Generative art

Generative art is post-conceptual art that has been created (in whole or in part) with the use of an autonomous system. An autonomous system in this context is generally one that is non-human and can independently determine features of an artwork that would otherwise require decisions made directly by the artist. In some cases the human creator may claim that the generative system represents their own artistic idea, and in others that the system takes on the role of the creator. "Generative art" often refers to algorithmic art (algorithmically determined computer generated artwork) and synthetic media (general term for any algorithmically generated media), but artists can also make generative art using systems of chemistry, biology, mechanics and robotics, smart materials, manual randomization, mathematics, data mapping, symmetry, and tiling. Generative algorithms, algorithms programmed to produce artistic works through predefined rules, stochastic methods, or procedural logic, often yielding dynamic, unique, and contextually adaptable outputs—are central to many of these practices. == History == The use of the word "generative" in the discussion of art has developed over time. The use of "Artificial DNA" defines a generative approach to art focused on the construction of a system able to generate unpredictable events, all with a recognizable common character. The use of autonomous systems, required by some contemporary definitions, focuses a generative approach where the controls are strongly reduced. This approach is also named "emergent". Margaret Boden and Ernest Edmonds have noted the use of the term "generative art" in the broad context of automated computer graphics in the 1960s, beginning with artwork exhibited by Georg Nees and Frieder Nake in 1965: A. Michael Noll did his initial computer art, combining randomness with order, in 1962, and exhibited it along with works by Bell Julesz in 1965. The terms "generative art" and "computer art" have been used in tandem, and more or less interchangeably, since the very earliest days. The first such exhibition showed the work of Nees in February 1965, which some claim was titled "Generative Computergrafik". While Nees does not himself remember, this was the title of his doctoral thesis published a few years later. The correct title of the first exhibition and catalog was "computer-grafik". "Generative art" and related terms was in common use by several other early computer artists around this time, including Manfred Mohr and Ken Knowlton. Vera Molnár (born 1924) is a French media artist of Hungarian origin. Molnar is widely considered to be a pioneer of generative art, and is also one of the first women to use computers in her art practice. The term "Generative Art" with the meaning of dynamic artwork-systems able to generate multiple artwork-events was clearly used the first time for the "Generative Art" conference in Milan in 1998. The term has also been used to describe geometric abstract art where simple elements are repeated, transformed, or varied to generate more complex forms. Thus defined, generative art was practiced by the Argentinian artists Eduardo Mac Entyre and Miguel Ángel Vidal in the late 1960s. In 1972 the Romanian-born Paul Neagu created the Generative Art Group in Britain. It was populated exclusively by Neagu using aliases such as "Hunsy Belmood" and "Edward Larsocchi". In 1972 Neagu gave a lecture titled 'Generative Art Forms' at the Queen's University, Belfast Festival. In 1970 the School of the Art Institute of Chicago created a department called Generative Systems. As described by Sonia Landy Sheridan the focus was on art practices using the then new technologies for the capture, inter-machine transfer, printing and transmission of images, as well as the exploration of the aspect of time in the transformation of image information. Also noteworthy is John Dunn, first a student and then a collaborator of Sheridan. In 1988 Clauser identified the aspect of systemic autonomy as a critical element in generative art: It should be evident from the above description of the evolution of generative art that process (or structuring) and change (or transformation) are among its most definitive features, and that these features and the very term 'generative' imply dynamic development and motion. (the result) is not a creation by the artist but rather the product of the generative process - a self-precipitating structure. In 1989 Celestino Soddu defined the Generative Design approach to Architecture and Town Design in his book Citta' Aleatorie. In 1989 Franke referred to "generative mathematics" as "the study of mathematical operations suitable for generating artistic images." From the mid-1990s Brian Eno popularized the terms generative music and generative systems, making a connection with earlier experimental music by Terry Riley, Steve Reich and Philip Glass. From the end of the 20th century, communities of generative artists, designers, musicians and theoreticians began to meet, forming cross-disciplinary perspectives. The first meeting about generative Art was in 1998, at the inaugural International Generative Art conference at Politecnico di Milano University, Italy. In Australia, the Iterate conference on generative systems in the electronic arts followed in 1999. On-line discussion has centered around the eu-gene mailing list, which began late 1999, and has hosted much of the debate which has defined the field. These activities have more recently been joined by the Generator.x conference in Berlin starting in 2005. In 2012 the new journal GASATHJ, Generative Art Science and Technology Hard Journal was founded by Celestino Soddu and Enrica Colabella jointing several generative artists and scientists in the editorial board. Some have argued that as a result of this engagement across disciplinary boundaries, the community has converged on a shared meaning of the term. As Boden and Edmonds put it in 2011: Today, the term "Generative Art" is still current within the relevant artistic community. Since 1998 a series of conferences have been held in Milan with that title (Generativeart.com), and Brian Eno has been influential in promoting and using generative art methods (Eno, 1996). Both in music and in visual art, the use of the term has now converged on work that has been produced by the activation of a set of rules and where the artist lets a computer system take over at least some of the decision-making (although, of course, the artist determines the rules). In the call of the Generative Art conferences in Milan (annually starting from 1998), the definition of Generative Art by Celestino Soddu: Generative Art is the idea realized as genetic code of artificial events, as construction of dynamic complex systems able to generate endless variations. Each Generative Project is a concept-software that works producing unique and non-repeatable events, like music or 3D Objects, as possible and manifold expressions of the generating idea strongly recognizable as a vision belonging to an artist / designer / musician / architect /mathematician. Discussion on the eu-gene mailing list was framed by the following definition by Adrian Ward from 1999: Generative art is a term given to work which stems from concentrating on the processes involved in producing an artwork, usually (although not strictly) automated by the use of a machine or computer, or by using mathematic or pragmatic instructions to define the rules by which such artworks are executed. A similar definition is provided by Philip Galanter: Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist creates a process, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is then set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art. Around the 2020s, generative AI models learned to imitate the distinct style of particular authors. For example, a generative image model such as Stable Diffusion is able to model the stylistic characteristics of an artist like Pablo Picasso (including his particular brush strokes, use of colour, perspective, and so on), and a user can engineer a prompt such as "an astronaut riding a horse, by Picasso" to cause the model to generate a novel image applying the artist's style to an arbitrary subject. Generative image models have received significant backlash from artists who object to their style being imitated without their permission, arguing that this harms their ability to profit from their own work. The emergence of text-to-image generative AI systems has expanded debates over authorship, copyright, and artistic labor. The main issues in these debates include the eligibility of AI-generated outputs for copyright protection and the legal and ethical questions of using existing copyrighted works as training data for generative AI systems. == Types == === Music === Johann Kirnberger's Mu

Zeuthen strategy

The Zeuthen strategy in cognitive science is a negotiation strategy used by some artificial agents. Its purpose is to measure the willingness to risk conflict. An agent will be more willing to risk conflict if it does not have much to lose in case that the negotiation fails. In contrast, an agent is less willing to risk conflict when it has more to lose. The value of a deal is expressed in its utility. An agent has much to lose when the difference between the utility of its current proposal and the conflict deal is high. When both agents use the monotonic concession protocol, the Zeuthen strategy leads them to agree upon a deal in the negotiation set. This set consists of all conflict free deals, which are individually rational and Pareto optimal, and the conflict deal, which maximizes the Nash product. The strategy was introduced in 1930 by the Danish economist Frederik Zeuthen. == Three key questions == The Zeuthen strategy answers three open questions that arise when using the monotonic concession protocol, namely: Which deal should be proposed at first? On any given round, who should concede? In case of a concession, how much should the agent concede? The answer to the first question is that any agent should start with its most preferred deal, because that deal has the highest utility for that agent. The second answer is that the agent with the smallest value of Risk(i,t) concedes, because the agent with the lowest utility for the conflict deal profits most from avoiding conflict. To the third question, the Zeuthen strategy suggests that the conceding agent should concede just enough raise its value of Risk(i,t) just above that of the other agent. This prevents the conceding agent to have to concede again in the next round. == Risk == Risk ( i , t ) = { 1 U i ( δ ( i , t ) ) = 0 U i ( δ ( i , t ) ) − U i ( δ ( j , t ) ) U i ( δ ( i , t ) ) otherwise {\displaystyle {\text{Risk}}(i,t)={\begin{cases}1&U_{i}(\delta (i,t))=0\\{\frac {U_{i}(\delta (i,t))-U_{i}(\delta (j,t))}{U_{i}(\delta (i,t))}}&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} Risk(i,t) is a measurement of agent i's willingness to risk conflict. The risk function formalizes the notion that an agent's willingness to risk conflict is the ratio of the utility that agent would lose by accepting the other agent's proposal to the utility that agent would lose by causing a conflict. Agent i is said to be using a rational negotiation strategy if at any step t + 1 that agent i sticks to his last proposal, Risk(i,t) > Risk(j,t). == Sufficient concession == If agent i makes a sufficient concession in the next step, then, assuming that agent j is using a rational negotiation strategy, if agent j does not concede in the next step, he must do so in the step after that. The set of all sufficient concessions of agent i at step t is denoted SC(i, t). == Minimal sufficient concession == δ ′ = arg ⁡ max δ ∈ S C ( A , t ) { U A ( δ ) } {\displaystyle \delta '=\arg \max _{\delta \in {SC(A,t)}}\{U_{A}(\delta )\}} is the minimal sufficient concession of agent A in step t. Agent A begins the negotiation by proposing δ ( A , 0 ) = arg ⁡ max δ ∈ N S U A ( δ ) {\displaystyle \delta (A,0)=\arg \max _{\delta \in {NS}}U_{A}(\delta )} and will make the minimal sufficient concession in step t + 1 if and only if Risk(A,t) ≤ Risk(B,t). Theorem If both agents are using Zeuthen strategies, then they will agree on δ = arg ⁡ max δ ′ ∈ N S { π ( δ ′ ) } , {\displaystyle \delta =\arg \max _{\delta '\in {NS}}\{\pi (\delta ')\},} that is, the deal which maximizes the Nash product. Proof Let δA = δ(A,t). Let δB = δ(B,t). According to the Zeuthen strategy, agent A will concede at step t {\displaystyle t} if and only if R i s k ( A , t ) ≤ R i s k ( B , t ) . {\displaystyle Risk(A,t)\leq Risk(B,t).} That is, if and only if U A ( δ A ) − U A ( δ B ) U A ( δ A ) ≤ U B ( δ B ) − U B ( δ A ) U B ( δ B ) {\displaystyle {\frac {U_{A}(\delta _{A})-U_{A}(\delta _{B})}{U_{A}(\delta _{A})}}\leq {\frac {U_{B}(\delta _{B})-U_{B}(\delta _{A})}{U_{B}(\delta _{B})}}} U B ( δ B ) ( U A ( δ A ) − U A ( δ B ) ) ≤ U A ( δ A ) ( U B ( δ B ) − U B ( δ A ) ) {\displaystyle U_{B}(\delta _{B})(U_{A}(\delta _{A})-U_{A}(\delta _{B}))\leq U_{A}(\delta _{A})(U_{B}(\delta _{B})-U_{B}(\delta _{A}))} U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ B ) − U A ( δ B ) U B ( δ B ) ≤ U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ B ) − U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ A ) {\displaystyle U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{B})-U_{A}(\delta _{B})U_{B}(\delta _{B})\leq U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{B})-U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{A})} − U A ( δ B ) U B ( δ B ) ≤ − U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ A ) {\displaystyle -U_{A}(\delta _{B})U_{B}(\delta _{B})\leq -U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{A})} U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ A ) ≤ U A ( δ B ) U B ( δ B ) {\displaystyle U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{A})\leq U_{A}(\delta _{B})U_{B}(\delta _{B})} π ( δ A ) ≤ π ( δ B ) {\displaystyle \pi (\delta _{A})\leq \pi (\delta _{B})} Thus, Agent A will concede if and only if δ A {\displaystyle \delta _{A}} does not yield the larger product of utilities. Therefore, the Zeuthen strategy guarantees a final agreement that maximizes the Nash Product.

The Best Free AI Resume Builder for Beginners

Curious about the best AI resume builder? An AI resume builder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI resume builder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.

Top 10 AI Resume Builders Compared (2026)

In search of the best AI resume builder? An AI resume builder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI resume builder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

Nicolò Cesa-Bianchi

Nicolò Cesa-Bianchi (Italian pronunciation: [nikoˈlɔ tˈtʃɛːza ˈbjaŋki]) is an Italian computer scientist and Professor of Computer Science at the Department of Computer Science of the University of Milan. He is a researcher in the field of machine learning, and co-author of the books "Prediction, Learning, and Games" with Gabor Lugosi and "Regret analysis of stochastic and nonstochastic multi-armed bandit problems" with Sébastien Bubeck == Education and career == Cesa-Bianchi graduated in Computer Science from the University of Milan in 1988 where he received a PhD in Computer Science in 1993 supervised by Alberto Bertoni. During his PhD, he visited UC Santa Cruz where he worked with Manfred Warmuth and David Haussler. He did his postdoctoral studies at Graz University of Technology under the supervision of Wolfgang Maass. == Research == His research contributions focus on the following areas: design and analysis of machine learning algorithms, especially in online machine learning algorithms for multi-armed bandit problems, with applications to recommender systems and online auctions graph analytics, with applications to social networks and bioinformatics == Awards and honors == Cesa-Bianchi received a Google Research Award in 2010, a Xerox University Affairs Committee Award in 2011, a Criteo Faculty Award in 2017, a Google Faculty Award in 2018, and a IBM Academic Award in 2021. Since 2023 he is corresponding member of the Accademia dei Lincei.

CinePlayer

CinePlayer is a software based media player used to review Digital Cinema Packages (DCP) without the need for a digital cinema server by Doremi Labs. CinePlayer can play back any DCP, not just those created by Doremi Mastering products. In addition to playing DCPs, CinePlayer can also playback JPEG2000 image sequences and many popular multimedia file types. There are two versions of CinePlayer available, standard and Pro. The standard version supports playback of non-encrypted, 2D DCP's up to 2K resolution. The Pro version supports playback of encrypted, 2D or 3D DCP's with subtitles up to 4K resolution. == Supported formats == === Containers === AVI MOV MXF MPG TS WMV M2TS MTS MP4 MKV === Video codecs === JPEG2000 ProRes 422 DNxHD YUV Uncompressed 8-10 bits DIVX XVID MPEG4 AVC / H-264 VC-1 MPEG2 === Supported image sequences === BMP TIFF TGA DPX JPG J2C === Supported audio files === WAV MP3 WMA MP2

Additive smoothing

In statistics, additive smoothing, also called Laplace smoothing or Lidstone smoothing, is a technique used to smooth count data, eliminating issues caused by certain values having 0 occurrences. Given a set of observation counts x = ⟨ x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ⟩ {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =\langle x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d}\rangle } from a d {\displaystyle d} -dimensional multinomial distribution with N {\displaystyle N} trials, a "smoothed" version of the counts gives the estimator θ ^ i = x i + α N + α d ( i = 1 , … , d ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}_{i}={\frac {x_{i}+\alpha }{N+\alpha d}}\qquad (i=1,\ldots ,d),} where the smoothed count x ^ i = N θ ^ i {\displaystyle {\hat {x}}_{i}=N{\hat {\theta }}_{i}} , and the "pseudocount" α > 0 is a smoothing parameter, with α = 0 corresponding to no smoothing (this parameter is explained in § Pseudocount below). Additive smoothing is a type of shrinkage estimator, as the resulting estimate will be between the empirical probability (relative frequency) x i / N {\displaystyle x_{i}/N} and the uniform probability 1 / d . {\displaystyle 1/d.} Common choices for α are 0 (no smoothing), +1⁄2 (the Jeffreys prior), or 1 (Laplace's rule of succession), but the parameter may also be set empirically based on the observed data. From a Bayesian point of view, this corresponds to the expected value of the posterior distribution, using a symmetric Dirichlet distribution with parameter α as a prior distribution. In the special case where the number of categories is 2, this is equivalent to using a beta distribution as the conjugate prior for the parameters of the binomial distribution. == History == Laplace came up with this smoothing technique when he tried to estimate the chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. His rationale was that even given a large sample of days with the rising sun, we still can not be completely sure that the sun will still rise tomorrow (known as the sunrise problem). == Pseudocount == A pseudocount is an amount (not generally an integer, despite its name) added to the number of observed cases in order to change the expected probability in a model of those data, when not known to be zero. It is so named because, roughly speaking, a pseudo-count of value α {\displaystyle \alpha } weighs into the posterior distribution similarly to each category having an additional count of α {\displaystyle \alpha } . If the number of occurrences of each item i {\displaystyle i} is x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} out of N {\displaystyle N} samples, the empirical probability of event i {\displaystyle i} is p i , empirical = x i N , {\displaystyle p_{i,{\text{empirical}}}={\frac {x_{i}}{N}},} but the posterior probability when additively smoothed is p i , α -smoothed = x i + α N + α d , {\displaystyle p_{i,\alpha {\text{-smoothed}}}={\frac {x_{i}+\alpha }{N+\alpha d}},} as if to increase each count x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} by α {\displaystyle \alpha } a priori. Depending on the prior knowledge, which is sometimes a subjective value, a pseudocount may have any non-negative finite value. It may only be zero (or the possibility ignored) if impossible by definition, such as the possibility of a decimal digit of π being a letter, or a physical possibility that would be rejected and so not counted, such as a computer printing a letter when a valid program for π is run, or excluded and not counted because of no interest, such as if only interested in the zeros and ones. Generally, there is also a possibility that no value may be computable or observable in a finite time (see the halting problem). But at least one possibility must have a non-zero pseudocount, otherwise no prediction could be computed before the first observation. The relative values of pseudocounts represent the relative prior expected probabilities of their possibilities. The sum of the pseudocounts, which may be very large, represents the estimated weight of the prior knowledge compared with all the actual observations (one for each) when determining the expected probability. In any observed data set or sample there is the possibility, especially with low-probability events and with small data sets, of a possible event not occurring. Its observed frequency is therefore zero, apparently implying a probability of zero. This oversimplification is inaccurate and often unhelpful, particularly in probability-based machine learning techniques such as artificial neural networks and hidden Markov models. By artificially adjusting the probability of rare (but not impossible) events so those probabilities are not exactly zero, zero-frequency problems are avoided. Also see Cromwell's rule. === Choice of pseudocount === ==== Weakly informative prior ==== One common approach is to add 1 to each observed number of events, including the zero-count possibilities. This is sometimes called Laplace's rule of succession. This approach is equivalent to assuming a uniform prior distribution over the probabilities for each possible event (spanning the simplex where each probability is between 0 and 1, and they all sum to 1). Using the Jeffreys prior approach, a pseudocount of one half should be added to each possible outcome. Pseudocounts should be set to one or one-half only when there is no prior knowledge at all – see the principle of indifference. However, given appropriate prior knowledge, the sum should be adjusted in proportion to the expectation that the prior probabilities should be considered correct, despite evidence to the contrary – see further analysis. Higher values are appropriate inasmuch as there is prior knowledge of the true values (for a mint-condition coin, say); lower values inasmuch as there is prior knowledge that there is probable bias, but of unknown degree (for a bent coin, say). ==== Frequentist interval ==== One way to motivate pseudocounts, particularly for binomial data, is via a formula for the midpoint of an interval estimate, particularly a binomial proportion confidence interval. The best-known is due to Edwin Bidwell Wilson, in Wilson (1927): the midpoint of the Wilson score interval corresponding to ⁠ z {\displaystyle z} ⁠ standard deviations on either side is n S + z n + 2 z {\displaystyle {\frac {n_{S}+z}{n+2z}}} Taking z = 2 {\displaystyle z=2} standard deviations to approximate a 95% confidence interval (⁠ z ≈ 1.96 {\displaystyle z\approx 1.96} ⁠) yields pseudocount of 2 for each outcome, so 4 in total, colloquially known as the "plus four rule": n S + 2 n + 4 {\displaystyle {\frac {n_{S}+2}{n+4}}} This is also the midpoint of the Agresti–Coull interval (Agresti & Coull 1998). ==== Known incidence rates ==== Often the bias of an unknown trial population is tested against a control population with known parameters (incidence rates) μ = ⟨ μ 1 , μ 2 , … , μ d ⟩ . {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\mu }}=\langle \mu _{1},\mu _{2},\ldots ,\mu _{d}\rangle .} In this case the uniform probability 1 / d {\displaystyle 1/d} should be replaced by the known incidence rate of the control population μ i {\displaystyle \mu _{i}} to calculate the smoothed estimator: θ ^ i = x i + μ i α d N + α d ( i = 1 , … , d ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}_{i}={\frac {x_{i}+\mu _{i}\alpha d}{N+\alpha d}}\qquad (i=1,\ldots ,d).} As a consistency check, if the empirical estimator happens to equal the incidence rate, i.e. μ i = x i / N , {\displaystyle \mu _{i}=x_{i}/N,} the smoothed estimator is independent of α {\displaystyle \alpha } and also equals the incidence rate. == Applications == === Classification === Additive smoothing is commonly a component of naive Bayes classifiers. === Statistical language modelling === In a bag of words model of natural language processing and information retrieval, the data consists of the number of occurrences of each word in a document. Additive smoothing allows the assignment of non-zero probabilities to words which do not occur in the sample. Studies have shown that additive smoothing is more effective than other probability smoothing methods in several retrieval tasks such as language-model-based pseudo-relevance feedback and recommender systems.