New version page

MIT 21M 380 - Aesthetics and Evaluations

Upgrade to remove ads
Upgrade to remove ads
Unformatted text preview:

Chapter 24. Meeting 24, Discussion: Aesthetics and Evaluations 24.1. Announcements • Sonic system reports due and presentations begin: 11 May 24.2. Quiz Review • ? 24.3. The (Real) Turing Test • Turing, A. M. 1950. “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” Mind 59: 433-460. 267© Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse. 268• A test of human and computer indistinguishability • Based on a party game in which an interrogator attempts to distinguish the gender of two human agents • Through removing biases (sound, visual presence), and focusing on language alone, can a machine be indistinguishable from a human? • Multiple tests can be averaged; after 5 minutes of conversation correct identification must be less than 70 percent • Claim only of achieving thinking, not intelligence • Functional rather than structural indistinguishability (2000, p. 429) 269 Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.?Computer96-G2KComputer• Deception is permitted: mathematical questions can take longer, or fake mistakes • Is human-like conversation the sole determinate of thinking? 24.4. The Eliza Effect • Humans too easily associate humanity with machines • Eliza in emacs: shift + escape; enter “xdoctor” and return 24.5. Other Tests: The John Henry Test • The John Henry Test (JHT): a test of verifiable distinguishability between human and machine • Other examples? 24.6. Other Tests: The Turing Hierarchy • Steven Harnad • Total Turing Test: full physical and sense based interaction • T4: internal microfunctional indistinguishability • T5: microphysical indistinguishability, real biological molecules • t1: toy tests: subtotal fragments of our functional capacity (Harnad 2000, p. 429) • The TT is predicated on total functional indistinguishability; anything less is a toy 24.7. A Little Turing Test • Hofstadter, D. R. 1979. Gödel, Escher, Bach: an eternal golden braid . New York: Vintage. • The little turing test (1979, p. 621) 270© Vintage Books. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse. 271• Is this a Turing Test? 24.8. A (Kind of) Turing Test • Kurzweil, R. 1990. The Age of Intelligent Machines. Cambridge: MIT Press. • “The essence of the Turing Test is that the computer attempts to act like a human within the context of an interview over terminal lines. A narrower concept of a Turing test is for a computer to successfully imitate a human within a particular domain of human intelligence. We might call these domain-specific Turing tests. One such domain-specific Turing test, based on a computer’s ability to write poetry, is presented here.” (1990, p. 374) • 28 question “poetic Turing test” administered to 16 human judges; 48 percent correct overall • Cybernetic Poet http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/poetry/rkcp_akindofturingtest.php • “Music composed by computer is becoming increasingly successful in passing the Turing test of believability. The era of computer success in a wide range of domain-specific Turing tests is arriving.” (1990, p. 378) • Kurzweil and Kapor Long Bet: 20,000 that a machine will pass the Turing Test by 2029 • Is there a narrower concept of a Turing Test? 24.9. A Musical Turing Test • Compare chants created by computer and by humans 272© source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse. • Is this a Turing Test? • How would this test be different if the music was performed by humans? 24.10. Musical Turing Test Archetypes • Musical Directive Toy Test (MDtT) • Musical Output Toy Test (MOtT) • The problem of musical judgements • Music is not natural language • We have aesthetic expectations for human and computer music • All executed tests report a win for the computer • Does success of a MDtT or a MOtT offer a sign of system design success? • Does aesthetic success suggest system design success? 27324.11. Discrimination Tests • Blind comparison of musical outputs • Often material used to create the music is used as part of the test • All listening test are bound by musical judgements 24.12. Cope’s MOtTs • Cope does not associate these test directly with the TT • Compares EMI generated Mozart with Mozart • 1992 AAAI conference conducted a test with 2000 visitors, claiming “absolutely no scientific value” but claims that “machine-composed music has some stylistic validity” • Compares virtual music to real music in The Game • Many have used Cope’s music or related tests as examples of musical TTs where the machine wins 24.13. Machine Authorship in Generative Music Systems • Is the machine responsible for the musical output? • Is the test testing the machine at all? 24.14. Aesthetic Intention in Generative Music Systems • The intentional fallacy: the idea that understanding the artist’s intention is necessary for evaluating a work (Beardsley 1946) • Is intention required to make music? • Can authorship be given to things that do not have intention? 24.15. Listening • Listening: David Soldier, “The Birth of Ganesha,” Elephonic Rhapsodies, 2004 274• Elephants trained and directed in improvisation with instruments 24.16. Naughtmusik • Soldier, D. 2002. “Eine Kleine Naughtmusik: How Nefarious Nonartists Cleverly Imitate Music.” Leonardo Music Journal 12: 53-58. • Genuine music requires composers with intent • Naughtmusik: nonart sounds, composers without intent • An Adapted Turing Test: can human judges detect naughtmusik? • The Tangerine Awkestra: children 2 to 9, produce sounds using instruments they do not know how to play, recorded in a studio; listened to free jazz of Ornette Coleman and others • 5 sophisticated adults: 5 of 8 trials led to correct identification: not iron-clad • Thai elephant orchestra • “There is something out there that looks, sounds, feels, smells like music, but isn't” (2002, p. 58) 24.17. Listening • The People’s Choice Music: with Vitaly Komar and Alex Melamid • Survey given to 500 Americans • Survey responders had no intent; the works were created without individual intent, and thus no creative decision making was


View Full Document
Download Aesthetics and Evaluations
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Aesthetics and Evaluations and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Aesthetics and Evaluations 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?