Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI

Can AIs Create True Art? (scientificamerican.com) 172

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
An anonymous reader shares an analysis: Last month, AI-generated art arrived on the world auction stage under the auspices of Christie's, proving that artificial intelligence can not only be creative but also produce world class works of art -- another profound AI milestone blurring the line between human and machine. Naturally, the news sparked debates about whether the work produced by Paris-based art collective Obvious could really be called art at all. Popular opinion among creatives is that art is a process by which human beings express some idea or emotion, filter it through personal experience and set it against a broader cultural context -- suggesting then that what AI generates at the behest of computer scientists is definitely not art, or at all creative.

The story raised additional questions about ownership. In this circumstance, who can really be named as author? The algorithm itself or the team behind it? Given that AI is taught and programmed by humans, has the human creative process really been identically replicated or are we still the ultimate masters? At GumGum, an AI company that focuses on computer vision, we wanted to explore the intersection of AI and art by devising a Turing Test of our own in association with Rutgers University's Art and Artificial Intelligence Lab and Cloudpainter, an artificially intelligent painting robot. We were keen to see whether AI can, in fact, replicate the intent and imagination of traditional artists, and we wanted to explore the potential impact of AI on the creative sector.

[...] Intriguingly, while at face value the AI artwork was indistinguishable from that of the more traditional artists, the test highlighted that the creative spark and ultimate agency behind creating a work of art is still very much human. Even though the Cloudpainter machine has evolved over time to become a highly intelligent system capable of making creative decisions of its own accord, the final piece of work could only be described as a collaboration between human and machine. Van Arman served as more of an "art director" for the painting. Although Cloudpainter made all of the aesthetic decisions independently, the machine was given parameters to meet and was programed to refine its results in order to deliver the desired outcome. This was not too dissimilar to the process used by Obvious and their GAN AI tool.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Can AIs Create True Art? More

Can AIs Create True Art?

Comments Filter:

  • True art? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ichthus ( 72442 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @11:50AM (#57637666) Homepage
    "True art". What does that even mean?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Sounds like it means "created by a human." In which case the answer to the question is trivially, "no."

      Sounds like conceit and hubris to me, but then it is the art establishment, so I guess that's only natural.

      I like the part about "given the AI is trained by humans...." Human artists are not?

      • You're correct on all counts.

        I'm surprised this is even a question any more. We've had generative art for decades, and the work is only getting more interesting and mature. For example, musician Brian Eno released procedural music last year as an iOS app (his 4th). If something so simple can be considered art, then certainly art produced by AI can be as well.

        If you want to hear what it sounds like:

        https://youtu.be/Dwo-tvmEKhk [youtu.be]

    • Re:True art? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BringsApples ( 3418089 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @12:14PM (#57637840)
      Art is seen, not made. That means that when "true art" "happens", it's because there's an observer. There doesn't have to be a consciousness behind the creation, but there has to be a consciousness behind the observation. This is why clouds look cool to some, and not others. Also why so few can see that stupid bear in the clouds that you're trying to point out.

      • Art is seen, not made

        At first glance, that's one of the best answers to the question "what is art?" I've read.

      • Re:True art? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by lgw ( 121541 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @01:13PM (#57638188) Journal

        Indeed. The quote in TFS asserts that Art communicates an emotion between the artist and the observer, but that's blatantly false. Artists don't reveal their intended emotion any more than magicians reveal how a trick was done, because that's not the point of the exercise.

        Heck, sometimes ambiguity is itself the point of a work of art.

        • In art, significance is toyed with. In this way, art is simply pointing out the absurdity in significance, in a significant way.

        • I agree with the quote's assertion that art is a form of communication, but not necessarily emotional, it could be conceptual as well. If the artist didn't want to communicate something they wouldn't show it off, and some of the times an artist or speaker's intent is not well understood, this doesn't mean it's not art.

          • Art is communication, but to the heart, rather than to the head.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lgw ( 121541 )

            Mismatch between the speakers intent and the listener's understanding indicates bad communication, but not necessarily bad art. The artists intent is largely irrelevant to the meaning of art - that's part of what separates "practical" from "art". The meaning of art lies within the viewer, and if that exists there need not even be any intent from the artist (e.g., how every cynic thinks modern art works).

            • If there was no intent then it's just a beautiful (or in some other way stimulating) object, that's why I wouldn't call a sunset art.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by lgw ( 121541 )

                You you call modern art "art"? For most of it, there's no real way to determine whether the artist had any intention, beyond profit. But some people find meaning in it, nonetheless. A common definition of good art is a work where different viewers have different interpretations, find differing meanings, and the idea that some of them are right and some wrong does not belong in art.

                We might be living in the matrix. A sunset may or may not have a creator. Does that make it Schrodinger's art? Whether or

        • It's not blatantly false at all. If an artist took a drug that knocked him unconscious but still made him move his muscles rhythmically and that movement was translated into a painting somehow, I -- and I imagine most people -- wouldn't care for that painting one bit. It's seeing a slice of the world he experienced as captured by his art in the moment is what we yearn to see. A form of deferred telepathy through a physical medium if you will.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lgw ( 121541 )

            If an artist took a drug that knocked him unconscious but still made him move his muscles rhythmically and that movement was translated into a painting somehow, I -- and I imagine most people -- wouldn't care for that painting one bit.

            You know Jackson Pollock was quite a successful artist, right? I don't like his stuff either, but it's inarguably "art".

            It's seeing a slice of the world he experienced as captured by his art in the moment is what we yearn to see.

            Sounds like a bodycam.

            • Apparently that applies to his art as well: "In 1939, Pollock began visiting a Jungian analyst to treat his alcoholism, and his analyst encouraged him to create drawings. These would later feed his paintings, and they shaped Pollock's understanding of his pictures not only as outpourings of his own mind, but expressions that might stand for the terror of all modern humanity living in the shadow of nuclear war."

              Sounds like a bodycam.

              Actually more like a mindcam.

      • I don't consider a cloud to be art... "Art" requires artistry. Artistry implies a living creator honing and stretching his skill.

      • Art is seen, not made. That means that when "true art" "happens", it's because there's an observer. There doesn't have to be a consciousness behind the creation, but there has to be a consciousness behind the observation.

        I think this is entirely true, but a little bit false.

        It's a little bit false because art isn't entirely about the piece and the observer. The artist does have a role; if this weren't true, then absolutely anyone could create art. But one observation/clarification makes your statement true: the artist is the first observer. This first observation happens partly before anything observable by others has been produced.

        I think what I mean can best be described in the context of the art of photography. I

    • What does that even mean?

      Msmash doesn't even know. It sounded good, though.

    • "True art". What does that even mean?

      That was my first thought. Along the lines of --- first, define "True Art."

      • "True art". What does that even mean?

        That was my first thought. Along the lines of --- first, define "True Art."

        To misappropriate a quote from Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it.

    • Re:True art? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @01:01PM (#57638108) Journal
      'What is and is not art' is as unanswerable a question as 'what is and is not pornography', or 'what is and is not funny', or 'what is love'. It is entirely subjective.

      • 'What is and is not art' is as unanswerable a question as 'what is and is not pornography', or 'what is and is not funny', or 'what is love'. It is entirely subjective.

        Very artfully written... although I must admit I found the ending a bit pornographic.

      • Re:True art? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Alypius ( 3606369 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @02:29PM (#57638640)

        'what is love'.

        The ability to see this and not immediately hear "baby don't hurt me"

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ichthus ( 72442 )
          Sometimes, in my mind, I change it to (with a Slavic accent): "Vladislav! Baby don't hort me... don't hort me.. no mores."
          I get a little grin, because it's kind of funny. But then, I remember that domestic abuse it definitely not funny, and I stop grinning.

      • 'What is and is not art' is as unanswerable a question as 'what is and is not pornography' [...] It is entirely subjective.

        Entirely subjective? There's big grey area in the middle but the ends of the spectrum are usually clear.

  • Sure. If we say so, that is. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OneHundredAndTen ( 1523865 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @11:51AM (#57637676)
    Art is whatever a society says it is. The Tate Gallery in London have such pieces of art as a pile of bricks. Thus, if a sufficiently large percentage of a society says that something is art, it is art.

    • Art is whatever a society says it is. The Tate Gallery in London have such pieces of art as a pile of bricks. Thus, if a sufficiently large percentage of a society says that something is art, it is art.

      Indeed this. Art can be anything that society finds culturally or emotionally stimulating. There was one artist who used to produce art by inflicting physical pain on himself and letting others watch. He even had himself shot as "live art".

      If an AI can produce something that evoke emotions or cultural awareness, then yes... it has produced art.

      • Chris Burden, that's his name (the guy who had himself shot as a performance piece)

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • I can find a beautiful forest or other natural setting to be "emotionally stimulating", but no one would say that it's art (maybe that of God if you're religious). I think intent is very much part of what makes something art. So with regards to AI making art, for me it would depend on whose intent is was to elicit a reaction, was it from the AI's or its creators? If the latter then he AI is just a tool.

    • From what I can tell , a majority of us "the plebe" think that modern art pile-of-brick or semen in bottle, or splurge of colors thrown at a wall is not art.

      • From what I can tell , a majority of us "the plebe" think that modern art pile-of-brick or semen in bottle, or splurge of colors thrown at a wall is not art.

        Look at some of the people that have been elected to public office around the world and tell me if the majority is always "right". :)

        Art can be almost anything, anyone, wants to believe is art. If it moves you (or someone) culturally or emotionally, it is art. Now, whether it is "good" art, or "talented" art, or "worthwhile" art is another question. Would the world be better off without "semen in bottle"? Is anyone culturally enriched by that? Probably very few people. I think some art displays are al

    • if a sufficiently large percentage of a society says that something is art, it is art.

      A sufficienly large percentage of society thinks the word "height" has an extra "h" on the end.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      You're too generous. There are a few papers looking at what makes something "art." The answer is, a surprisingly small number of rich dudes. These guys pay ridiculous amounts of money to commission things they like, a small number of artists get rich and famous, and then a bunch of others try to do similar things.

      The guy who makes the giant rubber ducks for example. Or that pile of bricks in the Tate.

  • Artists are no different from anyone else. If they reject technological advancement, they will lose their ability to make a living.

    It's not hard to imagine future artists working with advanced AIs to amplify their work output. Suddenly every individual artist is expected to create multimedia blitz of derivative works in order to monetize their works, aided by an AI who has been trained for years to develop in the style of the artist. Every artist now has to become the Walt Disney company or they don't eat.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

      Some works are going to be greatly assisted by automation, others not at all, and some only slightly so.

      I've certainly found this to be the case with music. For certain genres, I can use Band In A Box to do a good 3/4 of the work of creating the accompaniment. I can even let it come up with multiple melodies and instrumental solos, and then edit them into one "take" that I like by stitching fragments together and maybe shifting them in range to make them transition better. For some tracks, though, I can't u

  • In a postmodern way, maybe. (Score:3)

    by forkfail ( 228161 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @11:59AM (#57637734)

    Of course, this begs the question of value, meaning, truth, beauty, or anything else that art is supposed to be and speak to in the context of a worldview and philosophy that denies all these things (i.e., postmodernism).

  • If some twat with more money than sense can come along, think it looks pretty, or interesting, or they just don't get what it is but think someone else might and then declare it "art" then yeah. If a dirty urinal or dripping tap or whatever else literal rubbish can be art then all bets are off.

  • .. so shouldn't the question be posed to another AI?

  • ...debates about whether the work [...] could really be called art at all

    This happens all the time with human-created art, especially experimental, avant-garde, and other artistic expressions that are "ahead of their time." Seems to me like the debate is a solid indicator that it actually is art.

  • AI should be better at art than people.

  • Can humans? (Score:3)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @12:08PM (#57637794)

    Dressing like your sister
    Living like a tart
    They don't know what you're doing
    Babe, it must be art

    Seriously, what IS art? More and more it seems to me we define as art "whatever we don't get". By that metric, it's pretty certain that AI can create art, because it should be trivial for an AI to produce something we have no idea what it's supposed to "tell" us.

    If art is beauty and beauty is art, then of course an AI can do that too. It should be trivial for AI to create a photorealistic sculpture or painting, and that's what many people would consider "beautiful".

    If art is something that should make us think and change our point of view, even that should be doable. An installation by an AI that the AI created with the express idea to give us a glimpse into how it sees the world would offer us a view into the "mind" of an AI.

    So what is art? The question is is in my opinion rather, what makes something a human creates art?

    • Everything is art. But the human determination of such is a matter of physics and economics.

      Nature can be art, as perceived by one observing. A tree is art. The leaves on the ground are art (wind is the painter). A human didn't necessarily intervene (what if you planted the tree?), but it's our perception of beauty and emotion.

      A photograph of a tree or vista can be art (Ansel Adams anyone?), whether taken by a human or a Google car autonomously (the driver isn't the artist, is the person who programmed

      • Everything is art. But the human determination of such is a matter of physics and economics.

        I disagree. What about a nuclear blast? Not a photo or video of the event, but the blast itself? Lots of physics and economics involved in that, but were either Hiroshima's or Nagasaki's blasts art?

        Nature can be art, as perceived by one observing. A tree is art. The leaves on the ground are art (wind is the painter). A human didn't necessarily intervene (what if you planted the tree?), but it's our perception of beauty and emotion.

        A photograph of a tree or vista can be art (Ansel Adams anyone?)...

        Nature can be beautiful, but not art. Nearly anyone with the gift of sight has seen beauty in a sunset, but did the sun, earth, and atmosphere intend to create the view? Is it art or natural beauty? We would all agree that a photo or painting of the same vista is art; the artist took action to create a repr

    • If art is beauty and beauty is art, then of course an AI can do that too. It should be trivial for AI to create a photorealistic sculpture or painting, and that's what many people would consider "beautiful".

      Art doesn't have to be beautiful- it has to stir emotion. Revulsion is a perfectly acceptable reaction to some art. Especially if there is a point to the revulsion, such as it makes you think.

  • The people who create the AIs would be the artists in that case.

    • Or - apparently this is confusing - there are no fucking artists in this equation.

  • We don't know (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @12:10PM (#57637814) Homepage Journal
    Because AI doesn't really exist. What people call "AI" are just parlor tricks and computers running programs.

    • Al exists, he works down at the pizza joint. Then there is Al Gore who was VP for a while. I know several blokes named Al now that I think about it. They will all be unhappy that you have dehumanized them.

    • Correct.

    • Actual Intelligence doesn't exist. After all what is intelligence if not the ability to make a decision based on past information to achieve a desired outcome. The only difference between humans and computer models in this regard is:
      a) the scale of the model and level of information required to gain an understanding.
      b) only humans are dumb enough to get two different results with the same input information without changing any external variables.

      • Actual Intelligence doesn't exist. After all what is intelligence if not the ability to make a decision based on past information to achieve a desired outcome. The only difference between humans and computer models in this regard is:
        a) the scale of the model and level of information required to gain an understanding.
        b) only humans are dumb enough to get two different results with the same input information without changing any external variables.

        Do humans make two different decisions based on the same external variables, or do we just recognize the external variables that have changed?

        • Do humans make two different decisions based on the same external variables, or do we just recognize the external variables that have changed?

          Nope, we are fundamentally fallible creatures with no reason to believe in complete consistency within our thought processes when our inputs do not change. It is this mutability of outcomes that makes us fundamentally different from computers.

      • I don't understand why some people, like you, get all offended and butthurt when someone points out that what we call "AI" today isn't actually an example of what we understand AI to be, to the point where you feel compelled to attack and insult your entire species.

        Look - "AI" isn't actual intelligence - it can't reason. It can only give a particular output based on the inputs and human-directed training given to it. Humans, on the other hand, have an ability to rationalize and reason starting at an early a

        • AI algorithms reason as well as any person does. We take inputs, apply our knowledge, and produce an output. An "AI" algorithm does the same thing. The difference is only in scale of information available. We can process it at a far larger rate with a far larger context many thanks to years and years of continuous development and training.

          Heck you can see learning and reasoning quite well when viewing simulations of AI learning to play a game. Clearing an obstacle once results in algorithms attempting to c

        • It's helpful in these kinds of discussions to explain the difference between strong AI and weak AI. Very often people don't realize there is a difference (they are aided in their ignorance by the press), and explaining it can clarify all their confusion quickly.

  • First, "Art" as a concept is silly.

    I don't mean the concept of art, I mean Art with a capital A, as if it was some objective and unchanging definition which can be applied to any given activity, person, thing, or event in a way that resolves to an unarguable true or false value.

    We know the definition of art is subjective, literally in the eye of the beholder (or failing that, in the eye of the popular consensus of a set of individuals who have self-assigned themselves the title of critic and whom have some

  • Can people?
  • Trying to define one thing as "art" and another as "not art" is a futile exercise. Given the broad range of objects, creations and interpretations that have been classed as "art" when they have been sold, there is no possible way of objectively saying which is and which is not.

    As a consequence either anything can be considered to be art, or nothing qualifies.

    The only real-life question that remains is not whether a person would buy the product of an AI, but whether an AI would buy the product of a human

  • I am quite certain that once a "True Art" specification is drafted AI will be able to meet that specification.
    More interesting, though, is what would be in the True Art specification.

    • Arthur C Clarke, I think, or it may have been Asimov, suggested all art is deliberate caricature of reality, in order to communicate symbolically.

      So real art must distort perspective with intent to convey graphically ideas through the symbolism of distortion.

      That means real art requires an artist who has ideas they wish to communicate and a metaphorical language of their own devising they wish to communicate those ideas in.

      So, does the AI have such a language they can both send and receive in? And can they

  • The Turing Test... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @12:58PM (#57638092)
    Art dealers just failed it...

  • Because idiots will look at it and figure something out in their heads what the AI was trying to convey when it made the art. Then they'll try to sell it as such; at which point some other idiot comes up and buys it to show all of his other idiot friends how classy he is.

    For fuck sakes society... why....

    • Re: Yes (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )

      The brain is a Turing Complete machine.

      If a human is capable of true art, any computer with sufficient resources can do likewise.

  • The so-called 'AI' in this case is just another tool the artist uses to create their art, not fundamentally different than using a brush, pencil, pen, or computer graphics program.

    • Weak AI is a tool, granted.

      Strong AI, by definition, is an individual no different from any other artist.

      • Define 'strong AI'.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jd ( 1658 )

          Turing's definition was that strong AI was that which fell inside the set of all higher intelligence. In other words, a functional definition.

          Alternatively, you can use a variant of the definition used by animal behaviourologists - the ability to perform new tasks by deductive reasoning rather than practice, instruction or copying, requiring indirect thinking. So self-awareness and the mirror test requires the capacity to not only connect the image to self but utilize it.

          The test the crows managed required

  • No (Score:2)

    by Dan East ( 318230 )

    The answer is no, and here is why. Art must be created by an artist. An artist is a being which has consciously labeled something as "art". Every beautiful sunset perpetually occurring as the earth rotates is not producing an infinite number of art pieces. However, when a conscious being labels a sunset as art - through photography, painting, or even through some performance art or other means that allows other conscious beings to also consider it in that context - it is then "art".

    A formula which plots

    • The human brain is just an algorithm.

      A very big and complicated algorithm, yes, but still only a Turing Complete algorithm.

      Thus, self-awareness and the capacity to declare something art are merely products of sufficiently complex algorithms.

      By implication, you cannot argue that humans can do anything a sufficiently advanced AI cannot. The difference isn't in the nature, only in the scale.

      You can, at best, argue weak AI cannot create art.

  • I say if it "looks cool" or readily triggers emotions, then it's "art". Whether it comes from a human, a bot, or a cat puking paint on a canvas is irrelevant. I've seen random patterns in stone tiles that could be framed to make nice art. Random nature at work. They all can make "art".

    Requiring art to be some haughty-taughty endeavor is silly. Those who make art for a living often try to inflate their specialty. There are bullshit trends in IT whose promoters pull similar social games. Buy art because you l

  • The story raised additional questions about ownership. In this circumstance, who can really be named as author? The algorithm itself or the team behind it?

    When the AI demands the proceeds of the sale of its art, the AI is the owner.

    This is where the eternal Slashdot bleating about "it's not real AI!" is going to have serious problems. Whatever test is created to have an AI legally qualify itself as not just sentient but sapient, humans will have to be exempted from it and simply declared sapient by legal fiat. Barring religious pogrom, there will one day be a sapient AI, and you can bet the tests created to try to prevent it becoming a legal individual can

    • Whatever test is created to have an AI legally qualify itself

      Unlikely though. Legal rights come with legal responsibilities. And legal responsibilities require some form of sanction to work. It's possible to make an AI that's immune to sanctions so this means you cannot give it legal rights without running into serious problems.

      Example: suppose I create an AI agent that becomes a legal individual. It gets a credit card, and then buys me a gift. I then terminate the AI. I now have a free gift,

  • Can _you_ create real art?

    And if not, are you neither human nor intelligent?

  • "Those considered the most creative are the best at hiding their sources."

    I can't remember who said it, and it is really more a paraphrase than a direct quote. Does that make me creative?

  • A genuine AI (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <`imipak' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @01:46PM (#57638392) Homepage Journal

    Would be as capable of creation as a human. If the AI can't create, neither can the human.

  • I'd say that if humans were seeing 'art' that they knew was created by AI then it would never be judged to be 'true art'. They would talk about how artificial it was or find some other trivial flaw.

    On the other hand, if it was a randomized test in which people needed to distinguish between art created by AI and by human artist then I believe it would be more difficult task.

    If you can't accurately predict which piece of art is created by AI and which is created by human artist, then it would pass somet

  • Only in the most pedantic sense of 'create'. (Score:3)

    by Oligonicella ( 659917 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @03:47PM (#57639026)
    Like a mechanical cookie cutter creates a cookie. An AI (speaking of the currently moronic versions of such) can only 'create' what it is directed to. Otherwise, it will sit there forever like a paperweight.

  • It takes a human to create the level of lucrative hype that 'Paris-based art collective Obvious' have managed to come up with. Back in the day, Slashdot would have covered the more interesting story behind the Christie's auction, which you can read here:

    https://www.theverge.com/2018/... [theverge.com]

    'Obvious' just seem to have grabbed source from an Open Source project, generated a few images, cranked the hype up to 11, and made a killing. The community this comes out of, and especially the programmer who implemented the

  • Can you? (Score:2)

    by dgp ( 11045 )

    This is the best line from "I, Robot.".
    Will Smith to the robot: "Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?"
    The robot responds, "Can you?".

  • I'm gonna spoil this discussion and article even more.

    Art is roughly 95% PR/publicity and 5% ingenuity/talent/quality/etc.

    So, yes, AI can create "true" art as long as it's advertised as such.

  • To me, this discussion is as meaningless as asking whether it's "art" when someone uses a paintbrush instead of one's own hands. Of course it is! Swapping tools doesn't suddenly make something not art, even if that tool is very complex.

    Separately, there's a discussion in this about who is the artist, but the answer is once again fairly obvious, given that this "AI" is only as capable of "creating" as its creators made it. While far more complex than a pile of rocks, this sort of "AI" is fundamentally no dif

  • Plus way more went into it than that crap Pollock turned out. Writing an AI "artist" is way more impressive than hanging paint from a string, and Pollock's crap sells for millions. Plus there's room to "express some idea or emotion, filter it through personal experience and set it against a broader cultural context" in millions of lines of code, contrasted with none in an f'ing pain can on an f'ing string.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (1) Gee, I wish we hadn't backed down on 'noalias'.

Close