Could Machines Make Art?

Fascinating study out of the University of Trento on using Machine Vision algorithms to learn how people respond emotionally to abstract art.

Link : Computers identify what makes abstract art move us

Abstract art might be easier to replicate automatically since you don’t need to worry about as much symbolism and meaning as much. Is this going to put artists out of a job? Well no, people create art because they want to, or need to. If computers can generate abstract patterns and images that are emotionally evocative on demand then that would surely hurt artists who rely on selling their images or the rights to reproduce them in other media.

So, something for artists to be aware of.

Advertisements

Announcing the Expanding Computing Education Pathways (ECEP) Alliance « Computing Education Blog

Announcing the Expanding Computing Education Pathways (ECEP) Alliance « Computing Education Blog

The future of education requires Computer Science. This is an important acknowledgement by the NSF in the US. Hopefully we can get a similar buy-in at some point in Canada. In many schools Computer Science enrollment is going down at the same time that more and more fields require some form of programming skills. I think Computer Science education needs to be transformed into a broader service approach as with Mathematics where everyone is required to take some basic programming in university and college. But this will only work if courses are tailored to non-majors and to different fields who have different needs for how they use computers. It’s an exciting time for CS education.

Should Live Tweeting Be Protected Like Broadcast Rights?

Interesting question here about tweeting sporting events: Should Live Tweeting Be Protected Like Broadcast Rights?

I think what is happening is that as technology moves forward the nature of Speech changes. Posting your thoughts on a social network is essentially now a normal type of speech and you should no more be able to restrict it than you can restrict people talking during or after a sporting event or calling a friend and telling them what is going on. The difference of course is that it’s broadcast, not an individual conversation. But when everyone has the ability to broadcast how can you restrict that ability just for topics that are marketed as products like sporting events or movies? Could a movie studio restrict my ability to talk about the plot of the latest James Bond movie on Twitter? How is a sporting event different than that?

The problem here is different than the one the movie and music industries face with people pirating a packaged product.  They want to control discussion of a live event that people have paid to watch.  This kind of business model is based upon the assumption that the ability to broadcast is scarce and expensive. This is no longer true anymore. Long ago their must have been business models based on the fact that long distance transportation was expensive, but with the arrival of trains, planes and cars this was no longer true and those businesses would have to adapt.

They’ll just have to adapt to the changes. 

The Consequences of Machine Intelligence – Moshe Y. Vardi – The Atlantic

The Consequences of Machine Intelligence – Moshe Y. Vardi – The Atlantic

I just started reading this, but it’s right along the lines of what I’m talking about with people being aware of how advancing technology could affect their career plans. I’ll read it and write more later. Do you have any thoughts on it? It would be an interesting group discussion topic here or on G+.

How much will you pay to be listened to on Facebook?

Facebook is having a Red Barn moment. If you ever played Farmville you’ll know what I mean. Farmville was fun for the first little while, planting, pulling in friends to pet your cows or whatever they were doing. Then at some point you realize the game has a limit beyond which you need to pay to do better. You can’t get the red barn unless you put down some actual real world dollars.  It’s a great way to make money if people like your game enough but it breaks your whole idea of what the game is, that if you play better you will do better than others.

Of course, Facebook isn’t a game, right?  Facebook is an ongoing, cacophonous discussion of the things going on in our lives amongst friends. On the sides of that discussion we have grown to accept that there are targeted advertisements trying to grab our attention. Increasingly, these advertisements are even within the stream of updates itself. But these ads are marked as promoted and they are easily identifiable as such. We can click on them or choose to ignore them.

Well, apparently now Facebook wants to turn itself into a kind of game, and just like Farmville you’ll need to pay to play well at it.

Facebook just rolled out their ‘promote’ feature to everyone. It was already available to Pages and brands but the way it is implemented now is kind of strange.  Up until now, a Page which you follow (sorry, _subscribe to_, in Facebookese) could pay for their status updates, marked as “Sponsored”, to rise higher in your feed. But now anyone can sponsor updates. So if a politically active acquaintance that you added to Facebook has some extra cash they can ‘promote’ posts from their favourite political party or their own personal status updates with links to news articles. Any updates at all can be promoted.

Is this what we want? The power of the market is great and all but this is weird.  What Facebook is doing with this one change is changing the very nature of their Social Network.

Last week Facebook was a place where you chatted with friends and tried to ignore adds coming from corporations, charities and political parties. Today it is a place where the very conversations you hear are influenced by money put up by normal people you follow in order to be heard above the clamour.  Do we really want to monetize conversation to the extent where it becomes normal to be expected to chip in a bit of cash to get our voices heard? Shouldn’t our thoughts rise up to prominence because many people find them compelling rather than because we have extra money to spend on having people hear us on Facebook?

The more I think about it the more disturbing this is. This is a subtle conversion of the entire meaning of what a personal Facebook update is.  It’s like that moment in Star Wars I where Qui Gon Jinn mentions midi-chlorians.  It has no connection to anything else that came before and actually changes the entire meaning of the story. Is the Force a benevolent, mystical energy permeating the universe or is just it a physical field extruded by parasites inside us? Now, every time we see updates from someone we don’t talk to so often we’re going to look closer to see if they chose to ‘sponsor’ the update. What will it mean if someone does that? How will I judge them?

We’ll see how this plays out, maybe people won’t use it. But if I start seeing a lot of this I mark start marking all of it as spam.

%d bloggers like this: