Google's image A.I. generates surreal and hallucinatory compositions

Just came across this, and I couldn't find it posted in here.
Have a look at some of the compositions that Google's Artificial Neuron Network has created by merging layer upon layer of images from its database.

They were created by feeding a picture into the network, asking it to recognise a feature of it, and modify the picture to emphasise the feature it recognises. That modified picture is then fed back into the network, which is again tasked to recognise features and emphasise them, and so on. Eventually, the feedback loop modifies the picture beyond all recognition.

Article

From google's research blog

Some of the results remind me of some sort of technicolor MC Escher, Van Gogh, or even Hyeronimus Bosch.

(edit: Here are more I just found)

I particularly like this one and these
Isn't there a quote like all art or creativity is merely repetition of previous ideas?
Could this be defined art, and what does it mean for the future of human creativity?

a reply to: athousandlives

Some of those images are SO Vincent Van Gogh it is pretty creepy!!!

Cue thread: Vincent Van Gogh, Time traveller, used Google to get inspiration!!!

Excellent post, thanks for the fun.

S&F

a reply to: athousandlives

I don't know if it's quite at the level of human creativity or art, yet. Certainly it is pretty but there is a lack of real self expression in a majority of the images. One of the things that did occur to me though is how the computer i have come to call "Hex" managed to link the arm and dumbell idea together. More than anything shown in these pictures shows an abstraction of thought that very well could lead into creativity....but they need to give it a wider platform. A true 3d world to inhabit.

Also, we need to start feeding it as many images of space as we can.

a reply to: Thorneblood

Yeah it definitely needs to be developed, but at the rate technology is going nowadays, it won't be long until this kind of AI begins to truly spread it's wings, so to speak.
And I believe it will undoubtedly start raising more questions than it can answer, about our own creative capabilities and what makes us, hum, creators?

a reply to: athousandlives

I wonder what would happen if you fed it a bunch of human images, or humanoid images, and told it to define itself.

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: athousandlives

I don't know if it's quite at the level of human creativity or art, yet. Certainly it is pretty but there is a lack of real self expression in a majority of the images. One of the things that did occur to me though is how the computer i have come to call "Hex" managed to link the arm and dumbell idea together. More than anything shown in these pictures shows an abstraction of thought that very well could lead into creativity....but they need to give it a wider platform. A true 3d world to inhabit.

Also, we need to start feeding it as many images of space as we can.

But TB-
We humans have taken hundreds of thousands of years to be able to create real artwork starting in caves and on rocks long ago-then the google(bought companies)AI is almost close to our capabilities in maybe a few decades,if we include all the early computer programming knowledge which has led to this this point.

Beware or Embrace the future Google AI Neurograph Tech which will entrap humans into a matrix like existence,or free us depending upon your viewpoint.

Worrying question:
What if we are already in the google simulation without knowing

a reply to: Thorneblood

Interesting, it could either come up with the epitome of the human figure, or some sort of surreal frankenstein monster

a reply to: Silcone Synapse

You hit exactly upon what I was thinking.
Where does this technology stop? If it's constantly learning and updating itself, all it needs is to be given more parameters (like a 3d space TB mentioned).
How does this relate to various Quantum Physics theories stating that we may be living in a simulation or hologram?

Of course I'm jumping way ahead, but still,
Down a rabbit hole of infinite questions,

a reply to: Silcone Synapse

I agree, for the most part, and think we really are almost there. We just need to give it the things that help define art, for one it needs a true 3d world which i know Google can create in a snap. I say let it play with itself and then see whether or not it makes art.

@Thousand
I don't know, if we explained the golden ratio and even fed it the basics of human anatomy and genetics. Or even basic anatomy and genetic theory....let it choose its species and shape. I'd love to see the end results.

So many parallels between "dreaming" and creation, god and dreamer. I think some Aboriginal creation myths and concepts are going to become very important, and when you combine the concept with the math of quantum mechanics then apply it all to a 3d world run by a burgeoning AI. Good times. God times.

Hex lives!

a reply to: athousandlives

A.I. Pareidolia! Gotta love it.

Feed it Mars rocks and 'ghost' images then let it post the pix on ATS!

a reply to: athousandlives

I believe art rests in the eye of the beholder.

The thing about abstractions produced by the human mind, is there are always patterns hiding in there to be teased out by the beholder. For instance, if you look at a Pollack abstract for awhile, you can see things. That's the genius of it.

This stuff is either totally random with a sub-text of simple shapes or noisy textures skinned on to recognizable forms.
Makes my head hurt looking at it. Not art to me.

a reply to: athousandlives

That pic is GORGEOUS!


I just "WHOA"ed!

S'n'F for that,thanks.

originally posted by: athousandlives
a reply to: Silcone Synapse

You hit exactly upon what I was thinking.
Where does this technology stop?

AI will not stop,and will keep advancing until there is an Earth changing event like a large meteor strike or mass methane release from the oceans floor.
Even then,AI may be able to continue by using humans as energy sources,like in the matrix.

We could be batteries for AI right now,and we would never know.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

I think that in your post you somehow require subjectivity and deny it in the same set of words, quite a feat there.
I find some of the images very suggestive, and using my subjective experience, relate to them.
Go figure.
Art is in the eye of the beholder indeed.

a reply to: Thorneblood

Since this is not true AI...Not working. The program is not self-aware. If it would be, you´d never heard about it.

a reply to: verschickter

Or maybe....... that's what we are programmed to think?

a reply to: verschickter

How would you know unless you ask it to generate a self portrait?

Are you actually involved in this project or are you just throwing stones from afar?

a reply to: athousandlives

Interesting

I particularly like this one

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

Yeah, it gives an interesting twist to paintings under certain parameters. I'd be curious to see it applied to some other impressionist artwork or even to Salvador Dali

a reply to: athousandlives

LOL, yeah can you imagine a Dali done with it.

Actually i think impressionist paintings would come out best, like the one i posted.

Surrealism? mmmm.... i dunno, maybe