Be that as it may, the only criterion that the Turing Test relies on is human impression, which means that a connoisseur would probably be able to note the difference that would remain overlooked by most dilettantes. A more complex algorithm for measuring the artistic value of robotic creation and robot vision is due.
RobotArt & Beaty.AI
RobotArt, on the other hand, judges robotic artwork by three criteria – aesthetic originality, painting techniques, and the piece’s contribution to the field. Every piece is evaluated by both public voters and a panel of art critics, which ensures that bias is leveled out by the professionals’ objective assessment.
This year’s RobotArt winner, CloudPainter, is a brilliant example of a less practical and more aesthetic use of artificial intelligence that the human race should applaud more loudly to. Equipped with brushes in its industrial robotic arm, CloudPainter is an AI artist that creates just like a human painter.
On the other side of this spectrum is the robot juror behind Beauty.AI, an online platform marketed as “the first international beauty contest judged by artificial intelligence”. This robot may not be an artist, but is apparently capable of discerning aesthetic quality when analyzing beauty in human traits.
Taken together, these two examples showcase that robots aren’t devoid of aesthetic capabilities. Whether or not the art they create is only a reproduction made possible by machine learning is by all means worthy of debate. Still, nobody can say that sophisticated algorithms can’t refine our creation.
Maybe your view of the subject is different. Are you a believer in authentic robotic creation like Andrew Conru, or do you think that the aesthetic use of AI solutions starts and ends with beauty contests? Will the future Pablo Picasso be a machine? Let us know where you stand on robotics and art in the comments or join the discussion on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook or the DoF professional robotics community.
For more investment strategies, visit ETF Trends.