[NetBehaviour] Quick thought about Neural Networks

BishopZ xchicago at gmail.com
Fri Mar 30 02:15:12 CEST 2018


Thank you all for the responses.

I have lots of reading to do!



On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Micheál O'Connell via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:

> meant  to say 'not only complex, but simple technologies' a few lines in
> there
>
> Micheál O'Connell
> @mocksim <https://twitter.com/Mocksim_Latest>
>
> On 29 March 2018 at 09:45, Micheál O'Connell <mocksim at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I recently read Caroline Bassett's latest piece of writing (available
>> here http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/73253/ ) which revisits ELIZA and posits a
>> more complicated interpretation of  the controversy  surrounding its
>> receipt.  ELIZA was not NN based but as the question of AI generally is
>> being raised, it occurs to me that whether something is interesting has
>> little to do with its apparent sophistication.  All kinds of human
>> tendencies, bodies of knowledge and overarching systems (including the 'art
>> system') impact the reading of a new entity, artefact or algorithm. Even
>> Grey Walter’s tortoises behaved surprisingly, the went into crisis on
>> occasion, ‘flickering, twittering and jigging’. Grey Walter's rudimentary
>> robots were more obviously physically embodied dynamic mechanisms than any
>> neural network, but, as the nickname suggests, open to being at least
>> anthropomorphised, or misunderstood, under and over-understood. There's
>> surely a tendency, and need, to treat as black boxes, not only simple, but
>> complex technologies and processes. In my view an extended definition of AI
>> would include all of the human-made procedures, processes, instructions and
>> codes which surround us. Algorithmic processes and NNs are high speed forms
>> of bureaucracy, it could be argued. And machineries, and procedures may be
>> embedded withing others in a kind of object-oriented fashion. A NN's
>> meaning will change depending on what overarching arenas or systems are
>> brought to bear on it and what framework it is associated with. It may
>> indicate that itself for sure but not always. If you ran a NN designed for
>> business goals, one which dealt with large amounts of data in the
>> Serpentine and presented it operation and outputs in the way that you would
>> to an industrial client then I wonder what would happen
>>
>>
>> Micheál O'Connell
>> @mocksim <https://twitter.com/Mocksim_Latest>
>>
>> On 25 March 2018 at 16:16, ruth catlow <ruth.catlow at furtherfield.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Always very appreciative of ABC explainers of mystifying tech trends -
>>> so bravo!!!! and thank you.
>>>
>>> Currently Ian Cheng's BOB is on display at the Serpentine, about which I
>>> have mixed feelings.
>>> It is very very clever and technically accomplished.
>>>
>>> It also presents a view of "life" as something to be best studied and
>>> understood in a petri dish. The degree to which this is a comment on the
>>> sterility (or threadbare engagement with sociality) of AI development
>>> cultures at this time, is not clear to me. Perhaps we will know the answer
>>> to this question in the upcoming phase two of Cheng's exhibition called The
>>> Emissaries.
>>>
>>> One of the difficulties in parsing BOB as an artwork arises from the
>>> fact that (like a lot of products of digital culture) it is a black-box, or
>>> perhaps a better analogy would be an iceberg. We know that there is a huge
>>> and complex machine under the surface but we have no idea, and no way to
>>> gain understanding of what is going on. It's body is unlike ours, so it
>>> doesn't feel like we do. We can't learn together with it. All we can do is
>>> project our own idea of what an evolving system looks like onto its
>>> surface. And I think BOB is doing very clever pattern mirroring.
>>>
>>> So for me - with a creative Neural Net artwork I want to know about the
>>> "body" of the artwork and to be able to observe the glorious gap between
>>> what I might project onto it and what is actually going on.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Ruth
>>>
>>> On 25/03/18 05:20, BishopZ via NetBehaviour wrote:
>>>
>>> Been building some Neural Networks.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are two ways you can build them...
>>> Analytical or Creative.
>>>
>>>
>>> An Analytical NN takes a lot of data
>>> and boils it down to an answer.
>>> This is what the business world is so on about.
>>> It's a replacment for anything that was formerly
>>> random decisions, like which banner ad to display.
>>>
>>> You can also make a Creative NN,
>>> which taks a small amount of data
>>> and makes up a whole bunch.
>>>
>>> Examples of Creative NNs:
>>>
>>> 1. You press a button, and the NN creates an image. You tell it whether
>>> you liked the image or not.
>>>
>>> 2. You select 1 of 4 colors, the NN writes a poem for you. You tell it
>>> whether you liked the poem or not.
>>>
>>> Techniques for Creative NNs:
>>>
>>> (1) NN's only do what you train them to do. If you include the previous
>>> answer as part of the input data, then you can train it to not give the
>>> same answer twice.
>>>
>>> (2) The higher you set the learning rate, the more "in the moment" it
>>> becomes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Netbehaviour,
>>>
>>> Any ideas, thoughts, comments? Is there room for creative NN artworks?
>>> Seems like this kind of thing could take over the interactive installation
>>> space. Maybe art-tech can become surprising again?
>>>
>>> If they make manipulation machines that drag on your worst fears, maybe
>>> we can make happiness bots that make you fearless?
>>>
>>> Any ideas, thoughts, comments? What if we made the entire museum into
>>> a rube goldberg of intelligent automation? Anything else we could do?
>>>
>>> Skynet's the limit.
>>>
>>> Bz
>>>
>>> --
>>> ((º Ω º))
>>>
>>> http://bishopZ.com
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetBehaviour mailing listNetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.orghttps://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Co-founder Co-director
>>> Furtherfield
>>>
>>> www.furtherfield.org
>>>
>>> +44 (0) 77370 02879
>>>
>>> Bitcoin Address 1G7SPFpvHhVEqn5trpNEcyNWbDcyZXuAnh
>>>
>>> Furtherfield is the UK's leading organisation for art shows, labs, &
>>> debates
>>> around critical questions in art and technology, since 1997
>>>
>>> Furtherfield is a Not-for-Profit Company limited by Guarantee
>>> registered in England and Wales under the Company No.7005205.
>>> Registered business address: Ballard Newman, Apex House, Grand Arcade,
>>> Tally Ho Corner, London N12 0EH.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
>>> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>


-- 
((º Ω º))

http://bishopZ.com
_______________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20180329/425020e1/attachment.htm>


More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list