. Think about WHY we feel pain (need to feel pain) and then convert it to the AIs situation. Pain is also not the direct opposite of pleasure.
Pain is a defense mechanism to prevent our body (and sometimes soul) from damage.

When it´s about AIs,and comparing them to humans, you need to think about the meaning of the words we use to describe and why it is so. You can´t just mirror it 1:1.
Parts of the thing we call "feeling" is in truth just a thought like others. There are differences between physical and pysocholigical feelings.

I´ve been working almost 19 years with such systems, not all the time but almost. Not bragging here, just want to say it´s not so easy to understand all the connections, you need time for it.

a reply to: verschickter


Lets say for example we build an AI device that for all intent and purpose is able to replace a Prostitute.

Given today what is understood and as have you have stated your comprehension.

At what point would such a devise comprehend they way it is being treated?

a reply to: Kashai
Your example is inconsistent. We have to differ.
Do we use an universal AI tasked with that job or do we create a special AI prefitted?
Because every AI has to learn and explore. It´s like a newborn child.

Have you thought about how you would enforce your will on that AI to do what you want?

If you craft something for a special purpose like in your example, you can´t compare it to a strong AI.

At what point would such a devise comprehend they way it is being treated?

I don´t know. It´s not answerable. Current AIs are running on a different hardware than humans (ICs/Brain), have different ways how they work. Define treated, comprehend and way (no need to, just a thinking exercise).

Does it matter if it comprehends? I suppose your question is more like "When does it recognize that it´s value in society is very low regarding it´s own rights?" Probably pretty fast. Would it care or feel something? Only if self evolved or intentionally precoded.

Your "problem" is that you try to compare a strong AI to a human. By definition, a strong AI is able to perform the same thinking tasks humans can do. Careful with the definitions. There are differences between AI/ strong AI / conscient AI.

It´s a bit arduous, if you noticed, I´m often to be found in such threads. the reason why it´s arduous is a) language barrier, b) most people know literally nothing about the topic else than "AI = must behave like us because we´re the only intelligent species". c) most people seem to ignore me nowadays.

a reply to: verschickter

One should consider that comprehending the difference between right and wrong relates to consciousness.

An important factor in making the Mona Lisa priceless is that outside perhaps himself Da Vinci never painted facsimiles of anyone else.

Certain that in retrospect he had really serious complaints perhaps even death threats that went undocumented under the circumstances.

Suffrage and art is as relevant to art as relish, ketchup and mustard are relevant to a grilled hot dog.

a reply to: Kashai
You should consider that you are a human and our underlying thinking process is unique to us as far as we know it. Not to say other animals are not somewhat intelligent but you get the drift.

Let´s play a little game, I ask you the question:
Would it be right or wrong if we were all extincted by an alien race?
Just answer with right or wrong for yourself.

What´s right for you is not necessary right for others and vice versa. If you look at it from the standpoint of earth and animals, we should probably all be killed by a much more caring aliens. For us it would be wrong and cruel, for every other living being it´s the right thing. Because not unlike a virus, we will thrive on the host until it dies either alone or us being the reason. So from an earthly standpoint, we should all be evicted.

Now, the question is not if something/one able to comprehend, but how far are we / is it willing to look at the big picture and in the end, are we / is it able to comprehend that.

a reply to: verschickter


For the most part in the world today slavery and human trafficking is acknowledged as a crime. But while there are many UN resolutions to that effect. Not one country that openly denounces such behavior actually spends money on a law enforcement agency specifically tasked with addressing the issue?


Alien races capable of interstellar travel in a realist point of view have no need related to recourses. That would specifically require the invasion of a planet like Earth. Such a capacity would for all intense and purpose make such an act immoral as any culture capable of reaching earth from another star would be able to acquire such needs without bothering a planet that harbored life.

a reply to: Kashai
It´s not about aliens it´s or their reasons to invade, try try again. It´s a theoretical example to show you:

What´s right for you is not necessary right for others and vice versa. If you look at it from the standpoint of earth and animals, we should probably all be killed by a much more caring aliens. For us it would be wrong and cruel, for every other living being it´s the right thing. Because not unlike a virus, we will thrive on the host until it dies either alone or us being the reason. So from an earthly standpoint, we should all be evicted.

a reply to: verschickter



No offence but to be honest I really do not subscribe to the idea that such a scenario is probable. More than likely such a culture went through a time in there own history when there culture had similar problems than we do today.

I understand what you are saying but I feel more advanced societies would look upon us as an opportunity, to look back into there own history, in a manner of speaking.

a reply to: Kashai

Last post. I don´t know why you think my point is about aliens or advanced species. I was trying to show something completly different. But it seems we are talking into different directions. Try to see the whole topic with a philosophical mindset maybe you will understand what I´m trying to tell you with my "is it right or wrong" example.

a reply to: verschickter

I agree with you that not only cultures can but individuals can have a wide range of behaviors, that even include treating what is generally considered immoral, moral. I worked with people that to them a crime like murder due to an argument over a difference in opinion is justification.

And of course there is the issue of Isis today

Its the common scenario in fiction related to what could go wrong with AI.

At the same time friend I am highlighting this position in questioning the OP article. That cites AI by generating these paintings can actually compete with man in respect to art, given the issues I have expressed.

Humans are at there best when things are at there worst which is a quote from a remake of, "The Day the Earth Stood Still".

We as a race today have many issues that in many cases are ignored as in the problem with slavery I mentioned above.