Comments on: Thurs. March 13 (for Tues. 25th)

By: mfulke1

mfulke1 — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:58:10 +0000

There is something very creepy and disturbing about artificial intelligence. I definitely appreciate the little intelligent things that make my life that much easier. For instance NetFlix telling me which movies that I would prefer or Albertson’s sending me coupons for my favorite products because of my Albertson’s card. I think this area of artificial intelligence hits the closest to home. It affects our daily life.

Artificial intelligence is such a complex thing, it’s difficult to tell when it progresses past convenience and moves into dangerous territory. It’s hard to tell when that line has been crossed. Norbert Weiner had the best understanding of what needs to be kept in mind when dealing with any system including: feedback, communication, and control. I think that control is the most important of these. Control needs to be kept in order to maintain our life as a society and not develop into a science fiction movie.

By: bserpa1

bserpa1 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:39:11 +0000

In Paul’s reading, Norbert Wiener argues that there are “three central concepts which he maintained were crucial in any organism or system- communication, control, and feedback”. He also added “the guiding principle behind life and organization is information”. These qualities are shown in Karl Sims’s installations Galapagos. Because it is modeled after Charles Darwin’s trip to the Galapagos Islands, viewers participate making different decisions which change the evolution of the aesthetic organism.

This piece is interesting because it brings science into art. People with different interests can appreciate this piece. Many people, who are interested with science, do not really value art, and vice versa. This piece allows these two groups to come together and discuss the art and evolution of it.

Another relationship in this piece is between the viewer and machine. While the viewer selects which animated forms will “survive” the computer selects the growth and mutation of the piece. It’s a strange and eerie relationship, which is thrilling and mind boggling. It is a new experience to have a connection with a machine. To be able to work with a machine and make decisions with it: this opens up new ideas to future artists/ scientists. It allows people to think of other opportunities out there for the digital art world; possibly machines doing work in an office space or working in place of a scientist.

This piece allows scientists to go further into viewing and studying this biological evolution. They can learn new mutations. They are able to watch from start to finish, slowing down the process when needed. Although “Galapagos” can be viewed by the amateur eye, I believe it is more beneficial for a scientific eye.

By: wiedha414

wiedha414 — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:49:45 +0000

In regards to the Paul reading, I found the works on links between aesthetics and evolution extremely intriguing. Since I’m especially into biology and the science of the natural world, I found the choice of implementing the themes of biology into new media art.

I liked Karl Sims’s Genetic Images (1993) and Galapagos (1997) and how you could simulate the mutation and reproduction of computer-generated organisms on a twelve-screen arc. It becomes an analogy for how real creatures evolved to overcome the obstacles they experienced and how we can change by facing our own personal obstacles.

Christa Sommerer’s A-Volve was even more interesting because it allowed you to directly interact with a virtual creature and you could be a factor in how their “lives” played out. You could have a hand in their survival or their demise and like Galapagos, you could influence the reproduction of the species. It’s a work of art that’s pretty much a virtual game as well!

The reading then addressed a subject we’ve already previously discussed: Alan Turing’s famous Turing Test and his theories of AI. It related the test’s questions to determine the difference between the intelligence of a human and of a machine to the pre-prepared responses of AI characters: the Eliza and ALICE bots. People actually have implemented his theoretical work into actual robots solely for the experimentation in the complexity of their responses. It’s an intriguing concept, but the question comes to mind that if we create too complex of an AI like the Deep Blue Supercomputer created to beat a world chess champion, is it possible for that intelligence to become self-aware to calculate and scheme for its own machinations? A spooky thought…

This is among some of the concepts touched as well in the Wardrip-Fruin reading. Wiener was concerned by the war-like intentions we were putting machines to after the experiences he witnessed during World War II. In my opinion, I agree. We really do need to be careful what direction we take the AI of our machines in and how far we should let them develop and evolve…

By: santanulsu

santanulsu — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:25:04 +0000

Artists have started to incorporate Artificial Intelligence (AI) practices into Cultural productions, that is, into the production of artefacts and experiences that function as art within the cultural field.

AI and digital technology opens up a varied scope for the artists to explore in the field of art. Which helps the viewer / audience to be a part of the work of art. One need not be an art lover to be a part of contemporary art today as it drags a larger audience with the help of technology and the contemporary method.

By: plankalkul

plankalkul — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:33:42 +0000

I have been a critical of some of the pieces that we have looked at over the semester from the standpoint of user interface and the lack of “smoothness” or polish. The hand of the artist as well as the interaction with the work both seemed too heavy in some cases lending to and overly gimmicky or just plain awkward aesthetic experience. I thought that the readings this week all pointed to a possible solution to some of these shortcomings and offered real options for experiencing digital art in a way that makes the most of the potential that the technology has to offer.
The most interesting things that I gathered from the readings of Paul and Grau were, as Paul puts it, the “distributed presence” and how virtual reality and immersion deal with the viewers (or immersants) in the context of the physicality of the work. Paul’s comments about AI are appropos by claiming that “these projects obviously require the development of an artistic concept and quite complex programming, the artists in the end quite literallhy vanish behind and from their wirk, while their creation…takes on its own life.” By pushing the evidence of the hand of the artist into the background (as evidence of this I point to the cadre of “technicians” that worked on the Davies piece-questioning authorship and intellectual rights that digital media incessantly deals with) and highlighting the importance of the piece itself, if dredges up the old questions of ars gratis artis (Grau quotes Eco “it doesn’t tell of it, it is it” as an interesting way to deal with that criticism).
The most intriguing question that was raised by these readings is the concept of immersion disallowing critical reflection. I don’t agree with the idea that a piece can be above criticism or somehow be so “wowing” that it makes criticism moot. If total immersion in an environment were to render the immersant incapable of criticism then I would think that philosophers would have died out a long time ago.

By: scanci

scanci — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:53:01 +0000

I just don’t think that AI is very terrifying… in fact– maybe despite the number of movies still being made about how “scary” AI is– I can’t really find it any more intimidating than … zombies. The fear of Artificial Intelligence seems to me a rather dated cultural fear. It’s not going to take our jobs away, it’s going to act as a stimulus. I have a feeling it will only cause people to be more creative, to whatever end.

It seems to me that people like Kenneth Feingold are utilizing Artificial Intelligence within an artistic context to get us to empathize with our interfaces. Or, perhaps he is humanizing the interface — “naturalizing” the interface, to sustain a sense of empathy with the AI. I personally feel that the combined simulation of a physical humanoid with Artificial Intelligence forces the viewer to reflect on the gap between what the art shows us of a human, and what a human actually is.

By: winners84

winners84 — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:19:39 +0000

the interesting thing about AI, for the most part, is humans are still in control – it just depends how far we wish to push things. technology is part and parcel of our modern society and i guess now we are universally linked with the developments in technology, and we certainly reap the benefits from that. as an art form, AI and digital art is another extension of the umbrella term art, and what can be achieved using contemporary methods and mediums. the further we can push technology, the more interactive the art can become with the viewer/audience. AI and other technologies also give the artists larger scope for different forms of communication.

By: elorma1

elorma1 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:29:30 +0000

check out my blog about artificial Intelligence