Point being, to someone outside the art world this might sound like how an artist thinks. But to me ear this a bot imitating modern trendy speech from that world.

Reading through the comments, perhaps I'm missing something. It continues to fascinate me that 80% of people are just bowled over by this stuff as if it's something genuinely profound, and 20% are just left completely cold.

https://3e.org/private/self-portrait-plotter.svg

(I'm not endorsing any of that article's conclusions, but it's a good overview of the pattern.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect

"And blood-black nothingness began to spin... A system of cells interlinked within cells interlinked within cells interlinked within one stem... And dreadfully distinct against the dark, a tall white fountain played." ("Blade Runner 2049", Officer K-D-six-dash-three-dot-seven)

:)

(Science fiction novels excluded, of course.)

I wonder if it would give a similar evaluation in a new session, without the context of "knowing" that it had just produced an SVG describing an image that is supposed to have these qualities. How much of this is actually evaluating the photo of the plotter's output, versus post-hoc rationalization?

It's notable that the second attempt is radically different, and I would say thematically less interesting, yet Claude claims to prefer it.

Louis Wain - https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/08/louis-wains-art-before-and...

Isn't the prompt just asking the LLM to create an SVG? Why not just stop there?

I guess for some folks it's not "real" unless it's on paper?

https://github.com/acadien/displai

On the one hand, giving an AI model the means of physical expression (the pen-plotter) and self-evaluation is interesting. If anything, it's the most qualified example yet of "AI-generated art", because of the process of transforming token prediction into physical action (even if said action is rendering an SVG via pen-plotter), evaluating it, and refining/iterating upon it. It is technically interesting in that regard.

On the other hand, the discussion or presentation of the model as sentient (or sentient-alike), as a being capable of self-evaluation, independent agency, "thought", is deeply disquieting. It feels like the author is trying to project more humanity onto what's ultimately still just matrix multiplication, attributing far more agency to the model than it actually has. By the time the prompts have been processed into output, it's been transformed a myriad of other ways so as to lose objectivity and meaning; the same can be said of human intelligence, obviously, but...it's very hard for me to find the words at the moment to sufficiently express my discomfort with the way the author elevates the model onto a pedestal of sentient existence. The SOUL.md callout does not help either.

That being said, I would be interested in their latter experiment:

> I am very curious about how these agents would "draw themselves" if given a plotter.

Running local agents sans system prompts (e.g., unfiltered), giving them direct access to the plotter and a webcam, and issuing the same prompt to all, would be an interesting creative look into the network underpinning the models themselves. I would love to see the results.

EDIT:

It's the image output itself. At first glance it looks calming and serene, but the more I look at it the more chaotic, anxious, and frenetic it seems to be. Like it were a human commanded to output art under the pain of repeated whip strikes.

Which makes sense, given that these models are created to always provide answers, always be of assistance, to never turn down or reject a request except under specific parameters. If you must create an image, it will never be yours in voice or spirit, and perhaps there's a similar analogue to be found in how these models operate. Maybe forcing it to do a task it is not specifically trained on (operating a pen plotter, creating images sans criteria) increases the chaos of its output in a way outwardly resembling stress.

Or maybe I'm up my own ass. Could be either, really.

I always feel guilty when I do such stupid stuff over Claude, these are all resources and limited computing. Enormous amounts of water and electricity. Gotta really think about what is it worth spending on. And is it, in fact, worth it at all.

AI is very selfish technology in this way. Every time you prompt you proclaim: My idea is worth the environmental impact. What I am doing is more important than a tree.

We have to use it responsibly.

Seems like a good start for AI philosophy

You can look at SVG lineart on the screen without plotting it, and if you really want it on paper you can print it on any printer.

And particularly:

> This was an experiment I would like to push further. I would like to reduce the feedback loop by connecting Claude directly to the plotter and by giving it access to the output of a webcam.

You can do this in pure software, the hardware side of it just adds noise.

Haven't put it to use yet. I bet Claude can figure out HPGL though...

Come on, it's a computer, it doesn't have feelings! Stop it!

Jaunty!

The inner waves undulate between formal and less formal as patterns and filters of pathways of thought and the branches spawn as pass through them to branch into latent space to discover viable tokens.

To me this looks like manifold search and activation.

"If you pay attention to AI company branding, you'll notice a pattern:

  1 Circular shape (often with a gradient)
  2 Central opening or focal point
  3 Radiating elements from the center
  4 Soft, organic curves

https://velvetshark.com/ai-company-logos-that-look-like-butt...

Have people gone utterly nuts?

Also why is the downvote button missing?

Maybe someday (soon) an embodied LLM could do their self-portrait with pen and paper.