On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 10:59, alex wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-11-07 at 14:51, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> > sorry, being thick, but why is that the anti-toplap particularly?
>
> They seem to be suggesting that live algorithms should be autonomous,
> which seems an opposite position to TOPLAP.
>
> Another slogan could be "TOPLAP takes the artificial out of artificial
> intelligence."
I think part of what those guys are interested in is algorithms that
respond to human input, which is fine in my book - as they are searching
for better ways of controlling complex things in more gestural ways - I
quite like that way of working. It's not strictly autonomous though.
Ok, I find zero input autonomous stuff really irritating. Randomness
alone means nothing (in some cases that may be the point, but it's
pretty boring) ie AARON - what on earth is that all about? (no offence,
but I'd really like to know, it doesn't even produce nice pictures...)
I find this kind of stuff far more interesting:
http://helen.cs-i.brandeis.edu/pr/buildable/long_bridge/
It's autonomous, but you have to give it a problem, and a set of rules,
and some time, and it provides a solution - that's generative art in my
book, or perhaps I'm too much of a computer scientist.
We shouldn't be too extremist. I use lots of different mechansims for
live music generation, including live coding, genetic programming and
good old slider tweaking. Is this wrong?
dave
Received on Tue Nov 09 2004 - 00:52:29 GMT