A Turing Test for Generative Art: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
(Die Seite wurde neu angelegt: „ == Reference == Kevin McGuire: A Turing Test for Generative Art. In: Generative Art 2011, 268-274. == DOI == == Abstract == When we produce generative alg…“) |
(→Abstract) |
||
| Zeile 13: | Zeile 13: | ||
architect, producing shallow results that have the surface qualities of | architect, producing shallow results that have the surface qualities of | ||
the architect but no substance, much as a parrot might speak words [2] | the architect but no substance, much as a parrot might speak words [2] | ||
| − | but there is no meaning" | + | but there is no meaning" Is it "mannered" Or do we believe we are |
somehow capturing something deeper, a kind of partial working copy of | somehow capturing something deeper, a kind of partial working copy of | ||
the architect's brain and their creative essence? | the architect's brain and their creative essence? | ||
| Zeile 21: | Zeile 21: | ||
In the area of Artificial Intelligence, there is the concept of the Turing | In the area of Artificial Intelligence, there is the concept of the Turing | ||
Test [3] which allows us to discuss when we believe a computer | Test [3] which allows us to discuss when we believe a computer | ||
| − | program is behaving "intelligently". | + | program is behaving "intelligently". The Turing Test is not a real test, but |
rather a rhetorical framework in which one can disentangle the | rather a rhetorical framework in which one can disentangle the | ||
discussion around artificial intelligence. | discussion around artificial intelligence. | ||
Aktuelle Version vom 8. Dezember 2014, 19:55 Uhr
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Kevin McGuire: A Turing Test for Generative Art. In: Generative Art 2011, 268-274.
DOI
Abstract
When we produce generative algorithms whose output closely matches the style of a particular architect [1] or artist, what exactly is it that we think we are doing? Do we believe we are simply mimicking the architect, producing shallow results that have the surface qualities of the architect but no substance, much as a parrot might speak words [2] but there is no meaning" Is it "mannered" Or do we believe we are somehow capturing something deeper, a kind of partial working copy of the architect's brain and their creative essence?
How can we even begin to have this discussion?
In the area of Artificial Intelligence, there is the concept of the Turing Test [3] which allows us to discuss when we believe a computer program is behaving "intelligently". The Turing Test is not a real test, but rather a rhetorical framework in which one can disentangle the discussion around artificial intelligence.
We can apply a similar philosophical framework to the problem of generative art. By applying an equivalent to the Turing Test, we can discuss topics like mimicry, forgery, functional correctness, topological similarity, branding, signature style, whether a machine can be creative, and whether a machine can create art.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
Used References
no c&p
Links
Full Text
http://www.generativeart.com/GA2011/kevin.pdf
