Thanks Marc! That’s a great resource, thanks for the reminder. Really eager to dive into it and perhaps have some more points for discussion after the Frankenstein launch.
Cheers, -e. > On 17 Jul 2021, at 4:47 am, marc garrett via NetBehaviour > <netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: > > > Hi Eryk, > > I thought I'd chime in at this point. > > Firstly, are you aware of -- An Open P2P Resource for AI technology: Art, > Academia and Activism? > https://marcgarrett.org/2020/09/11/an-open-p2p-resource-for-ai-technology-art-academia-and-activism/ > > A list project I published in September 2020. An open knowledge list for all > to add to, use, and share with others. Created for the cultural production of > AI: investigating various methods, such as: computer vision, artificial > intelligence, neurorobotics, speech recognition, generative writing, > generative music, image manipulation, statistical modelling. This page will > be updated by myself and the community every now and then. > > Also, I know you're aware of Mary Shelley Re-animated (because you're in it) > which should hopefully be published by the end of August or beginning to > mid-September. > > Some of the concerns are examined in the publication "The exhibitions > Monsters of the Machine and Children of Prometheus critique the ideas of > Kurzweil and Diamandis through the deployment of Mary Shelley’s Dr > Frankenstein as a cautionary spectre, to simultaneously challenge and draw > attention to the overconfident, white, male, patriarchal domination of > corporations and technological industries that exists today. Furthermore, the > project critiques our relationship with technology in society by using > grounded interpretations of Shelley’s Frankenstein and related themes, which > ask us to reconsider her warning that scientific imagining and resultant > technologies have unintended and dramatic consequences. Finally, the > exhibitions invited us to ask the same about the arts and the human > imagination and consider how technology operates today as a monster in the > machine of art." > > Can't wait for when it's out. Especially to unpack some of the varied > discussions by contributors in the book. > > Wishing you well. > > Marc > >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 14:20, Eryk Salvaggio via NetBehaviour >> <netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: >> Max, Paul & all; >> Thanks for all the thought-provoking links, everyone. >> >> Sometimes there are shades of panic in the way I see AI art. It’s like the >> machine is getting deep into my psyche, colonizing the culture as data and >> spitting something out that barely resembles art or beauty or play. I think >> that reflects the weaponized ideology of broader data practices today: this >> is exactly what machine learning is doing, often to catastrophic results. >> And much of that comes from how we imagine the links between our >> imaginations and the machine’s “imagination.” >> >> The machine’s "imagination" (whatever happens in "latent space," which seems >> to be the term we're using) is reaching to find patterns and relationships, >> even when such patterns and relationships may not exist. We hope that the >> way we take art into our minds is something different. But I don’t know for >> sure. >> >> At the moment, I can only respond to this machine “imagination” in the same >> way that we find meaning within a human-produced painting, or poem, or film, >> or television advertisement. We imagine ourselves within those worlds. We do >> this within our private mental spaces, but we hand over some internal >> control to the artists, poets, or marketing agencies. When we do, our story >> and their stories become temporarily intertwined with something external. >> Whether we are being manipulated by poets or design houses, we know it was >> human, and trying to meet us. >> >> With few exceptions, even the most alienating and experimental of these >> communication forms are shaped by that desire for human comprehension. >> Machines, in simulating art, do so without any desire to connect or reassure >> us. The machine is not concerned with being understood, because it doesn’t, >> and cannot, understand. It’s the cold indifference of a machine. In the >> distance between us and it, we project all that we fear from the Other: >> infallible, all-knowing, all-aware — and so we imagine the very things that >> make them so frightening. I am used to the sense that the screen is always >> there to take something from me, package it up, and offer it back through >> the recommendation of some distant system. So, I am also bringing that to my >> interactions with the system, in how I interpret (imagine) what it is doing. >> Generative art systems don't "do this," I do it to them. >> >> The uncanniness — that close-but-not-quite-human quality of machine >> generated text and images — is a different way of intermingling imaginations >> because we imagine it to be different. The image quality is not so clear, >> and so the limits of the machine imagination intertwines with a human desire >> to be immersed. I can see my own imagination reaching, and how sometimes >> imagination fails, and unmasking that lie can be terrifying. (The Lacanian >> "Real," etc.) >> >> >> -e. >> >> >> >> >>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 3:38 PM Paul Hertz via NetBehaviour >>> <netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: >>> There's an essay, "Intelligence Without Representation" that Brooks wrote >>> in 1987, http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/representation.pdf, that >>> offered what was then a new point of view on how to consider AI. >>> >>> // Paul >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 2:10 PM Paul Hertz <igno...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Max, >>>> >>>> The robotics researcher Rodney Brooks back in the late 1980s argued the AI >>>> based on the construction of a "knowledge base" was bound to fail. He made >>>> the case that a robot adapting to an environment was far more likely to >>>> achieve intelligence of the sort that humans demonstrate precisely because >>>> it was embodied. Some of his ideas are presented in the movie Fast, Cheap, >>>> and Out of Control, directed ISTR by Errol Morris. If you haven't seen it >>>> yet, I can recommend it. >>>> >>>> -- Paul >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:38 PM Max Herman via NetBehaviour >>>>> <netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I know virtually nothing about AI, beyond what the letters stand for, but >>>>> noticed this new article in Quanta Magazine. Does it pertain at all? >>>>> Interestingly it concludes that in order for AI to be human-like it will >>>>> need to understand analogy, the basis of abstraction, which may require >>>>> it to have a body! 🙂 >>>>> >>>>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/melanie-mitchell-trains-ai-to-think-with-analogies-20210714/?mc_cid=362710ae88&mc_eid=df8a5187d9 >>>>> >>>>> I have been interested in the book GEB by Hofstadter for some time, and >>>>> have been researching how it was referenced (specifically its Chapter IV >>>>> "Consistency, Completeness, and Geometry" and its Introduction) by Italo >>>>> Calvino in Six Memos for the Next Millennium, so Mitchell's connection to >>>>> Hofstadter and GEB is interesting on a general level. >>>>> >>>>> Coincidentally I contacted her a year ago to ask about the Calvino >>>>> connection but she replied she hadn't read any Calvino or the Six Memos. >>>>> However, his titles for the six memos -- Lightness, Quickness, >>>>> Exactitude, Visibility, Multiplicity, and Consistency -- might be exactly >>>>> the kinds of "bodily" senses AI will need to have! >>>>> >>>>> All best, >>>>> >>>>> Max >>>>> >>>>> https://www.etymonline.com/word/analogy >>>>> https://www.etymonline.com/word/analogue >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>>>> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org >>>>> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ----- |(*,+,#,=)(#,=,*,+)(=,#,+,*)(+,*,=,#)| --- >>> http://paulhertz.net/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NetBehaviour mailing list >>> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org >>> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org >> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > -- > Wishing you well > > Marc > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Dr Marc Garrett > > Co-founder & Artistic director of Furtherfield & DECAL Decentralised Arts Lab > > Furtherfield disrupts & democratises art and technology through exhibitions, > labs & debate, for deep exploration, open tools & free thinking. > http://www.furtherfield.org > > DECAL Decentralised Arts Lab is an arts, blockchain & web 3.0 technologies > research hub for fairer, more dynamic & connected cultural ecologies & > economies now. http://decal.is/ > > Recent publications: > > State Machines: Reflections & Actions at the Edge of Digital Citizenship, > Finance, & Art. Edited by Yiannis Colakides, Marc Garrett, Inte Gloerich. > Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam 2019 http://bit.do/eQgg3 > > Artists Re:thinking the Blockchain. Eds, Ruth Catlow, Marc Garrett, Nathan > Jones, & Sam Skinner. Liverpool Press - http://bit.ly/2x8XlMK > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
