I train computer programs called neural networks to imitate datasets of human things. Basically, I give the neural network a long list of things like band names or guinea pig names to look at, and it does its best to figure out the rules that will let it generate more.
The neural network starts with a fresh slate every time, and becomes the World’s Biggest Fan of whatever it’s given – if I give it Pokemon names, it will invent Pokemon after Pokemon; if I give it Star Wars names, it will invent new characters like Darth Tina and Ban Sand.
Since that day, and even before, I have been hearing from birders. Any of you who know birders or are birders yourselves will not be surprised. Not only are birders very eager to find out what a neural network would make of bird species, they are also very organized. There is, for example, a downloadable checklist of about 32,000 birds, 14,000 of which have English common names. Big thanks to Kaija Gahm, Dana Terry, and Emily
Davis, who sent me this and similar datasets.
The neural network, after reading intently through the entire list about 7 times, is now a dedicated birder.
I asked it to generate some birds. Not too wild – plausible.
Ground-Tyrant, I asked? Cuckooshrike? It turns out, yes. There are 57 cuckooshrikes, including a Cerulean Cuckooshrike and a Blue Cuckooshrike, but not an actual Lazuli Cuckooshrike. Similarly, that ground-tyrant would pass as plausible among birders.
Fine, I said. What does actual weird look like? I upped the neural network’s creativity level to 1.0, the highest level I usually use.
Ha, I said. Banded Spectacled Snake-Eagle? That’s hilarious.
Yes, the neural network would have replied (if it was equipped for conversation as well as for birding enthusiasm). Banded AND Spectacled? Ha!
It turns out there are 6 snake-eagles, 41 spectacled birds, and 106 banded birds, but nothing that’s banded AND spectacled.
I turned the creativity up to 1.2, a point at which for other datasets, the neural network is emitting unpronounceable strings of letters with only a vague resemblance to the original. Here’s what the birding neural net produced:
Granted, even I am registering some of these as weird. Mountain-eater? The neural network made that up. But Wattle-eye, puffbird, stonechat, and shag are all real things. Apparently an *Olive* stonechat is just that weird.
At creativity 1.4 the results get stranger but not as strange as you’d think.
