In (2)'s paper [2], the images are really neat. Staring at it for a few moments, I feel like I can see where the computer is coming from. A bit. The robin, a

In (2)'s paper [2], the images are really neat. Staring at it for a few moments, I feel like I can see where the computer is coming from. A bit. The robin, armadillo, centipede, peacock, and bubble all actually have a little swirl of features that - to me at least - resemble the labels provided. But from afar, and you've got to basically damp the noise. I did this by taking my glasses off and leaning about 8 inches from the screen (with the grid taking about 3 inches wide). I've got about -7.5 diopter near-sightedness, so this cleaned the images right up. At least the armadillo I would have guessed, as it's absolutely a little critter walking to the lower right, and it has the demi-circle body and long face. And it might make sense: it was told to make an armadillo, so it did. And nothing else. (I also think the baseball was super clever - if this were abstract art, I would totally have fallen for that classification, as well as a few of the others. There's something cool going on there.) I'm printing and reading the rest of the paper now (about a quarter done). To say it's both fascinating and interesting really understates it. Really neat stuff! [2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1897v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1897v2.pdf