Artistic Style Meets Artificial Intelligence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developments in neural network image processing motivate the question, how these technologies might better serve visual artists. Research goals to date have largely focused on either pastiche interpretations of what is framed as artistic “style” or seek to divulge heretofore unimaginable dimensions of algorithmic “latent space,” but have failed to address the process an artist might actually pursue, when engaged in the reflective act of developing an image from imagination and lived experience. The tools, in other words, are constituted in research demonstrations rather than as tools of creative expression. In this article, the authors explore the phenomenology of the creative environment afforded by artificially intelligent image transformation and generation, drawn from autoethnographic reviews of the authors’ individual approaches to artificial intelligence (AI) art. They offer a post-phenomenology of “neural media” such that visual artists may begin to work with AI technologies in ways that support naturalistic processes of thinking about and interacting with computationally mediated interactive creation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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 it