Creative Artificial Intelligence within the Artificial Life Installation “Infranet”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors explore how current mainstream data-driven AI approaches can be questioned critically from a perspective of computational creativity and ecosystemic art. This centres on a critique of the future as being over-determined by the past; both from the data used, and in the questions or objectives assumed by training. The main contributions of this paper are to apply alternative creative approaches to nature-inspired artificial intelligence, and to detail some of these through their embodiment in the authors’ artwork “Infranet”. Infranet is a neuro-evolutionary art installation that exhibited at three international locations over 2018-2019. It uses geospatial data of the host city not as a training material but as a habitat for artificial life. In contrast to training-based AI systems, in Infranet there is no objective or fitness function and very little evolutionary pressure or competition. Moreover, it eschews the trend of a large and pre-specified neural network structure in favour of a population of thousands of small interacting neural networks, each with distinct structure, in a "liquid" process of continuous reorganization; resonating with some contemporary theories and models of non-conscious cognition in biological and ecological systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".