The future is an open road of many possibilities. With technology, humans are in the rat race of outsmarting what they created. Artificial Intelligence is breaking different boundaries created by humans. The machines are taking over. Humans are fighting the machines everywhere, in the movie at workplace, and in the house. Oh well, most of us got demands from machines while logging in or signing up on a website before we could proceed. Their instructions must definitely be heeded before we could create our account. And are humans the ones really creating the account or machines?
The puzzle continues in the world of creative arts. Could machines produce music better than humans? Can human really produce better sound track or music these days without the efforts of the machines? The Turing test evaluates the competence of the machines for us in the most basic way. In Turing test, the most famous human-machine gotcha game. In it, a human at a keyboard engages in what is effectively a chat with someone or something. The “test” is whether the human can figure out what’s on the other end—person or program? If a program scams its interlocutor into believing it is a human, then we are supposed to agree that the machine running it has intelligence.
Obviously, creativity has often settled the score when it comes to machines-human war. But asking this question again after the Turing Test was initiated could be wrong. Turing Tests in the Creative Arts is a collection of arts-based challenges in the creative potential of machines, sponsored by the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at our home institution of Dartmouth College, which is also where the term artificial intelligence was coined in the 1950s. Specifically, they are interested in exploring to what extent machines could create artwork in specific contexts indistinguishable from human-generated work. PoetiX asked for systems able to produce “humanlike” sonnets in response to a noun phrase prompt. DigiLit asked for humanlike short stories.
In this year’s Turing Tests in the Creative Arts, contestants were asked to take on the challenge of human-level collaboration. The AccompaniX contest solicited programs to generate an expressive musical accompaniment to a human performance of a given melody. DanceX challenged participants to create an animated dance figure to accompany a motioned-captured human dance performance. Entrants were given only 72 hours to respond to a test piece that was released for competition purposes. The algorithms needed to effectively accompany the human performer in real time (while accounting for the latency of a computation-intensive algorithm). Four entries were received for these very challenging tasks—three for AccompaniX, and one for DanceX. Even when the algorithms generated seemed to have succeeded strongly in the DanceX and AccompaniX, machines are yet to find a parallel level in PoetiX.
There are no bones about it. Our future is a future of machines. After all, life is about graduation. In Africa, America, Asia or Europe. We are no more using stones like the Palaeolithic man. We should only start accommodating the place of machines in our policies and culture.