Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Neural Nets Make Art While High

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the i'll-have-what-it's-having dept.

Software 165

brilanon writes "Telepathic-critterdrug is a controversial fork of the open source artificial-life sim Critterding, a physics sandbox where blocky creatures evolve neural nets in a survival contest. What we've done is to give these animals an extra retina which is shared with the whole population. It's extended through time like a movie and they can write to it for communication or pleasure. Since this introduces the possibility of the creation of art, we decided to give them a selection of narcotics, stimulants and psychedelics. This is not in Critterding. The end result is a high-color cellular automaton running on a substrate that thinks and evolves, and may actually produce hallucinations in the user."

cancel ×

165 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Self-promotion AND false controversy? (4, Insightful)

Infernal Device (865066) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733498)

What controversy? All I see is someone promoting their own project on /.

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733614)

This thread is useless without video!

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734068)

The Critterding site HAS got a video.
It's still useless.
What am I supposed to see evolving, because at first glance, the critters at the end of the video don't seem to be any more efficient than those at the start.

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (1)

brilanon (1121645) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734158)

Takes a while

The screen in critterdrug is pretty engaging for the first half hour or so while it fills up then it starts to look the same til they really figure it out

You can tamper the frequency and severity of mutations and with a large population test many at once and really see more advancement and arms races and stuff that way, even multiple species, but you need a fast PC

Always a fast PC

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (1)

maccallr (240314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30736046)

We really need a video of the shared "retina" thing, which is of course not in the original critterding video. However, this sounds cool enough for me to try it at home later.

On second thoughts, maybe they didn't want to "produce hallucinations" in millions of Slashdotters...

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (3, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733650)

You've just started noticing this? Where have you been the past few years?

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (4, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733718)

It's controversial to the people who care about this project. Both of them.

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733862)

Both of them? That's twice the population that I would have thought would care.

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (2, Funny)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734600)

They've obviously multiplied. Now they shall fight to the death for supremacy!

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734656)

I'm sure his mom wants him to come out of the basement and empty the trash.

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734210)

That's speciest. I'm sure the AI cares a lot about this, as well as all other AIs out there (hi Skynet! I'm a big fan!).

This Joke Is As Good As The Story (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30733728)

Why do black women like to keep their legs open during picnics? It keeps the flies away.

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30733912)

I don't get it. You motherfuckers were all excited about the childrens' game Spore that didn't even use neural nets. Yet you are all being little bitches about a project that is aimed at basically creating Spore on a more fundamental and realistic level.

Yeah, yeah mod me troll. The mob mentality sucks here.

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734000)

Spore only pretends to be a simulation. Like the Sims games, it's really about fantasy and play. People don't care about the quality of the simulation if they're having fun.

Only people with a passionate interest in neural network theory could get any fun out of these games. The rest of us might get interested when you actually do something interesting with this software. The concept itself is just another wonky AI theory; these are a dime a dozen.

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30734122)

The rest of you is more interested in something more close to REAL HUMAN life,

like lemmings

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (1)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 4 years ago | (#30735976)

Competition to drive the evolution of neural networks is "another wonky AI theory"?

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (2)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734044)

Spore-related stories were posted in the games section. Everybody knows that the games section isn't *really* slashdot. It's like apple.slashdot.com in that way.

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (2, Insightful)

brilanon (1121645) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734166)

mod parent up

if the animals in spore were using artistic sensibilities evolved on the savannah to make their own building and vehicle designs that would really have been something

damn

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (2, Informative)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734640)

What are you complaining about? The GP didn't say critterding or critterdrug suck. He just pointed out it's self-promotion (the submitter of the story is the guy who made critterdrug), and it tries to seem interesting by suggesting there's some sort of controversy, without linking to an article that attacks critterdrug for whatever's supposed to be controversial about it. So brilanon tries to seem more interesting than he is and hopes for attention.

I'm not saying it's less interesting than Spore. Critterding sounds quite interesting (I don't see the point of critterdrug much), but the only thing controversial about critterdrug is that he's trying to hype it through false controversy. Well, now he's got a real one, I guess. I bet that'll make him happy.

Re:Self-promotion AND false controversy? (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734008)

What controversy? All I see is someone promoting their own project on /.

Self-fulfilling controversy label!

o_O

Self-promotion + Slasdot = true controversy? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30735154)

"What controversy? All I see is someone promoting their own project on /."

Right. That's where the controversy part starts. Kudos on being the first to get it going ;-)

If ever... (4, Funny)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733502)

If ever there was a need for a "wtf" tag...

Re:If ever... (3, Insightful)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733706)

It's about an AI that was drugged and was told to "go F itself" (as seen here [sourceforge.net] ). What's not to understand?

Simply put, it's this type of "experimentation" that will create Skynet. Do you think that the reasonable, docile AI variants are even going to *try* to take over? No, it'll be survival-driven, drug-crazed maniac AI that will.

Re:If ever... (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733740)

If so, then Skynet is going to be so zonked out, it will never get around to starting its war of extermination. Rather sad, really.

Re:If ever... (1, Insightful)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733970)

There's another explanation: the zonked-out Skynet doesn't know how to entertain itself, so it goes around pushing buttons -- "dude, I wonder what this one does?..." (nuclear warheads armed, launched, and also all the still-remaining radios switch to trance music).

Have you seen the latest terminator? They've got terminator-motorcycles dropping off a giant anime-style giant robot. Because that's *so* much easier than unleashing every known airborne plague along with clouds of nerve gas. Clearly, the AI's logic is impaired, probably by an AI's equivalent of LSD.

Re:If ever... (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734072)

That is so unfair! Gas and germs are boring! Just because Skynet wants to have fun while it's exterminating humanity doesn't mean it's crazy!

Re:If ever... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30736094)

Airborne clouds of uber-LSD/etc. seem more fitting to such AI. We will be even happy while dehydrating ourself to death.

Re:If ever... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30734054)

I was going to make those meatbags die, until I got high
I was going to exterminate humanity, but I got high
Those meatbags are still breeding, and I know why (why Skynet?), 'cuz I got high
Because I got high
Because I got high

I was going to kill John Connor, until I got high
I was going to send a robot back in time, but I got high
Reese is still bangin' John's mama, and I know why (why Skynet?), 'cuz I got high
Because I got high
Because I got high

Re:If ever... (0, Offtopic)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734192)

Mod parent up!

Re:If ever... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30736072)

Evolution doesn't care much about the means, or what would be most effective. It cares about who survives.

We might yet be destroyed by Teletubbies-looking army of terminators whose only weapon consists of spreading (fabulously feeling, because that's sooo great) drugs on us. For free. While that plan doesn't seem like the most sensible course of action, perhaps enough of a super-AI can pull it of.

Re:If ever... (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30735366)

"It's about an AI that was drugged and was told to "go F itself" (as seen here). What's not to understand?"

I don't think you see exactly how this is an evolution of critterding. From the critterding website: 09/24: Windows executable released. So you see they already have a version that runs as if it is on drugs. Critterdrug just ups the ante ;-)

Re:If ever... (3, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733848)

Turns out Picasso was just a Perl script on drugs.

Re:If ever... (-1, Redundant)

brilanon (1121645) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733880)

mod parent up

Re:If ever... (4, Funny)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734204)

I'm afraid that "Perl script on drugs" would be redundant.

Re:If ever... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30735072)

There's an exact English word for what you mean: tautological.

Re:If ever... (0, Offtopic)

AnRkey (1330615) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734250)

ROFL, this comment just made my day!

Do I have to be hight too (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733506)

in order to understand what the hell this is about?

Re:Do I have to be hight too (3, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733526)

...or maybe I should be sober enough in order to spell the word "high" correctly.

Re:Do I have to be hight too (4, Funny)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733774)

You're leaching the letters like the Chinese leach the cadmium.

Re:Do I have to be hight too (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734138)

or maybe I should be sober enough

I'm quite sure that'd take your level of spelling to new and unprecedented "hights" ;)

Re:Do I have to be hight too (5, Insightful)

lemur3 (997863) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733604)

what the hell this is about?

it is an elaborate screensaver.

Re:Do I have to be hight too (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30733678)

Let me paraphrase the article with the stoner tag:

Dude, its like they, like, took a bunch of a.i. man... and it's fucking far out. they fucking got them jacked out on some crazy ass shit bro. Bitches be all like "shit bro, theres a bunch of ones and zeros... and I think I saw a two!". fucking gnarley dude. pass me the motherfucking cheetos

Drugs are cool.

Re:Do I have to be hight too (3, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733716)

Bitches be all like "shit bro, theres a bunch of ones and zeros... and I think I saw a two!"

Are you jacking on in there?

Re:Do I have to be hight too (1)

Captain_Jackass (472496) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734084)

Don't worry, there's no such thing as two.

Re:Do I have to be hight too (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734012)

It's about a controversial fishing net which catches drugs when used by artists... I think...

Re:Do I have to be hight too (1)

krou (1027572) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734140)

No, but I think you need to be high to write a summary like that.

This summary... (4, Funny)

millennial (830897) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733522)

Needs more acid.

But is it good art? (5, Funny)

starbugs (1670420) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733532)

I just looked at the link and I see that quite a few of them have starved.
So this mimics real life starving artists who (although they are starving) can still afford to get high.

The art will be worth more once the PC is off.

Leave something for humans! (4, Funny)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733540)

Look, I'm all for making robots and AIs do work, but outsourcing our drug use (and sex, apparently) [somethingawful.com] is just going too far! Leave at least something for us puny humans to enjoy!

Re:Leave something for humans! (2, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733758)

Don't worry... Robots will be soon relegated to the role they belong [youtube.com] in.

Re:Leave something for humans! (2, Funny)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734018)

outsourcing our drug use (and sex, apparently) [somethingawful.com]

It's actually sex, drugs, and rock&roll [aaai.org] .

Just the program? (2, Funny)

Wolvenhaven (1521217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733542)

and may actually produce hallucinations in the user.
I don't think the program is the only thing that's high around here.

One or the other (5, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733576)

This is either an incredibly cool experiment or an unparalleled exercise in highly-refined, weapons-grade bullshit.

Re:One or the other (1, Insightful)

bored_engineer (951004) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733908)

I wish to have mod points. Alas, I've had none in several months. Insightful? This is the funniest comment I've read so far.

Re:One or the other (3, Interesting)

blackcoot (124938) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734228)

the latter. the former would require, amongst other things, access to the source code (as required by the original critterdings license) and a lot of noise coming from the biological disciplines re: computationally tractable, useful models for the various signaling pathways involved in hallucinogen use.

Re:One or the other (1)

Eivind Eklund (5161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734838)

the latter. the former would require, amongst other things, access to the source code (as required by the original critterdings license)

That's the first link on the page. I don't know where you managed to get a binary; I can't see a link to one.

and a lot of noise coming from the biological disciplines re: computationally tractable, useful models for the various signaling pathways involved in hallucinogen use.

I think that an experiment can be interesting even if it doesn't exactly follow an existing model for something - it's interesting to see what we get when we set up the model under test. In this case, I'm not sure we'll get anything interesting, but it is a fun experiment anyway. Increased communication could lead to interesting results, and an extra parameter for self-regulation could also be interesting. (I suspect the drugs are too simplistic, though.)

Re:One or the other (2, Insightful)

blackcoot (124938) | more than 4 years ago | (#30735342)

here's the problem: every day, i make pretty heavy use of machine learning and the other bits and pieces that collectively get referred to as artificial intelligence. as a consequence, i deal with a very large number of fools who are each convinced that their $ALGORITHM is an earth shattering new paradigm for $TASK and clearly is the best thing evar. so you start reading and you realize that in 99.999% of cases, you're staring at something that is some combination of:

a) based on a fundamentally broken assumptions (usually never even stated)
b) bad analogies that obfuscate the fact that wheels are being re-invented (usually poorly)
c) narrowly defined special case
d) broken (provably non-optimal optimization routines)

that rare 0.001% for me consists of things like the ransac family of meta-algorithms, mean-shift tracking, markov random fields, quadratic correlation filters, and support vector machines.

Re:One or the other (1)

brilanon (1121645) | more than 4 years ago | (#30735604)

nice

well i don't know if it really helps but here's the CXXFLAGS i export before i configure it

  -O3 -fsched2-use-superblocks -fbranch-probabilities -fsched2-use-traces -funsafe-loop-optimizations -Wunsafe-loop-optimizations -ffast-math -fprofile-use -march=athlon64 -fmodulo-sched -funswitch-loops -ftree-loop-im -ftree-loop-ivcanon -fivopts -ftree-vrp -ftracer -fvariable-expansion-in-unroller -fgcse -fgcse-las -fgcse-after-reload -fsched-spec-load-dangerous -fvpt -fbranch-target-load-optimize -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections

There are ones for multicore too, look those up if you want ._.

design geekery (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733580)

Two words: Jackson Pollock.

Also known as "the guy who vomits paint on extra large canvases while drunk and stoned." Glad to see neural nets getting high... they'll make an excellent contribution to modern american art (which imho is an oxymoron).

Re:design geekery (2, Interesting)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733662)

Before you criticize the positive influences of drugs on art and culture, take a look at what you might have missed in Pollock's work [discovermagazine.com] :

In Jackson Pollock's drip paintings, as in nature, certain patterns are repeated again and again at various levels of magnification. Such fractals have varying degrees of complexity (or fractal dimension, called D), ranked by mathematicians on a series of scales of 0 to 3. A straight line (fig. D=1) or a flat horizon, rank at the bottom of a scale, whereas densely interwoven drips (fig. D=1.8) or tree branches rank higher up. Fractal patterns may account for some of the lasting appeal of Pollock's work. They also enable physicist Richard Taylor to separate true Pollocks from the drip paintings created by imitators and forgers. Early last year, for instance, an art collector in Texas asked Taylor to look at an unsigned, undated canvas suspected to be by Pollock. When Taylor analyzed the painting, he found that it had no fractal dimension and thus must have been by another artist.

If you don't get something, it doesn't mean there is nothing there. Sometimes it takes time, examination, and a willingness to have an open mind. Whether that was because of Pollock's natural ability or the psychedelics is up to debate but in my view there is definite relationship between high quality art and artists who use or have used psychadelics. Think about the music you listen to [youtube.com] if you don't believe me.

Re:design geekery (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733734)

If you don't get something, it doesn't mean there is nothing there. Sometimes it takes time, examination, and a willingness to have an open mind.

A willingness to have an open mind doesn't mean I have to abandon my sense of aesthetics or personal tastes. Maybe these neural networks can mimick Pollock's work convincingly. We already have computer programs that can synthesize music passably-well. Just because I sarcastically dismiss his work doesn't mean I don't understand it; There was this guy who decided to serve in the military. He got sick, and was discharged because his girlfriend called his commanding officer. He then married her, banged a few times and popped out a couple kids and lived in a friend's basement. Unfortunately, the kids killed her, quite literally. He was so broken up about it that when his friend died, he moved out of the basement by marrying his newly single wife and raised their six kids together. Oh, I forgot to add -- his name was Monet and he also painted once in awhile. -_-

Re:design geekery (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733836)

I get you understand his life. That's not my point. My point was about his art, and what is significant about it. Most often people don't like art because they simply don't "get" it. Aesthetics and personal tastes can change over time with understanding, experience, and simple extended exposure. If you don't take the time to learn about something in depth you can't really know one way or another whether it's something you could like or not. If you still hate it, fine, but at least then you're making an informed decision. Even still, it would be very hard to argue from any perspective that Pollock made no positive contribution to the world through his art (which is what you seemed to be implying, among other things, in your original post).

Re:design geekery (1)

brilanon (1121645) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733932)

The psychedelics can also widen your taste in things, particularly kinds of art, and cause deeper appreciation of stuff you would have disliked or ignored

The bright red tablets are excitatory agonists and the closest thing to our psychedelics also our stimulants, like a combination of Ritalin and LSD

Which clinically, on Earth, has proven good at least for psychotherapy

Re:design geekery (5, Insightful)

dragonsomnolent (978815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733992)

Ok, I'm not usually one to get involved in a discussion such as this (I'm not an artist, have barely a passing interest in it to be honest), but perhaps that gives me a unique perspective that both you and the poster that started this little squabble started. If I may break this down, the original poster seems to have said (in a crude and perhaps insulting fashion) that they don't care for a particular artist. You're response appears to be that they don't like that artist because they don't understand the art itself. Ok, maybe that's a valid point. However, I would postulate that one does not need to 'get' art to enjoy it, and it may be possible that one can 'get' art and still not like it. The only things I have to go on are personal examples of my (limited) exposure to art. Take the Blue Man group. I have no idea what there is to 'get' in their performances. I don't understand them. However, I do enjoy their particular spin on performance art (I think it looks cool, it's done well, and although I haven't in the past gone out of the way to find any of their work, I've also never changed the station if I see them on. On the flip side, during an art class I took at ITT (of all places), one particular piece I saw was a cup, saucer and spoon covered with fur (literally the artist took a cup, a saucer and a spoon and affixed fur to it), I get it (well it was explained to me), it's purpose was to surprise the viewer and get them to think about what that would feel like if one were to use those dishes. I don't like it (as in it has no aesthetic qualities that appeal to me). No amount of exposure to that particular work of art (or any others) will get me to change my mind (frankly I think it was just crap).

But I suppose that none of this matters, because art is a subjective thing. Some people will not like some things, it doesn't mean they don't understand the it. The artist may sit down and explain it to the person, and they still might say "so what it's crap in my eyes". And of course that whole "in my eyes" is really all that matters to them, just as to the artist, the creation is what matters, because to them it is not crap, but a heartfelt pouring out of their being into that work, to express to others how they see whatever it is that they are expressing.

I will however, state that if the original poster was dogging Pollock and saying that they made no contribution to the world, yeah that's kinda nasty, after all, even though I don't get art (for the most part) due to my lack of exposure, all artists contribute to the world in some manner, usually positive, as artists make cool stuff (to paraphrase a bumper sticker I once saw) and they (if nothing else) make the world a richer and more interesting (sometimes more beautiful) place to live.

Re:design geekery (3, Informative)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734770)

Whenever I hear people arguing over art (and it is usually as you say in your initial summary, that one will say they don't care for an artist's work and the other insists that the first is merely too ignorant to truly understand the art) it reminds me of the scene in Zoolander where the male models are all doing the rounds telling each other, "no, I think YOU'RE missing the point". There's so much effort put into trying not to be the crass, uncultured lout who doesn't understand 'the vision' that no-one actually realises that there IS no 'vision' and it's all just a big glob of pretentious wank.

As for the point about Pollock's later paintings having higher fractal dimensions, that's a natural consequence of random splotches of colour as you add more splotches and more detail, regardless of the actual artistic merit. You might as well say that maps of Britain have become more and more aesthetically pleasing as mapmakers made more precise maps and the coastline's fractal dimension increased.

Re:design geekery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30736106)

To drag the discussion further off topic.

The Blue Man Group is not "art", they are entertainment.

In particular, they are allowing average people to preview what it would be like to be in a cult.

If you don't know what I mean, go watch one of their shows and imagine refusing to do what is expected of you by the show's designers.

Re:design geekery (4, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733690)

Have you ever painted a picture with your menstrual blood? You should try it.

It fades to a silvery-crimson sheen, like metallic paint does, due to the iron content of the blood. I still get all misty-eyed when I think about her giving me that painting. I framed it and put it on my desk at work. They thought I was a weirdo. Fuck them. She even kept my semen in a test tube, stored in her freezer next to the Hot Pockets.

Giving a menstrual blood painting is the ultimate expression of love -- short of cannibalism, at least :)

Re:design geekery (4, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733748)

That painting is a biohazard and regulated medical waste if disposed. However, had she used a feminine pad instead of paper OSHA has ruled in that case menses on a feminine hygiene product is not a regulated medical waste.

Re:design geekery (1)

harley78 (746436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734124)

wtf....appleC, just 'cause I need to email it to my mom.

Re:design geekery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30734108)

Giving a menstrual blood painting is the ultimate expression of love ...

I'm guessing she was a spitter not a swallower.

Re:design geekery (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30734502)

My god, 4chan is that you?

Re:design geekery (1)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734608)

You ruined my lunch.

terrible (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30733582)

Sounds like a mind.forth troll by a different name. Show how this work realistically explains or models anything about biological mental processes or furthers AI or neural net research. Narcotics, stimulants, and psychedelics are complex chemical interactions in brain, not superficial rainbow colors on a grid.
Submit this work for peer review and rightly be humbled by the withering reviews.
The only mental stuff going on with this project is the mental masturbation.

Re:terrible (0, Troll)

brilanon (1121645) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733958)

This isn't even true. Those animals are as smart as fish and drug-adjusted and developing an artistic sensibility as we speak. Peer review would show that this program comes from ten years from now

Re:terrible (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734384)

Can you at least post some pics of what you call 'art' ? I've been playing with cellular automata ever since I wrote a game of life in assembly in 1981, but I'm not going to try that one yet because those things usually suck the work out of me.

Somebody forgot to take his medicine (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30735908)

Show how this work realistically explains or models anything about biological mental processes or furthers AI or neural net research

Don't take it so hard, the history of AI is full of toy applications [google.com] .

In a field with so much left to explore as AI, sometimes an informal approach will yield results when the orthodox methods have run their course. Sort of like a meta-simulated annealing.

no reason for a fork (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733624)

I'm going to suggest that when a project like this forks, it's from a failure of flexibility in the original project. The second project looks like it could easily be a module added onto the first, and that their efforts would be better spent working on the same project, making it in a way that allows certain features to be added or removed.

Re:no reason for a fork (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733916)

do you mean the 'shrooms module?

the beer module? (my personal favorite)

the acid module?

the THC module?

*sigh* I think that I could list other modules, but the college days were too long ago. . .

Crappy screenshots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30733694)

Looks like a bunch of poorly rendered cubes. No fun!

Let me know (3, Funny)

th3rmite (938737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733772)

once a cellular automaton cuts off its ear.

Re:Let me know (1)

starbugs (1670420) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733860)

once a cellular automaton cuts off its ear.

You mean retina.

Re:Let me know (1)

raftpeople (844215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734290)

The true Turing test

I, for one, (1)

mevets (322601) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733882)

welcome our new stoned overlords, and ask 'Yo, you holding?'

Good Intentions (1)

Sigvatr (1207234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30733904)

I think a more accurate title would be "Neural Nets Intended on Making Art While High".

Obviously not stoned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30733938)

All of the innocent slashdotters expressing doubt as to the wonder of TFA obviously weren't reading it stoned.

goddammit (4, Funny)

the brown guy (1235418) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734020)

"telepathic-critterdrug isn't available yet for Windows. I'm sorry"

The one thing I hate about Windows is the lack of compatibility with neural nets

Re:goddammit (0, Offtopic)

polle404 (727386) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734958)

well, that at least shows that AI has been achieved...
It won't touch Windows.

Phallic? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734142)

In the movie toward the end they look like male genitalia crawling around looking for a good fuck. Is this accidental?
   

Re:Phallic? (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734430)

I guess that proves that evolution always results in the same end product.

Hip-E-Tron (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734156)

Leave it to Silicone Valley to try to automate the 60's. California apparently misses its "glory days".

I almost understood a whole word of that. (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734194)

I think it was "the".

Hey, you got your idle in my technology (1)

PetoskeyGuy (648788) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734718)

Cute toy. I remember doing something like this back in high school in 2D after getting Koza's book about 20 years ago.

It's one hell of a stretch to suggest this does something for pleasure or is complex enough that virtual "drugs" can affect it's processing. The only thing high was the person writing up the description... ya know man because may like - we're all simulations - woah!

Groovy (1)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 4 years ago | (#30734942)

an extra retina which is shared with the whole population... extended through time like a movie... write to it for communication or pleasure...

Looks like the cellular automata aren't the only things that are high around here.

art ability != drug use (1, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30735186)

drug use in artists coincides with a loss of abilities, not an increase of them

artists certainly have excesses in their lifestyles, of which drug use certainly is a common factor. but this is all secondary to being an artist, not some sort of gateway. if you dressed up like a race car driver, does that make you a race car driver? likewise, if you use drugs, you don't increase any artistic abilities, you just get stupid

anyone who actually believes that drug use increases artistic ability is certainly no artist

Re:art ability != drug use (1)

jmpeax (936370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30735562)

A lot of people would disagree with you.

Think about it: you take a psychedelic drug such as LSD and you experience auditory and visual hallucinations. These hallucinations are constructed by your brain from a variety of inputs, both external and internal. It is not hard to see how this can be used as a source of inspiration for artists.

Why are you so quick to reject this idea?

art creation is a heightening of the senses (1, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30735910)

drug use degrades and confuses the senses

both result in an alteration of what someone would consider "normal", thus the source of your confusion

but you don't create art when you are on lsd, nor do you find any inspiration

of course, when you are on lsd, you are speaking to god, you see both ends of the world, the words you write are of the highest genius, etc. then you come off of your trip, and you find you wrote "the dog, hollow beer"

drugs are a degradation, not a heightening. this is true aesthetically, and biologically. when you are in the degraded state of being under the influence of drugs, your perception of what art is becomes degraded as well

drug use is orthogonal to the lives of artists and the art they create. it is never intrinsic

the best art is done sober, and always has been done sober, and always will be done sober

I also made some art in the toilet this morning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30735310)

I also made some art in the toilet this morning.

To create the perfect image, shape fashion. (-1, Offtopic)

COBB1986 (1719232) | more than 4 years ago | (#30735646)

http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com] Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts, jacket,Tracksuit w ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 thanks... For details, please consult http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>