Concerns have been raised over the increased prominence ofgenerative AI in art. Some fear that generative models could replace theviability for humans to create art and oppose developers training generative models on media without the artist's permission. Proponents of AI art point to the potential increase in accessibility. Is there an approach to address the concerns artists raise while still utilizing the potential these models bring? Current models often aim for autonomous music generation. This, however, makes the model a black box that users can't interact with. By utilizing an AI pipeline combining symbolic music generation and a proposed sample creation system trained on Creative Commons data, a musical looping application has been created to provide non-expert music users with a way to start making their own music. The first results show that it assists users in creating musical loops and shows promise for future research into human-AI interaction in art.
The past two years I have conducted an extensive literature and tool review to answer the question: “What should software engineers learn about building production-ready machine learning systems?”. During my research I noted that because the discipline of building production-ready machine learning systems is so new, it is not so easy to get the terminology straight. People write about it from different perspectives and backgrounds and have not yet found each other to join forces. At the same time the field is moving fast and far from mature. My focus on material that is ready to be used with our bachelor level students (applied software engineers, profession-oriented education), helped me to consolidate everything I have found into a body of knowledge for building production-ready machine learning (ML) systems. In this post I will first define the discipline and introduce the terminology for AI engineering and MLOps.
LINK
This exploratory study investigates the rationale behind categorizing algorithmic controls, or algorithmic affordances, in the graphical user interfaces (GUIs) of recommender systems. Seven professionals from industry and academia took part in an open card sorting activity to analyze 45 cards with examples of algorithmic affordances in recommender systems’ GUIs. Their objective was to identify potential design patterns including features on which to base these patterns. Analyzing the group discussions revealed distinct thought processes and defining factors for design patterns that were shared by academic and industry partners. While the discussions were promising, they also demonstrated a varying degree of alignment between industry and academia when it came to labelling the identified categories. Since this workshop is part of the preparation for creating a design pattern library of algorithmic affordances, and since the library aims to be useful for both industry and research partners, further research into design patterns of algorithmic affordances, particularly in terms of labelling and description, is required in order to establish categories that resonate with all relevant parties
LINK
