Ode to a paper deadline

Oh, that you were succinct and timely
Like the full stop of this strophe.

But instead you run on,
and on,
and on,
Needlessly extending,
delaying,
postponing,
Without hint,
or rhyme,
or reason for doing so
Requiring authors to collect,
and analyze,
and run more data
And ultimately to re-write,
re-shape,
re-reflect on their submission
Spending night,
after night,
after exhaustingly late night
Putting in one last chart,
one last plot,
one last conclusion
Before finally,
thankfully,
mercifully,
(and without warning)

You end.

Nice Goals

I visited a couple of art museums yesterday, and while I haven't had any formal art history training, I feel like I'm pretty good at getting the big picture.

Take Henry Matisse, for example. The "bored, rich, white dude that decided to take up painting." Now he's got a museum dedicated to him. The commentary provided for his artwork went on and on about how he really wanted to infuse the colors of the blue, blue Mediterranean sea into his paintings and everything changed substantially after his visit to Tahiti and blah blah blah. I don't know if I buy it. I think he might have just wanted an excuse to stare at naked women all day. (Actually, I really liked some of his impressionism stuff, especially the statues. I love the idea of presenting what you see, not what is visible.)

Or take, for example, the museum of Marc Chagall. The audio tour included with my visit (thank the gods for student discounts!) provided the meaning of every last brushstroke. Do you really think Chagall used the crucifix to represent his father's hat on his 26th birthday, the trials of his people in Belarus, and the end of suffering to the Jews? Or do you think that Chegall, a Jew, was merely including the crucifix because his employers were Christian churches? (Actually, I was baffled and in awe at the incredible woven tapestries he designed. The amount of skill and precision they must have required... Incredible!)

But what gets me even more is that Chegall was actually alive when they dedicated his museum. In fact, he designed the museum and placed his paintings. I would have been fascinated to have him give the audio tour–or at least offer a rebuttal to the current version. What would he have said? Would he have called it a bunch of hogwash?


And then I stumbled across XKCD: explain today and realized that Randall probably has an even harder time. Not only do his comics get critiqued, they often get over-analyzed. And he's STILL ALIVE WHEN THIS HAPPENS. What gets me even more is the discussion section: "And you, sir, are a canonical example of an outlier. Seriously, though, go to http://google.com [hyperlink included, just in case you missed it] and type 'is an acquired taste.'"


Someday when I grow up, I'm going to be a famous artist. And then I'm going to show up in disguise at all the fancy-schmancy art dinners and say, "Oh I heard Nathan talking about how his latest painting entitled 'apple by book' is actually a reference to the Garden of Eden as written in The Bible and in fact suggests that history is a tangled mess to nail down." I'd be the master troll.

Love from Nice, where the water is blue, the houses are pastel, and you can't help but look away from the camera when you take a selfie.

Musical Turing Test

I currently TA for an undergraduate Issues in Computer Science class, and during one of the lectures, the professor talked about a computer's ability to create art and music—which, one might suppose, are very "human" skills. Can a computer compose music? Sure...but it won't sound quite right. Right? In class, the professor tried this with two composers: Bach and Joplin. For each of these composers, she had a computer program generate ("compose") a musical piece after it had identified patterns ("learned") from a lot of music from that composer. She then recorded a pianist playing the computer-composed piece, so a piece generated by a Bach-learned program would sound a little something like Bach, and a Joplin-learned one would sound quite a bit like your typical Joplin rag.

I won't bore you with any more details (there are a few more at the actual test—you should take it, it only takes 7 minutes tops), but the results were interesting. During class, the teacher juxtaposed each computer-composed piece with an actual human composed piece, and then asked the students to pick the real piece. The performance was terrible. It was clear these students couldn't tell the difference between a great like Bach and a computer imitation of Bach. But then I began to wonder: as I took the test, I was able to pick out each of the real compositions. Was this because of my musical background? I decided to give the same test to a larger audience, this time recording their self-reported musical experience.

If you're not interested in the individual results and discussion, the takeaway is that, even among self-reported musicians, only just over 40% of the individuals were able to correctly identify the human composer. Yes. Only 40%. In other words, more often than not, humans think computers are more "human" composers than Bach or Chopin or Joplin. This is a terrible result! (There's a pretty good description why this is bad in this RadioLab episode, at about 16:26.) I'll try and go into it more in the Analysis section below.


Population Distribution
For those of you interested in the questions and population distribution, I've been updating the values here. For your information, the quiz consisted of 6 questions: three background, and three with the paired audio samples. For the first three questions, here are the number of respondents (total of 247) in each category:

1. What is your major field of work? The responses were free-form and varied from math to computers to culinary arts to music to motorcycle repair. I haven't looked at any of these responses past collecting answers.
2. Do you play any instruments? This was multiple choice, divided into 4 categories of increasing "musicality." Here are the number of respondents that self-selected each category:
1. No: 28
2. Yes, but I've picked it up on my own without lessons: 27
3. Yes, and I've had official lessons for at least one year:  131
4. Yes, I would consider myself a professional musician: 61
3. What is your technical musical background? This was also multiple choice with 4 categories, and had the following number of respondents:
1. None: 38
2. I know some musical theory, but I've picked it up on my own: 42
3. I've taken a class or lessons in musical theory: 124
4. I'm a professional musician or majored in music theory: 43

Categorical Results by Response
And here are the responses, separated into response for each category

Second question, accuracy by response:

1 - 27.4%

2 - 40.7%

3 - 42.0%

4 - 50.3%

Third question, accuracy by response:

1 - 32.5%

2 - 42.9%

3 - 40.9%

4 - 54.3%

Average total accuracy:
42.2%

A graphical representation of the responses, by category. The x-axis has the question number, and the y-axis has the accuracy. The circle size is representative of the number of respondents for that specific question.

Overall Results and Analysis

The overall accuracy for all three composers was 42.2%. In other words, only 42 out of 100 times were people able to correctly identify who the human composer was. There probably aren't quite enough samples to show statistical significance, and the survey process wasn't exactly accurate (I didn't prevent anyone from cheating—they could take the survey as many times as they wanted), but there does seem to be a general trend that with musical experience, the accuracy increases.

This is what I expected.

Almost.

On closer inspection, this all is actually quite disconcerting. With the sole exception of those who are professional musicians, humans think that the computer composer actually sounds more human. How could this be possible? Well, I can think of a couple of possibilities.

First, it's possible that there was a hidden variable we weren't controlling for. I had my roommate take the quiz first, and he got them all right. I asked him how he did it, and his response was that he just picked the better recording each time. Oops. When I designed the quiz, I already had the mp3 files for the computer composers, but I was lazy with the real compositions and just ripped the music off YouTube clips. I went back and actually purchased the music off iTunes so they would sound more similar. When I sent the survey out to a larger audience, there were more issues. Turns out iTunes adds album artwork, which was displayed in some browsers when they played the music. Oops again. This was a little harder, but with some online conversion and VLC magic, I finally cleared them all of their extraneous information. Perhaps there is something more I'm not controlling for—if this were real science, I'd want to have the same performer play each piece and be recorded with the same device. Good thing this isn't real science, right?

But there's another possibility that seems more likely. When the computer "composed" a piece by Bach, she wanted it to sound as much like Bach as she could, so she consciously added bits and pieces of actual songs. But when Bach really wrote his pieces, his goal was to create something new and fresh, something that didn't sound like anything he'd written before. Something that people would clearly identify as Bach--or would at least recognize it when they heard it before. All of his similarities to previous works were subconscious, influences from his schooling, the music he enjoyed listening to, even some of the music he previously composed.

Conclusion

With high statistical confidence, humans think that a computer who is trying to imitate a Bach piece actually sounds more like Bach than the composer himself. Maybe this is bad (computers will eventually replace composers and artists and singers and all other "human" fields), but maybe, instead, this identifies an aspect of talented human creators: the ability to create something truly unique.

Notes:
Note1: As people take this test, I'll update the results on this page. Hopefully I replace them all so it makes sense. Also, if you want some more statistics, I can try and get them to you—or I could probably give you the data myself, it's pretty well-anonymized.
Note 2: The first numbers were published on 23 Nov 2013 with 65 respondents and 42.6% accuracy. The results were updated on 26 Nov 2013 with 99 respondents and 40.7% accuracy. They were updated again on 11 Dec 2013 with 201 respondents and 42.8% accuracy. They were updated on 12 Sep 2014 with 247 respondents and 42.2% accuracy.