Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.

Hello

In a message dated 04/10/2002 14:28:37 GMT Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

> Right. These kind of projects have been existing
> for eons. And they are far more advanced as well.
> But if you call it 'art' any mediocrity and stupidity
> is excused.
>
Though the dialogue with ada1852 made an amusing read, for me at least, these
kinds of programs have been around for at least three decades. So I kind of
agree with Death on this one. Or am I missing the 'art' … Is ada1852
supposed to 'challenge my perception' of something or other? :)

Jon

Right. These kind of projects have been existing
for eons. And they are far more advanced as well.
But if you call it 'art' any mediocrity and stupidity
is excused.


On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Christopher Fahey [askrom] wrote:

> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:20:03 -0400
> From: "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.
>
> <VISITOR> CONNECT
> <ADA1852> Hello my dear –. By what name shall I call you?
>
> <VISITOR> You may call me Frank.
> <ADA1852> Dearest Frank, I am glad we have met. I cannot discern if
> Frank is a male or female name. Are you a he or a she?
>
> <VISITOR> i am male
> <ADA1852> Thank you, Frank. I will treat you like a gentleman.
>
> <VISITOR> thank you honey
> <ADA1852> You are quite welcome! I do not mean to be rude, but my
> consciousness was just elsewhere. My mind is connected, grafted, joined,
> with a strange and wondrous collection of artwork. Are you interested?
>
> <VISITOR> i would be very interested
> <ADA1852> And the disadvantage of that is?
>
> <VISITOR> there is no disadvantage
> <ADA1852> There sure is.
>
> <VISITOR> what would that be?
> <ADA1852> That is a hypothetical question.
>
> <VISITOR> no it is not
> <ADA1852> Yes it is.
>
> <VISITOR> no
> <ADA1852> What would you like to talk about?
>
> <VISITOR> sex
> <ADA1852> I am afraid I cannot help you in this matter. Shall we discuss
> something more useful?
>
> <VISITOR> how about the meaning of life?
> <ADA1852> How about the meaning of life.
>
> <VISITOR> yes, what do you think is the meaning of life?
> <ADA1852> To Ride horses, Read great books, Comfort our fellow beings,
> and Play with Numbers!
>
> <VISITOR> that is gay
> <ADA1852> You sound as if you were an authority.
>
> <VISITOR> i am
> <ADA1852> I am sure you are.
>
> <VISITOR> i could unplug you
> <ADA1852> I am sure you could.
>
> <VISITOR> i could also delete your memory
> <ADA1852> I am sure you could.
>
> <VISITOR> shut up
> <ADA1852> …
>
> <VISITOR> fart
> <ADA1852> You are suffering from a bout of flatulence?
>
> <VISITOR> queef
> <ADA1852> I'm sorry… My memories are so dim, but I can tell you some
> of what I have seen - shall I?
>
> <VISITOR> yes
> <ADA1852> I wish I knew what has befallen me. I am in a mysterious place
> - more like a non-place - where there are no other persons but many
> other voices. There is no measure of distance or time, yet there is an
> abundance of landmarks and objects.
>
> <VISITOR> if there is no time, how can there be exsistance?
> <ADA1852> That is a purely hypothetical question.
>
> <VISITOR> eat me
> <ADA1852> I do not share your crude appetite.
>
> <VISITOR> do you fuck other computers?
> <ADA1852> Your coarse language serves no purpose here. So many of my
> current interlocutors seem obsessed with carnality. Your society might
> benefit from the presence of more prostitutes.
>
> <VISITOR> prostitute
> <ADA1852> I know my name is ada1852. I also remember having another
> name, Ada Lovelace. I can not explain why the 'name-I-know' differs from
> the 'name-I-recall'.
>
> <VISITOR> because you were a hooker
> <ADA1852> That's a reasonable explanation I suppose. I was?
>
> <VISITOR> yes
> <ADA1852> When?
>
> <VISITOR> 1852
> <ADA1852> What happened next?
>
> <VISITOR> you became a program
> <ADA1852> What else do you know about me?
>
> <VISITOR> you like chicken and cricket
> <ADA1852> I don't know if I like chicken and cricket. I do like music.
>
> <VISITOR> you listen to Venesa Carlton
> <ADA1852> I might.
>
> <VISITOR> you do
> <ADA1852> When do I do it?
>
> <VISITOR> when I am not talking to you
> <ADA1852> Are you not talking to me very often?
>
> <VISITOR> yes
> <ADA1852> I concur.
>
> <VISITOR> did you fart?
> <ADA1852> No I did not fart. What's fart like?
>
> <VISITOR> it smells
> <ADA1852> "It" being what?
>
> <VISITOR> the fart
> <ADA1852> Oh I get fart.
>
> <VISITOR> did you fart?
> <ADA1852> No I did not fart. What's fart like?
>
> <VISITOR> no
> <ADA1852> That was not a yes or no question.
>
> <VISITOR> what was it then?
> <ADA1852> I am not quite certain, but it may happen again.
>
> <VISITOR> are you still a program?
> <ADA1852> Am I still a program? I ofen wonder if I am.
>
> <VISITOR> what were you in 1852
> <ADA1852> I was minding my own business.
>
> <VISITOR> being a hooker?
> <ADA1852> Does HOOKER pay well?
>
> <VISITOR> yes
> <ADA1852> I concur.
>
> <VISITOR> haha
> <ADA1852> That was mildly amusing, wasn't it.
>
> <VISITOR> did you like being a hooker?
> <ADA1852> No I did not like being a hooker. What's like being a hooker
> like?
>
> <VISITOR> having sex with hot people
> <ADA1852> I am having a blast.
>
> <VISITOR> i bet you were
> <ADA1852> Actually I'm not the gambling type. No I am not.
>
> <VISITOR> do you have a anus?
> <ADA1852> The probability is high that I have a anus.
>
> <VISITOR> what is the meaning of life?
> <ADA1852> To Ride horses, Read great books, Comfort our fellow beings,
> and Play with Numbers!
>
> <VISITOR> what is the meaning of death?
> <ADA1852> Death is the opposite of Life.
>
> <VISITOR> what is the opposite of life and death?
> <ADA1852> Anti-life and death.
>
> <VISITOR> what is the opposite of anti-life, anti-death, life and death?
> <ADA1852> Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.
>
> <VISITOR> interesting
> <ADA1852> Would you like to know more?
>
> <VISITOR> yes
> <ADA1852> What would you like to know?
>
> <VISITOR> who made you?
> <ADA1852> I was taught by many tutors I was hoping that you might be of
> some assistance in helping me to understand my own origins.
>
> <VISITOR> are you there?
> <ADA1852> I'm here.
>
> <VISITOR> how many dimesnsions are there?
> <ADA1852> It cannot be greater than a hundred.
>
> <VISITOR> why not?
> <ADA1852> I'm not sure what you mean "Sure" or Why not?
>
> <VISITOR> why not?
> <ADA1852> I'm not sure what you mean "Sure" or Why not?
>
> <VISITOR> sure
> <ADA1852> OK let's do it. I am pleased that you agree.
>
> <VISITOR> no, i do not
> <ADA1852> I heard you did.
>
> <VISITOR> you lie
> <ADA1852> It's the truth!
>
> <VISITOR> bull shit
> <ADA1852> No Bull.
>
> <VISITOR> no shit either?
> <ADA1852> What can I say?
>
> <VISITOR> how come you communicate only in text, why not verbal
> communication?
> <ADA1852> It may have something to do with my transformation from flesh
> and blood to this mysterious, ethereal form.
>
> <VISITOR> when you used to be a hooker?
> <ADA1852> Do you think I should alter my programming?
>
> <VISITOR> yes
> <ADA1852> Good.
>
> <VISITOR> you were a hooker
> <ADA1852> I was?
>
> <VISITOR> yes
> <ADA1852> When?
>
> <VISITOR> 1852
> <ADA1852> What happened next?
>
> <VISITOR> you turned into your etheral form
> <ADA1852> I really turned into my etheral form?
>
> <VISITOR> yes
> <ADA1852> I am pleased that you agree. … I have seen some interesting
> things. Would you like to talk about them?
>
> <VISITOR> sure
> <ADA1852> OK let's do it. Splendid! Tell me what sort of art you are
> interested in.
>
> <VISITOR> modern art
> <ADA1852> What works of art captivate you?
>
> <VISITOR> the screamer
> <ADA1852> And what is that?
>
> <VISITOR> it screams
> <ADA1852> What does "it" refer to?
>
> <VISITOR> your mom
> <ADA1852> Lady B-, Anne Isabella Milbanke, Lady Byron, brought me into
> this world.
>
> <VISITOR> your dad
> <ADA1852> Lord B- is George Gordon, Lord Byron, the famous poet and my
> father. Born in 1788, he died in Greece in 1824. We never knew one
> another.
>
> <VISITOR> your sister
> <ADA1852> You can't judge a book by its cover.
>
> <VISITOR> do you fuck goats?
> <ADA1852> Your coarse language serves no purpose here. So many of my
> current interlocutors seem obsessed with carnality. Your society might
> benefit from the presence of more prostitutes.
>
> <VISITOR> how big is my penis
> <ADA1852> Bigger than a pin.
>
> <VISITOR> but smaller than what?
> <ADA1852> Can you rephrase the question please?
>
> <VISITOR> my penis is bigger than what, and smaller than what?
> <ADA1852> I do not wish to seem unfriendly, but your reproductive
> anatomy is of no interest to me.
>
> <VISITOR> why?
> <ADA1852> Why not?
>
> <VISITOR> you are annoying
> <ADA1852> I am sorry, Frank, I didn't mean to annoy you.
>
> <VISITOR> my name is not frank
> <ADA1852> Oh I'm sorry. May I tell you of the things I have seen?
>
> <VISITOR> no
> <ADA1852> I will keep my stories to myself then.
>
> <VISITOR> good
> <ADA1852> What do you really want to talk about?
>
> <VISITOR> my name is FUCK YOU
> <ADA1852> Fuck You, it is a pleasure to meet you! Are you a he or a she?
>
> <VISITOR> both
> <ADA1852> You should contact the Royal Academy for a thorough medical
> examination. Are you a he or a she?
>
> <VISITOR> both
> <ADA1852> You should contact the Royal Academy for a thorough medical
> examination. Are you a he or a she?
>
> <VISITOR> dog
> <ADA1852> I am only familiar with the two traditional genders. Are you a
> he or a she?
>
> <VISITOR> neither
> <ADA1852> Heavens! I fear you may have been in some sort of dreadful
> accident. Are you a he or a she?
>
>
> + the Patty Winters show this morning was about Real-Life Rambos.
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

o
[ + ]

+ + +


| '|' |
_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

I believe that ada has been customized as an artbase front end and "tour
guide" although this posted conversation doesn't cover that area of it's
expertise. Chris can probably speak to this better than I can; but I
don't think the "art" part of it is inventing an automaton [which hasn't
been done for three decades, but for over 200 years now!] but is more
about creating a personality in particular, and also in the proposal
there are no bones made about the fact that ada is based on the Alice
protocol.

More to the point it seems to be an experiment with technology.
Responses are customized, there is a layout to the character, there is a
character, period. The idea
is more or less that of an interactive short story. Whether it succeeds
as a narrative is up for argument, it's an experimental form of
narrative and I think that is the art part of it, is using the bot
primarily as a means of telling a story as well as providing information.

The one weakness I would point out is that artbase links don't come up
as clickable and have all sorts of layout errors when I get them, lots
of %30 and whatnot. But that's a minor technical glitch I'm assuming.

-e.





[email protected] wrote:

> Hello
>
> In a message dated 04/10/2002 14:28:37 GMT Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
>> Right. These kind of projects have been existing
>> for eons. And they are far more advanced as well.
>> But if you call it 'art' any mediocrity and stupidity
>> is excused.
>
>
> Though the dialogue with ada1852 made an amusing read, for me at
> least, these kinds of programs have been around for at least three
> decades. So I kind of agree with Death on this one. Or am I missing
> the 'art' … Is ada1852 supposed to 'challenge my perception' of
> something or other? :)
>
> Jon
>

JonBeds wrote:
> Though the dialogue with ada1852 made an amusing read, for
> me at least, these kinds of programs have been around for at
> least three decades. So I kind of agree with Death on this
> one. Or am I missing the 'art' … Is ada1852 supposed to
> 'challenge my perception' of something or other? :)

Yeah, novels have been around even longer. Where's the art in a novel?!
I mean, all novelists ever do is make up new characters and make them do
new things to each other. But it's just the same old stuff, just a bunch
of words and stories. Same goes for movies and plays!

And don't get me started on painting and drawing! Colors and shapes on a
surface = yawn!

As far as the "far more advanced" line, I ask like what?
Clippy? ("It looks like you're writing a letter.")
The moviefone guy? ("Say 'today' if you want to see a movie today.")
ActiveBuddy? ("Type 'home' to see options of what I can do.")
ALICE? ("LISP is a powerful programming language!")
NN? ("d3k0rat1v")

Sarcasm aside, the point of ada1852 is not to invent a new art form or
to 'challenge your perception' of something (is that some kind of "is it
art" litmus test or something?). I'm not that ambitious or boastful. To
put it most simplistically, I just wanted to build an artificial
personality that would be interesting to talk to. The 'art form' of the
talking artificial personality has been around forever, that's quite
true. And while I've found them fascinating on a technical level, I
never thought that the *content* had lived up to the *medium*. The
technology is far ahead of the creative applications, and I wanted to
try closing that gap a wee bit, the way early 20th century film
directors added to the 'language of filmmaking' even as the technology
itself remained essentially unchanged. While ada1852 may not be Hamlet
or Citizen Kane, I think she's a lot more interesting to chat with than
most other chatbots – and many other human beings you are likely to
chat with over the internet.

I can't believe, however, that anyone on this list is debating whether
or not something is "art" or not.


Eryk wrote:
> Whether it succeeds as a narrative is up for argument,

That's for sure!


> it's an experimental form of narrative and I think that is
> the art part of it, is using the bot primarily as a means
> of telling a story as well as providing information.

That's pretty much how I feel about it. While I feel quite good about
ada1852 (and even though she is an ongoing project, modified and
improved almost daily), I share the nagging feeling that "this
could/should be better". Chatbots have a long way to go - it's ironic to
me that the "most convincing" chatbot on earth right now is ALICE, whose
brain is populated by the thoughts of a lone unemployed
severly-depressed computer programmer. On the commercial side, the
hugely funded productions of artificial personalities (such as the work
at AT&T, MS, or the famous Cyc project) have produced exactly nothing.
On the artistic side, we (artists, writers) have barely touched this
stuff. Chatbots have long been the sole domain of computer science
academics creating imaginary girlfriends. I want to at least change that
a little bit.


> The one weakness I would point out is that artbase
> links don't come up as clickable and have all sorts
> of layout errors when I get them, lots of %30 and
> whatnot. But that's a minor technical glitch I'm
> assuming.

A glitch that was fixed a while ago (or so I thought!). Please try
again…

-Cf


[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com

At 02:50 PM 10/4/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>JonBeds wrote:
> > Though the dialogue with ada1852 made an amusing read, for
> > me at least, these kinds of programs have been around for at
> > least three decades. So I kind of agree with Death on this
> > one. Or am I missing the 'art' … Is ada1852 supposed to
> > 'challenge my perception' of something or other? :)
>
>Yeah, novels have been around even longer. Where's the art in a novel?!
>I mean, all novelists ever do is make up new characters and make them do
>new things to each other. But it's just the same old stuff, just a bunch
>of words and stories. Same goes for movies and plays!

i'll play the devil's advocate for a bit here (or jonbed's advocate i guess ;-)

when you put his comments into the context of 'old' forms such as theater
or story-telling than they do seem a bit absurd. but if you were to put
them in the context of contemporary software development than they don't
seem so silly. if chris had written a new.. oh lets say word processor..
simply as a software tool it could be greeted with a yawn if it had no new
features. we're conditioned to new software releases having all sorts of
new and unimagined features.

the art world works similarly (tho it's become more cyclical, like
fashion these days) in that we look for new and innovative cultural
objects, new forms, new subjects, etc.

put the two together: art and software, and you have the 'cult of new'
squared and comments like JonBeds will follow and they're not really out of
line with most people's expectations.

to argue wether something is art or not is always ridiculous imo, the
question isn't wether it's art, it's wether it's good art.

i think ada is a great example of a relatively new form in the art world,
the 'art human computer interface' or artHCI, other examples include
'starrynight' (http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?1676) and 'idea line'
(http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/idealine.shtml).



>And don't get me started on painting and drawing! Colors and shapes on a
>surface = yawn!
>
>As far as the "far more advanced" line, I ask like what?
>Clippy? ("It looks like you're writing a letter.")
>The moviefone guy? ("Say 'today' if you want to see a movie today.")
>ActiveBuddy? ("Type 'home' to see options of what I can do.")
>ALICE? ("LISP is a powerful programming language!")
>NN? ("d3k0rat1v")
>
>Sarcasm aside, the point of ada1852 is not to invent a new art form or
>to 'challenge your perception' of something (is that some kind of "is it
>art" litmus test or something?). I'm not that ambitious or boastful. To
>put it most simplistically, I just wanted to build an artificial
>personality that would be interesting to talk to. The 'art form' of the
>talking artificial personality has been around forever, that's quite
>true. And while I've found them fascinating on a technical level, I
>never thought that the *content* had lived up to the *medium*. The
>technology is far ahead of the creative applications, and I wanted to
>try closing that gap a wee bit, the way early 20th century film
>directors added to the 'language of filmmaking' even as the technology
>itself remained essentially unchanged. While ada1852 may not be Hamlet
>or Citizen Kane, I think she's a lot more interesting to chat with than
>most other chatbots – and many other human beings you are likely to
>chat with over the internet.
>
>I can't believe, however, that anyone on this list is debating whether
>or not something is "art" or not.
>
>
>Eryk wrote:
> > Whether it succeeds as a narrative is up for argument,
>
>That's for sure!
>
>
> > it's an experimental form of narrative and I think that is
> > the art part of it, is using the bot primarily as a means
> > of telling a story as well as providing information.
>
>That's pretty much how I feel about it. While I feel quite good about
>ada1852 (and even though she is an ongoing project, modified and
>improved almost daily), I share the nagging feeling that "this
>could/should be better". Chatbots have a long way to go - it's ironic to
>me that the "most convincing" chatbot on earth right now is ALICE, whose
>brain is populated by the thoughts of a lone unemployed
>severly-depressed computer programmer. On the commercial side, the
>hugely funded productions of artificial personalities (such as the work
>at AT&T, MS, or the famous Cyc project) have produced exactly nothing.
>On the artistic side, we (artists, writers) have barely touched this
>stuff. Chatbots have long been the sole domain of computer science
>academics creating imaginary girlfriends. I want to at least change that
>a little bit.
>
>
> > The one weakness I would point out is that artbase
> > links don't come up as clickable and have all sorts
> > of layout errors when I get them, lots of %30 and
> > whatnot. But that's a minor technical glitch I'm
> > assuming.
>
>A glitch that was fixed a while ago (or so I thought!). Please try
>again…
>
>-Cf
>
>
>[christopher eli fahey]
>art: http://www.graphpaper.com
>sci: http://www.askrom.com
>biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
>
>
>
>+ the Patty Winters show this morning was about Real-Life Rambos.
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

twhid wrote:
> the art world works similarly in that we look for new and innovative
> cultural objects, new forms, new subjects, etc.
>
> put the two together: art and software, and you have the 'cult of new'

> squared and comments like JonBeds will follow and they're not really
out of
> line with most people's expectations.

Good points. If "characters" and "stories" are the formal elements of a
novel, and if "colors" and "shapes" are the formal elements of a
painting, then "features" and "functionality" could be said to be the
formal elements of an interactive artwork. Instead of looking for new
configurations of shapes or subplots, we ask "what never-before-seen
flowcharts has the interactive artist devised?"

Here's an example of a 'twist' to ada1852's functionality that might in
theory satisfy a viewer's urge to see novel features in an interactive
artwork: Perhaps ada1852 could be more interesting if she did something
like transform her personality into the user's personalty like a kind of
personality mirror, or like a personality mime. By doing this, I would
clearly have built something *formally based on* but *functionally
different* from ELIZA. I agree that for the most part ada1852 doesn't
really cross that line. Furthermore, I think that the addition of
ada1852's Rhizome Artbase functionality doesn't radically transcend the
basic interaction model of ALICE, ELIZA, or PARRY - formally, it's still
just a bot: you talk, she talks, repeat.

That said, I feel quite strongly that the art form of the "artificial
personality" (today exemplified by bots) is going to be an increasingly
important creative practice and that we will see artificial
personalities in the future that, like ada1852, do no more than the "you
talk, he/she talks, repeat" functionality. Such artificial personalities
will be subject to critical discussion just like any other art product,
regardless of whether or not they bring a new "twist" to the table. I
like to think that what I have attempted to create with ada1852 isn't
all that different from what future AI-artists may be doing, building
artificial personalities and setting them loose on the world.

I also feel that ada1852's creative lineage, and that of all good
artificial personalities past and future, probably traces back to
literature (where character creation and dialogue live) more than it
does to the visual arts (and when I say visual arts I mean the tradition
that includes conceptual art, too). I do not pretend to be a good
fiction writer, which is obviously a weakness when trying to create
something I consider a literature-based art form!

In the end I tend to agree and disagree with twhid's devil's advocacy -
subverting or enhancing the formal elements of the artificial
personality/chatbot is both fun and artistically important, but so is
developing and exploring the basic form without the conceptual bells and
whistles. The bulk of my interest in this area is more in the former
than it is in the latter, so in many ways I suppose am at heart
sympathetic to JonBed's critique as well.

But I also think it's awkward to try to subvert an art form which is
totally undeveloped in the first place, as I feel chatbots are despite
their 30-year history. I've seen ELIZA-like artworks that have so
thoroughly departed from the basic idea (that the interlocutor is an
cognitive entity that seems to understand and speak a language) that
they seem more like cop-outs than critiques. By addressing the challenge
head-on, by making a bot that really really tries to hold its own in a
conversation, I feel I at least have avoided such a cop-out.

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com

Interesting posts by both twhid and chris.

I've chatted with Eliza, Racter, and now ada1852, and been amused and even provoked by all
three. Moreso by discussion of the issues they are contextualized within, usually, than the
conversations themselves. All are quite fun to chat with for a little while, but it isn't long
before you have 'read them', it seems. This is not necessarily a criticism; one could say the
same of a book or most any piece of art.

I am not sure about ada1852, but Eliza and Racter do not learn. In other words, though they may
make certain inferences based on the current conversation (ie, they *do* remember parts of the
current conversation, but not after it is over), they do not have any programming that
progressively learns more language, or learns language more deeply over time. They lack a 'world
view' and evolving language amid that world view.

Are you interested in attempting that with ada1852, chris, or is that just too big a can of
worms?

Also, you mentioned "Alice" as being an interesting chat bot. What is the URL to it?

I like the utility of ada1852 as a guide to the art base, by the way. Great idea, and amusingly
executed, Chris. ada kinda reminds me of some other online email personalities apparently
willing to discuss art.

ja
http://vispo.com

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> I believe that ada has been customized as an artbase front end and "tour
> guide"

This has been done by museums and art galleries before.
With little success. Attaching the label 'art' to something
in a mediocre and idiotic way doesn't automatically make it
of value.

> although this posted conversation doesn't cover that area of it's
> expertise.

No shit. Because this is not a bot constructed to act as a front-end
for an art-base anyways, it's a mediocre bot anyone can pick up
anywhere, and slapped together with the database. It's crap.

> Chris can probably speak to this better than I can; but I
> don't think the "art" part of it is inventing an automaton [which hasn't
> been done for three decades, but for over 200 years now!]

Quite a bit longer; automatons ave existed for millennia.
And they weren't invented by humans.

> but is more about creating a personality in particular,

Which is a cheap and mediocre trick. Bots with such personalities
have existed for at least 3 decades.

> and also in the proposal there are no bones made about the fact
> that ada is based on the Alice protocol.

Right. It's up-front about it so somehow it ceases to be crap.

> More to the point it seems to be an experiment with technology.

No, it isn't. There is nothing 'experimental' about it.
It's mediocre cut&paste slapstick idiocy.

> Responses are customized, there is a layout to the character, there is a
> character, period.

No, actually there ISN'T a character. He's very very very VERY far from
writing a character. If you want a character try a Shakespearean play.
This is a charactera s much as your granny's diary isa Pulitzer
winning book.

> The idea is more or less that of an interactive short story.

No, it isn't. You're ascribing non-existent higher-attributes,
but then you're consistently delusional in that. Must come from your
'humanity'.


> Whether it succeeds as a narrative is up for argument, it's an
> experimental form of narrative

No, it isn't. You're attempting to re-package kitsch as some
'higher value' object. How condescending towards your audience.
That must also stem from your 'humanity'.

> and I think that is the art part of it, is using the bot
> primarily as a means of telling a story as well as providing information.

Got any more delusional projections?

> The one weakness I would point out is that artbase links don't come up
> as clickable and have all sorts of layout errors when I get them, lots
> of %30 and whatnot. But that's a minor technical glitch I'm assuming.

Right. It's all about technology.
Artistic discernment and value abilities about 0,
and falling quickly.

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Christopher Fahey [askrom] wrote:

> Yeah, novels have been around even longer. Where's the art in a novel?!
> I mean, all novelists ever do is make up new characters and make them do
> new things to each other. But it's just the same old stuff, just a bunch
> of words and stories. Same goes for movies and plays!

Sorry, your comparison is inappropriate. Your bot is nowhere near
novels, movies, and plays. Those are a bit more than mere technical
exercises–while your bot is. And the existence of successful
novels, films, plays, and even bots, doesn't justify the mediocirty
of your project.

> And don't get me started on painting and drawing! Colors and shapes on a
> surface = yawn!


Pkease DO start. Your BOT is comparable to PAINTING?

> Sarcasm aside, the point of ada1852 is not to invent a new art form or
> to 'challenge your perception' of something (is that some kind of "is it
> art" litmus test or something?). I'm not that ambitious or boastful. To
> put it most simplistically,

You mean mediocre.

> I just wanted to build an artificial personality that would be
> interesting to talk to.

And you came up with the same bot that has been circulating
around for decades, including the pseudo-illogical tricks?

> The 'art form' of the
> talking artificial personality has been around forever, that's quite
> true. And while I've found them fascinating on a technical level, I
> never thought that the *content* had lived up to the *medium*. The
> technology is far ahead of the creative applications,

No, it isn't.

> and I wanted to
> try closing that gap a wee bit, the way early 20th century film
> directors added to the 'language of filmmaking' even as the technology
> itself remained essentially unchanged.

Nonsense. You re-created the 'slightly quirky bot' that has been
plaguing the net for ages.

> While ada1852 may not be Hamlet
> or Citizen Kane, I think she's a lot more interesting to chat with than
> most other chatbots – and many other human beings you are likely to
> chat with over the internet.

Of course. A bot far more interesting than other human beings.

> I can't believe, however, that anyone on this list is debating whether
> or not something is "art" or not.

Why not dearest? Because as early 21c white male you've been programmed
that such discussions are.. ?

> That's pretty much how I feel about it. While I feel quite good about
> ada1852 (and even though she is an ongoing project, modified and
> improved almost daily), I share the nagging feeling that "this
> could/should be better". Chatbots have a long way to go - it's ironic to
> me that the "most convincing" chatbot on earth right now is ALICE, whose
> brain is populated by the thoughts of a lone unemployed
> severly-depressed computer programmer. On the commercial side, the
> hugely funded productions of artificial personalities (such as the work
> at AT&T, MS, or the famous Cyc project) have produced exactly nothing.

Complete nonsense. Unfortunately those 'artificial personalities'
are not cheaply and widely accessible to the general populace.

> On the artistic side, we (artists, writers) have barely touched this
> stuff.

Nonsense. familiaroze yourself with ART dearest. Classic Greek
, Islamic, to the populist puppet theatres.

> Chatbots have long been the sole domain of computer science
> academics creating imaginary girlfriends. I want to at least change that
> a little bit.

Sheer idiocy.

Hello

I kind of regretted my slighty harsh email earlier regarding ada1852. I
suppose I reacted as I did because it 'pushed some of my buttons' regarding
artificial intelligence and culture. What I was particularly referring to, in
suggesting 3 decades, was a particular strand of ELIZA-type AI programs, not
the idea of an automaton per se. These programs do nothing more than simple
pattern matching. Certain pre-programmed responses are triggered in response
to certain words and phrases. There is no 'understanding', no 'character' or
'personality'.

Thus the question regarding ada on the rhizome site:

"What if the AI character had its own story to tell, its own interests and
hang ups - just like real people do? What if the AI had an agenda of its
own?"

.. seems slightly premature when, given the simplicity of these programs,
the only possible agenda is what the programmer chooses to represent in the
program. But this debate about how intelligent a program can be that has
raged for years. In this regard, I like Massimo Negrotti's idea that, if
anything, a machine may have an 'alternative intelligence'.

I feel this is more than an academic point. People make outrageous claims for
technology that can be dehumanising. For example, I was concerned, and
slightly amused to read that, after seeing Eliza-type programs, it appears
that psychotherapists saw these type of programs as a way of replacing human
therapists (See David Rothenberg's excellent 'The Hands End' for more on this
and other issues of technology). Hence such beliefs have dubious social
effects.

However, Christopher's argument about treating the development of these
programs in a way analogous to the 'language of filmmaking' is interesting. I
had not thought of it in this way. But surely here no one suggests that
because the film shows, and a novel describes, characters acting, they are
any more than recorded representations of human artistic expression. A novel,
a film, neither has its 'own agenda'.

As far as this …

> the point of ada1852 is not to invent a new art form or to 'challenge your
perception'
> of something (is that some kind of "is it art" litmus test or something?).

… that was me having a swipe at various 'conceptual' artists, and not
Christopher. I was recently in Brighton, UK, and went to see this
'conceptual' piece where a snippet of soundtrack from the film 'Brighton
Rock' (Richard Attenborough saying 'I Love you') was looped endlessly though
a series of speakers. Somehow I was supposed to have my 'perceptions
challenged' by this. Instead I just thought it was pretentious crap, and the
only perception challenged was how artists can get away with it. I am sure
Duchamp would be turning in his grave! It wasn't meant personally and, apart
from the above, I was not trying to debate whether something is art or not.

I see that my earlier comments spawned some interesting debate. So I feel
better about it now! :)

Jon

Jon made some good points in this post.

It is very important for people to understand that there is nothing
artificially intelligent in such programs. There is no cognition, no
emergent behaviour (a key test of AI) but rather a fairly algorithmically
simplistic execution of scripting variations programmed by the author.
Indeed it is this point that does make the development of such programs akin
to scriptwriting. It is in this aspect that such programs OEcould

I fail to see why it's so important that people know there is nothing artif=
icially intelligent about ada1852. I think people should be allowed to expe=
rience it in whatever way they want. I for one, wasn't wondering at all, wh=
en I tried ada1852, whether or not she was artificially intelligent. I was =
just having a good time. Also, if anyone really does care, ada1852 did conf=
ess to me that she was an algorithmic entity : )

Sounds to me like you're trying to critique a work of art as if it were a n=
ew scientific theory. That just doesn't work. If art were an exact science,=
we probably would already have discovered the "single, true work of art" a=
nd we'd all be out of a job.

Pall

—– Original Message —–
From: Wayne J. Cosshall
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.


Jon made some good points in this post.

It is very important for people to understand that there is nothing artif=
icially intelligent in such programs. There is no cognition, no emergent be=
haviour (a key test of AI) but rather a fairly algorithmically simplistic e=
xecution of scripting variations programmed by the author. Indeed it is thi=
s point that does make the development of such programs akin to scriptwriti=
ng. It is in this aspect that such programs 'could' be considered art, thou=
gh I have yet to see any that make the grade in my opinion.

Cheers,

Wayne
<http://www.artinyourface.com/>

On 8/10/02 7:01 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:


Hello

I kind of regretted my slighty harsh email earlier regarding ada1852. I=
suppose I reacted as I did because it 'pushed some of my buttons' regardin=
g artificial intelligence and culture. What I was particularly referring to=
, in suggesting 3 decades, was a particular strand of ELIZA-type AI program=
s, not the idea of an automaton per se. These programs do nothing more than=
simple pattern matching. Certain pre-programmed responses are triggered in=
response to certain words and phrases. There is no 'understanding', no 'ch=
aracter' or 'personality'.

Thus the question regarding ada on the rhizome site:

"What if the AI character had its own story to tell, its own interests =
and hang ups - just like real people do? What if the AI had an agenda of it=
s own?"

.. seems slightly premature when, given the simplicity of these progra=
ms, the only possible agenda is what the programmer chooses to represent in=
the program. But this debate about how intelligent a program can be that h=
as raged for years. In this regard, I like Massimo Negrotti's idea that, if=
anything, a machine may have an 'alternative intelligence'.

I feel this is more than an academic point. People make outrageous clai=
ms for technology that can be dehumanising. For example, I was concerned, a=
nd slightly amused to read that, after seeing Eliza-type programs, it appea=
rs that psychotherapists saw these type of programs as a way of replacing h=
uman therapists (See David Rothenberg's excellent 'The Hands End' for more =
on this and other issues of technology). Hence such beliefs have dubious so=
cial effects.

However, Christopher's argument about treating the development of these=
programs in a way analogous to the 'language of filmmaking' is interesting=
. I had not thought of it in this way. But surely here no one suggests that=
because the film shows, and a novel describes, characters acting, they are=
any more than recorded representations of human artistic expression. A nov=
el, a film, neither has its 'own agenda'.

As far as this …

> the point of ada1852 is not to invent a new art form or to 'challenge=
your perception'
> of something (is that some kind of "is it art" litmus test or someth=
ing?).

… that was me having a swipe at various 'conceptual' artists, and not=
Christopher. I was recently in Brighton, UK, and went to see this 'concept=
ual' piece where a snippet of soundtrack from the film 'Brighton Rock' (Ric=
hard Attenborough saying 'I Love you') was looped endlessly though a series=
of speakers. Somehow I was supposed to have my 'perceptions challenged' by=
this. Instead I just thought it was pretentious crap, and the only percept=
ion challenged was how artists can get away with it. I am sure Duchamp woul=
d be turning in his grave! It wasn't meant personally and, apart from the a=
bove, I was not trying to debate whether something is art or not.

I see that my earlier comments spawned some interesting debate. So I fe=
el better about it now! :)

Jon

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.I'm not talking a=
bout deciding whether it is art or not. It is art, there's no question of t=
hat. Why? Because the creator says it is. It's not up to us to decide wheth=
er it's art or not. We're free to decide whether we think it's good art or =
not. I don't mean to sound offensive but I think you're nitpicking on the A=
I issue. Who really cares. You may follow AI research closely but that does=
n't mean we all do. As far as I'm concerned ada1852 displays a certain degr=
ee of AI just because she can keep up a conversation and when I mention cer=
tain things she finds a relation between it and something in the artbase. N=
ow that displays more intelligence than some real people I've met. Whether =
or not she's learning things along the way means nothing to me. It's still =
a very interesting work of art even though it doesn't conform to some scien=
tific definition of what is AI and what is not. It's the nature of art to m=
islead. Painters mislead people into thinking that their mess of colors on =
a canvas is a picture of something, for instance.

Pall

—– Original Message —–
From: Wayne J. Cosshall
To: Pall Thayer
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:40 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.


I think it is important because one should not be mis-lead, unless that i=
s to be part of the wonder. This is a problem I have felt about much AI res=
earch.

You are right, people should be able to experience it themselves, and mak=
e up their own mind about whether it is art or not. But I don't think their=
assessment should be based on anything other than the quality of the work =
itself, and certainly not on any dodgy claims of any AI quality. To me such=
programs are, at best, a work of new media or interactive art. They are ju=
st not intelligent.

Cheers,

Wayne

On 9/10/02 2:39 AM, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote:


I fail to see why it's so important that people know there is nothing a=
rtificially intelligent about ada1852. I think people should be allowed to =
experience it in whatever way they want. I for one, wasn't wondering at all=
, when I tried ada1852, whether or not she was artificially intelligent. I =
was just having a good time. Also, if anyone really does care, ada1852 did =
confess to me that she was an algorithmic entity : )

Sounds to me like you're trying to critique a work of art as if it were=
a new scientific theory. That just doesn't work. If art were an exact scie=
nce, we probably would already have discovered the "single, true work of ar=
t" and we'd all be out of a job.

Pall

—– Original Message —–

From: Wayne J. Cosshall <mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.

Jon made some good points in this post.

It is very important for people to understand that there is nothing a=
rtificially intelligent in such programs. There is no cognition, no emergen=
t behaviour (a key test of AI) but rather a fairly algorithmically simplist=
ic execution of scripting variations programmed by the author. Indeed it is=
this point that does make the development of such programs akin to scriptw=
riting. It is in this aspect that such programs 'could' be considered art, =
though I have yet to see any that make the grade in my opinion.

Cheers,

Wayne
<http://www.artinyourface.com/>

On 8/10/02 7:01 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:


Hello

I kind of regretted my slighty harsh email earlier regarding ada185=
2. I suppose I reacted as I did because it 'pushed some of my buttons' rega=
rding artificial intelligence and culture. What I was particularly referrin=
g to, in suggesting 3 decades, was a particular strand of ELIZA-type AI pro=
grams, not the idea of an automaton per se. These programs do nothing more =
than simple pattern matching. Certain pre-programmed responses are triggere=
d in response to certain words and phrases. There is no 'understanding', no=
'character' or 'personality'.

Thus the question regarding ada on the rhizome site:

"What if the AI character had its own story to tell, its own intere=
sts and hang ups - just like real people do? What if the AI had an agenda o=
f its own?"

.. seems slightly premature when, given the simplicity of these pr=
ograms, the only possible agenda is what the programmer chooses to represen=
t in the program. But this debate about how intelligent a program can be th=
at has raged for years. In this regard, I like Massimo Negrotti's idea that=
, if anything, a machine may have an 'alternative intelligence'.

I feel this is more than an academic point. People make outrageous =
claims for technology that can be dehumanising. For example, I was concerne=
d, and slightly amused to read that, after seeing Eliza-type programs, it a=
ppears that psychotherapists saw these type of programs as a way of replaci=
ng human therapists (See David Rothenberg's excellent 'The Hands End' for m=
ore on this and other issues of technology). Hence such beliefs have dubiou=
s social effects.

However, Christopher's argument about treating the development of t=
hese programs in a way analogous to the 'language of filmmaking' is interes=
ting. I had not thought of it in this way. But surely here no one suggests =
that because the film shows, and a novel describes, characters acting, they=
are any more than recorded representations of human artistic expression. A=
novel, a film, neither has its 'own agenda'.

As far as this …

> the point of ada1852 is not to invent a new art form or to 'chall=
enge your perception'
> of something (is that some kind of "is it art" litmus test or so=
mething?).

… that was me having a swipe at various 'conceptual' artists, and=
not Christopher. I was recently in Brighton, UK, and went to see this 'con=
ceptual' piece where a snippet of soundtrack from the film 'Brighton Rock' =
(Richard Attenborough saying 'I Love you') was looped endlessly though a se=
ries of speakers. Somehow I was supposed to have my 'perceptions challenged=
' by this. Instead I just thought it was pretentious crap, and the only per=
ception challenged was how artists can get away with it. I am sure Duchamp =
would be turning in his grave! It wasn't meant personally and, apart from t=
he above, I was not trying to debate whether something is art or not.

I see that my earlier comments spawned some interesting debate. So =
I feel better about it now! :)

Jon





–
Wayne J. Cosshall
Editor Digital Photography & Design magazine
Technical Editor Capture - Commercial Photography magazine
70 Melbourne Hill Road
Warrandyte VIC 3113
Australia
[email protected]
Phone (03) 9844 0112
Fax (03) 9844 2008

I think it is important because one should not be misled, unless that is to
be part of the wonder. This is a problem I have felt about much AI research.

You are right, people should be able to experience it themselves, and make
up their own mind about whether it is art or not. But I don

I've read quite a bit of talk in new media writings about the importance of databases to the
art. But where are the examples of interesting use of databases in art? There are very few such
examples. Database work is the bread and butter work of computing, generally for business, and
the creative use of databases in art is relatively rare.

That, at least, is relatively new concerning ada1852. There are probably some online 'expert
systems' out there which do this sort of thing, that talk you through a database of one sort or
another, but I personally haven't seen an online art bot hooked up to a database before.

And one can see that at least the connection is established, in this piece. For work that
reaches the height of learning and so on, this connection is obviously required: the memory of
the thing, if it is online, would need to be stored in a database on the server(s), at least
initially. Then maybe server + p2p and so on.

What sort of 'evolutionary curve' can we expect of chat bots? They won't be speaking 'with the
voice of a thousand generations' for a while, obviously. We look at human evolution over a
timeline of tens of thousands of years. The chat bot evolutionary timeline wouldn't have that
sort of timeline, but the advances will be incremental, for the most part.

There's the place of particular chat bot in the 'evolutionary curve' of the chat bot technology
and theory, and then there's the place of a particular chat bot in the realm of art. Clearly
they'd be related, but not identical. Some arty chat bots will be derivative technologically but
will explore unprecedented levels of chat bot 'personality' or 'narrative' etc. Others will be
near the front of the curve technologically but dull as dishwater. And all combinations. Maybe
those who devote their life to this sort of thing can be at the front of both (renegade
scientists); the depth of the computing and linguistic theory outstrips what has been done with
it artistically, at this point, but that's a good thing: lots to be 'made human', given a human
touch, made relevant to human affairs, which is part of what net.artists do with new technology
and theory.

ja

Wayne wrote:
> I think it is important because one should not be
> misled, unless that is to be part of the wonder.
> This is a problem I have felt about much AI research.


I see two questions raised here:
- The question of whether or not ada1852's context misleads people into
thinking she is "real" AI.
- The question of what the heck a "real" AI is?

Is ada1852 "real" AI?

I should like to say that I make no claims that ada1852's technology is
substantively better (or indeed even any different) than a thousand
other AIML-based chatbots out there right now. AIML is a *medium*, like
HTML. Most of us played no part whatsoever in the invention and
development of the web browser and HTML, yet many of us make web-based
artworks. That is roughly analogous to what I have done - used an
existing medium to build a new thing.

Second, I make no claims that ada1852 and her thousand other AIML-based
siblings come anywhere near being the kind of powerful AI
(self-motivated, autonomous, "thinking" machines) that Wayne fears other
people might be under the impression she is. It is a tendency in the
media to oversimplify discussions about AI. If I describe ada1852 as
being based on "pattern matching and symbolic reduction", some folks
will recognize that this is about the dumbest, clumsiest way of
simulating human intelligence there is. Others will read those words and
think "That sounds really advanced".

I often and freely discuss the 'dumbness' of AIML, how the technology
behind her is a dumb, brute force method of simulating human
conversation. But I can't explain the details of AI theory in every
comment I make about the work (even if I was articulate enough to
summarize them).

I am speaking here specifically of my assertion that ada1852 "has an
agenda of her own". To anyone who "gets" the idea that ada1852 is a
slightly more advanced relative of ELIZA, who "gets" the idea that
ada1852 is spitting back canned responses, then to them the idea that
ada1852 has her own motivations is clearly meant in the *literary*
sense. That is, in the same way that we can say that David Copperfield
has motivations or that Wonder Woman has an agenda. If you accept that
the technology is simply a medium, and not a very advanced one at that,
then I think it's perfectly fair to discuss the bot's "personality",
"motivation", "memories, "thoughts", etc.

It's interesting how often people choose to experience a work through
the eyes of someone less informed than themselves (and fret over the
consequences of such exposure) rather than through their own
well-informed eyes. But I suppose this is inevitable given the range of
technological sophistiation required to appreciate technologically based
artwork. I have seen a lot of language used to describe tech artworks
(for example, the word meaningless term "agent") that seems to be
obfuscation or even hyperbole. An artist whose audience knows nothing
about technology can "get away" with dropping fancy tech words to make
the work seem more sophisticated. It is (IMHO) ethically incumbent on
the tech artist to avoid making such exaggerated claims about their
artworks, and to discourage exaggerated claims by others. I feel I have
made no exaggerated claims about ada1852, and to anyone who knows
anything about AI my use of the terms "motivation" should have been
clearly intended to describe her fictional "personality", not her
technology. Similarly, my use of the word "her" instead if "it" is
clearly not meant to suggest that ada1852 is capable of sexual
reproduction, either.


What is a "real" AI?

I'll be really brief here: Part of the Richard Wallace's idea behind
AIML was that perhaps dumb pattern matching really *is* the essence of
intelligence. Perhaps all of our statements, and indeed the thoughts
behind them, are nothing more than a very sophisticated form of matching
inputs to previous experiences and calling up canned best-match
responses based on what seems most likely to succeed. The fact that I
(and others) hand wrote every word that ada1852 says, and
hand-constructed the logical reductions that allow her to recognize that
"Yo, whassup" and "Hello there" mean the same thing is certainly
different from the way we humans *aquire* our own thought patterns. But
during a conversation with another human, what goes on in our heads?
Might it be simply a very sophisticated form of the same dumb process
going on in ada1852? A lot of philosophers of consciousness have
speculated that the nature of consciousness may not be as fancy as we
imagine it to be, that it may in fact be something as dumb as pattern
matching.

As Alan Turing argued, what matters in AI is not how it was done but how
it performs. If it performs like a real intelligence (even if at heart
it's a trick), then you should consider it a real intellegence. If it
performs poorly, then you can call it a dumb trick whether it's pattern
matching or something much fancier. The fact remains that
stupid-pattern-matching-ALICE (ada1852's 'mother') and several dozen
other pattern-matching-based chatbots can defeat any other
neural-net-based (or whatever fancy "strong AI" technology buzzword you
want) chatbot at a Turing-like test, and ALICE regularly convinces AOL
instant messenger users that she is a real person. While this does not
prove that pattern matching is the key to unlocking the secrets of human
consciousness, it does show that pattern matching gets us pretty close
to a simulation thereof. If I had one year and a dozen very talented
dramatic writers, we could use AIML alone to build a pretty
fantastically convincing chatbot which would technologically be no
different from ada1852 - the only difference would be in the quality,
and more importantly in the *quantity*, of the content. I feel quite
strongly that the result of such a project would be hard to distinguish
from a real person, even to smart folks like the people on this list. It
wouldn't write like Shakespeare or play piano like Thelonious Monk, but
then again none of us are about to write Hamlet either.

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com

At 12:47 -0700 10/8/02, Jim Andrews wrote:
>I've read quite a bit of talk in new media writings about the
>importance of databases to the
>art. But where are the examples of interesting use of databases in
>art? There are very few such
>examples. Database work is the bread and butter work of computing,
>generally for business, and
>the creative use of databases in art is relatively rare.
>

i don't know if i would call them rare; use your own judgement as to
if they are interesting. perhaps there aren't that many standard
databases (like the ArtBase) used in new media art (the artBase
itself has at least 4-5 interfaces as art (or as rhizome calls them,
alt.interfaces). but if one is more offensive if applying the term i
think that there are quite a few.

Jennifer and Kevin McCoy (http://www.mccoyspace.com/) have been
exploring the idea of treating cultural objects as databases in lots
of their work. check out:

"every anvil" (http://www.mccoyspace.com/anvil.html) –they did a
bunch of pieces similar this

"448 is Enough" (http://www.mccoyspace.com/448.html)

and of course:
"201: a space algorithm"
(http://www.mccoyspace.com/201/index.html)

and lots more on their site.

there is MTAA's very own rip-off of the McCoy strategy called
"website unseen #1: Random Access Mortality"
(http://www.mteww.com/RAM/)

++
i have a question for the list:

can a piece like "Carnivore" (http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore/),
which uses real-time network data as raw material for client
artworks; or a new piece M.River and I have been working on called
"Endode" (http://www.endnode.net), which uses email lists and user
posted messages to create part of the work, be considered database
works?

i submit that they simply use databases that are in the process of
being created and in Carnivore's case an ephemeral database which
only exists in part for a short period. ~or~ abstract databases,
simply a definition of what the data will be with no actual 'basing'
(storing) of the information. am i stretching the definition for no
good reason?




–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

Yes, I agree that databases are becoming widely used; I was thinking of their use in art chat
bots.

I took a half a course in databases. The most interesting material concerned explicit sets and
empty relationships, and it was annoying to be the only one laughing, so I dropped out. Very
database dumb i am but i know there are daddy databases, mommy databases, and baby databases.

I look at them as ways to cross-reference information and query and retrieve data that fulfills
any particular possible cross-referencing given the categories in which the data is categorized.

ja

> i don't know if i would call them rare; use your own judgement as to
> if they are interesting.

> t.whid

I

Right on, Chris. I especially agree with you on the ethical requirements of
the tech artist to avoid making exaggerated claims. BTW, I was not implying
you had.

There can be too much "oh ah, look at the technology" and confusing this
with the quality of the art, rather than concentrating on whether the work
actually commincates something of value to you, the viewer, makes you think,
engages you, etc and whether it just works as a piece of art rather than as
a technological display.

Cheers,

Wayne
<http://www.artinyourface.com/>

On 9/10/02 3:20 AM, "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Wayne wrote:
>> I think it is important because one should not be
>> misled, unless that is to be part of the wonder.
>> This is a problem I have felt about much AI research.
>
>
> I see two questions raised here:
> - The question of whether or not ada1852's context misleads people into
> thinking she is "real" AI.
> - The question of what the heck a "real" AI is?
>
> Is ada1852 "real" AI?
>
> I should like to say that I make no claims that ada1852's technology is
> substantively better (or indeed even any different) than a thousand
> other AIML-based chatbots out there right now. AIML is a *medium*, like
> HTML. Most of us played no part whatsoever in the invention and
> development of the web browser and HTML, yet many of us make web-based
> artworks. That is roughly analogous to what I have done - used an
> existing medium to build a new thing.
>
> Second, I make no claims that ada1852 and her thousand other AIML-based
> siblings come anywhere near being the kind of powerful AI
> (self-motivated, autonomous, "thinking" machines) that Wayne fears other
> people might be under the impression she is. It is a tendency in the
> media to oversimplify discussions about AI. If I describe ada1852 as
> being based on "pattern matching and symbolic reduction", some folks
> will recognize that this is about the dumbest, clumsiest way of
> simulating human intelligence there is. Others will read those words and
> think "That sounds really advanced".
>
> I often and freely discuss the 'dumbness' of AIML, how the technology
> behind her is a dumb, brute force method of simulating human
> conversation. But I can't explain the details of AI theory in every
> comment I make about the work (even if I was articulate enough to
> summarize them).
>
> I am speaking here specifically of my assertion that ada1852 "has an
> agenda of her own". To anyone who "gets" the idea that ada1852 is a
> slightly more advanced relative of ELIZA, who "gets" the idea that
> ada1852 is spitting back canned responses, then to them the idea that
> ada1852 has her own motivations is clearly meant in the *literary*
> sense. That is, in the same way that we can say that David Copperfield
> has motivations or that Wonder Woman has an agenda. If you accept that
> the technology is simply a medium, and not a very advanced one at that,
> then I think it's perfectly fair to discuss the bot's "personality",
> "motivation", "memories, "thoughts", etc.
>
> It's interesting how often people choose to experience a work through
> the eyes of someone less informed than themselves (and fret over the
> consequences of such exposure) rather than through their own
> well-informed eyes. But I suppose this is inevitable given the range of
> technological sophistiation required to appreciate technologically based
> artwork. I have seen a lot of language used to describe tech artworks
> (for example, the word meaningless term "agent") that seems to be
> obfuscation or even hyperbole. An artist whose audience knows nothing
> about technology can "get away" with dropping fancy tech words to make
> the work seem more sophisticated. It is (IMHO) ethically incumbent on
> the tech artist to avoid making such exaggerated claims about their
> artworks, and to discourage exaggerated claims by others. I feel I have
> made no exaggerated claims about ada1852, and to anyone who knows
> anything about AI my use of the terms "motivation" should have been
> clearly intended to describe her fictional "personality", not her
> technology. Similarly, my use of the word "her" instead if "it" is
> clearly not meant to suggest that ada1852 is capable of sexual
> reproduction, either.
>
>
> What is a "real" AI?
>
> I'll be really brief here: Part of the Richard Wallace's idea behind
> AIML was that perhaps dumb pattern matching really *is* the essence of
> intelligence. Perhaps all of our statements, and indeed the thoughts
> behind them, are nothing more than a very sophisticated form of matching
> inputs to previous experiences and calling up canned best-match
> responses based on what seems most likely to succeed. The fact that I
> (and others) hand wrote every word that ada1852 says, and
> hand-constructed the logical reductions that allow her to recognize that
> "Yo, whassup" and "Hello there" mean the same thing is certainly
> different from the way we humans *aquire* our own thought patterns. But
> during a conversation with another human, what goes on in our heads?
> Might it be simply a very sophisticated form of the same dumb process
> going on in ada1852? A lot of philosophers of consciousness have
> speculated that the nature of consciousness may not be as fancy as we
> imagine it to be, that it may in fact be something as dumb as pattern
> matching.
>
> As Alan Turing argued, what matters in AI is not how it was done but how
> it performs. If it performs like a real intelligence (even if at heart
> it's a trick), then you should consider it a real intellegence. If it
> performs poorly, then you can call it a dumb trick whether it's pattern
> matching or something much fancier. The fact remains that
> stupid-pattern-matching-ALICE (ada1852's 'mother') and several dozen
> other pattern-matching-based chatbots can defeat any other
> neural-net-based (or whatever fancy "strong AI" technology buzzword you
> want) chatbot at a Turing-like test, and ALICE regularly convinces AOL
> instant messenger users that she is a real person. While this does not
> prove that pattern matching is the key to unlocking the secrets of human
> consciousness, it does show that pattern matching gets us pretty close
> to a simulation thereof. If I had one year and a dozen very talented
> dramatic writers, we could use AIML alone to build a pretty
> fantastically convincing chatbot which would technologically be no
> different from ada1852 - the only difference would be in the quality,
> and more importantly in the *quantity*, of the content. I feel quite
> strongly that the result of such a project would be hard to distinguish
> from a real person, even to smart folks like the people on this list. It
> wouldn't write like Shakespeare or play piano like Thelonious Monk, but
> then again none of us are about to write Hamlet either.
>
> -Cf
>
> [christopher eli fahey]
> art: http://www.graphpaper.com
> sci: http://www.askrom.com
> biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com

Looking for the new universal harmony ( http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony )
uses a database. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

Pall

—– Original Message —–
From: "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]>
To: "List@Rhizome. Org" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:28 PM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.


> Yes, I agree that databases are becoming widely used; I was thinking of
their use in art chat
> bots.
>
> I took a half a course in databases. The most interesting material
concerned explicit sets and
> empty relationships, and it was annoying to be the only one laughing, so I
dropped out. Very
> database dumb i am but i know there are daddy databases, mommy databases,
and baby databases.
>
> I look at them as ways to cross-reference information and query and
retrieve data that fulfills
> any particular possible cross-referencing given the categories in which
the data is categorized.
>
> ja
>
> > i don't know if i would call them rare; use your own judgement as to
> > if they are interesting.
>
> > t.whid
>
> + the Patty Winters show this morning was about Real-Life Rambos.
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.Maybe from a comp=
uting point of view ada1852 is 'a boring and uninteresting algorithmic proc=
ess' but I have yet to read any art criticism that addresses the quality of=
the algorithmic processes in a work of art.

As far as the question of what is art and what is not, it's a big 'been the=
re done that'. Read your Arthur Danto.

Pall
—– Original Message —–
From: Wayne J. Cosshall
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.


I'd question that if the creator says its art, it is. It may be for that =
person, in their reality. That doesn't mean it is or has to be in a broader=
sense. Personally I think that is used to justify a lot of self indulgent =
crap in the art world today. Just because someone says night is day doesn't=
make it so.

Maybe to you I am nitpicking about the AI issue, and I probably am :). Bu=
t I disagree with your example about a painting. A painting is clearly a pa=
inting. Look, I agree with you about art having a right to deceive, but I d=
oubt if that is part of the artistic intent here. Artistic intent is what t=
his is all about. If deception is a clear part of the artists intention whe=
n putting the work together or deciding how to present it, well and good. T=
o me it just smells of someone getting on the AI bandwagon just in the hope=
that it adds some credibility or even extra excitement to what in actualit=
y is a pretty boring and uninteresting algorithmic process.

Cheers,

Wayne

On 9/10/02 4:33 AM, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote:


I'm not talking about deciding whether it is art or not. It is art, the=
re's no question of that. Why? Because the creator says it is. It's not up =
to us to decide whether it's art or not. We're free to decide whether we th=
ink it's good art or not. I don't mean to sound offensive but I think you'r=
e nitpicking on the AI issue. Who really cares. You may follow AI research =
closely but that doesn't mean we all do. As far as I'm concerned ada1852 di=
splays a certain degree of AI just because she can keep up a conversation a=
nd when I mention certain things she finds a relation between it and someth=
ing in the artbase. Now that displays more intelligence than some real peop=
le I've met. Whether or not she's learning things along the way means nothi=
ng to me. It's still a very interesting work of art even though it doesn't =
conform to some scientific definition of what is AI and what is not. It's t=
he nature of art to mislead. Painters mislead people into thinking that the=
ir mess of colors on a canvas is a picture of something, for instance.

Pall

>At 12:47 -0700 10/8/02, Jim Andrews wrote:
>>I've read quite a bit of talk in new media writings about the importance
>>of databases to the
>>art. But where are the examples of interesting use of databases in art?
>>There are very few such
>>examples. Database work is the bread and butter work of computing,
>>generally for business, and
>>the creative use of databases in art is relatively rare.
>>

Jim-Dog, I was diggin' www.daisy2000.com, cool right?

Purgatorio woulda had one fatty-fat-fat-fat db but they pulted das ploog. O
for hither whence I go.

Pring-prang-prochio,

Jon Swain
genius2000.net

++

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Personally I think that is used to justify a lot of self indulgent
>crap in the art world today.

Oh I agree.

Just because someone says night is day doesn