Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 31532
Communicative and Artistic Machines: A Survey of Models and Experiments on Artificial Agents

Authors: Artur Matuck, Guilherme F. Nobre


Machines can be either tool, media, or social agents. Advances in technology have been delivering machines capable of autonomous expression, both through communication and art. This paper deals with models (theoretical approach) and experiments (applied approach) related to artificial agents. On one hand it traces how social sciences' scholars have worked with topics such as text automatization, man-machine writing cooperation, and communication. On the other hand it covers how computer sciences' scholars have built communicative and artistic machines, including the programming of creativity. The aim is to present a brief survey on artificially intelligent communicators and artificially creative writers, and provide the basis to understand the meta-authorship and also to new and further man-machine co-authorship.

Keywords: Artificial communication, artificial creativity, artificial writers, meta-authorship, robotic art.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1058


[1] A. Matuck. Meta-authorship as a creative model: theory, history, and praxis. Research project present to University of Berkeley, 2013.
[2] A. Matuck, A. Ferreira Jr, I. Brasil, R. Stuani, “Media design as a creative language, the artists as meta-artists”. In: 21st International Symposium on Electronic Art (ISEA), Vancouver (CA), 2015.
[3] J. M. Aguado, Modelos básicos para el estudio de la comunicación colectiva. Universidad de Murcia, 2004. Available at:
[4] M. Rodrigo, “Modelos de la comunicación”. In: Portal de la Comunicación. Barcelona, UAB, 1995. Available at:
[5] B. Galantucci, “An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems”. In: Cognitive Science 29, 2005, pp. 737-767.
[6] S. Nolfi, “Emergence of communication in embodied agents: co-adapting communicative and non-communicative behaviors”. In: Connection Science, vol. 17, Iss. 3-4, 2005, pp. 231-248.
[7] D. Marocco, A. Cangelosi, S. Nolfi, “The role of social and cognitive factors in the emergence of communication: experiments in evolutionary robotics”. In: Philosofical Transactions of the Royal Society London 361, 2003, pp. 2397-2421.
[8] D. Floreano, S. Mitri, S. Magnenat, “Evolutionary conditions for the emergence of communication in robots”. In: Current Biology 17, 2007, pp. 514-519.
[9] H. Lipson, “Evolutionary robotics: emergence of communication”. In: Current Biology, vol. 17, n. 9, 2007, pp. 330-332.
[10] H. A. Yanco, Robot communication: issues and implementations. Master Thesis. MIT, Massachusetts (USA), 1994.
[11] J. Noble, D. Cliff, “On simulating the evolution of communication”. In: P. Maes (Eds.) From animals to animats 4. 4th International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, Cambridge (USA), 1996.
[12] B. J. MacLennan, G. M. Burghardt, “Synthetic ethology and the evolution of cooperative communication”. In: Adaptative Behavior, 2 (2), 1993, pp. 161-188.
[13] H. Kozima, H. Yano, “A robot that learns to communicate with human caregivers”. In: First International Workshop on Epigenetic Robotics, 2001, pp 47–52.
[14] N. Iwahashi, K. Sugiura, R. Taguchi, T. Nagai, T. Taniguchi, “Robots that learn to communicate: a developmental approach to personally and physically situated human-robot conversations”. In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Dialog with Robots, Arlington (USA), 2010, pp. 38-43.
[15] M. A. Boden, “State of the art: computer models of creativity”. In: The Psychologist, v. 13, e. 2, 2000, pp. 72-77.
[16] A. Bridy, “Coding creativity: copyright and the artificially intelligent author”. In: Law Review 5, Stanford, 2012.
[17] A. Pease, S. Colton, A. Smaill, J. Lee, “Lakatos and machine creativity”. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2002), Lyon, France, 2002.
[18] S. Dzeroski, P. Langley, L. Todorovski, “Computational discovery of communicable scientific knowledge”. In: S. Dzeroski, L. Todorovski (Eds.), Computational Discovery, LNAI 4660, 2007, pp. 1–14.
[19] W. Bridewell, P. Langley, “Two kinds of knowledge in scientific discovery”. In: Topics in Cognitive Science 2, 2010, pp. 36–52
[20] P. Langley, Computational discovery of scientific models: guiding search with knowledge and data. Inaugural Lecture at the University of Auckland, NZ, 2013.
[21] J-P. Moulin, Self programming machines (I), 2000. Available at:
[22] E. Nivel, K. R. Thórisson, “Self-programming: operationalizing autonomy”. Ib: 2nd Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, Arlington, VA (USA), 2009.
[23] J-P. Moulin, “Modifiable automata self-modifying automata”. In: Acta Biotheoretica, v. 40, n. 2-3, 1992, pp. 195-204.
[24] V. Zykov, E. Mytilinaios, B. Adams, H. Lipson, “Robotics: self-reproducing machines”. In: Nature 435, 2005, pp. 163-164.
[25] C. Lucas, “Self-organization and human robots”. In: International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 2 (1), 2005, pp. 64-70.
[26] C. J. Reynolds, A. Cassinelli, “Machine self-sacrifice”. In: Eighth International Conference of Computer Ethics, Corfu, Greece, 2009.
[27] L. Sundararajan, “Mind, machine, and creativity: an artist's perspective”. In: The Journal of Creative Behavior, Volume 48, Issue 2, 2014, pp. 136–151.
[28] A. Moroni, F. V. Zuben, J. Manzolli, “ArTbitration: human-machine interaction in artistic domains”. In: Leonardo, Vol. 35, N. 2, 2002, pp. 185-188.
[29] J. Strycker, “Artificial intelligence and the arts”. In: Createquity, 2012. Available at:
[30] S. Colton, G. A. Wiggins, “Computational creativity: the final frontier?” In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montpellier (France), 2012.
[31] E. Cromwell, J. Galeota-Sprung, R. Ramanujan, “Computational creativity in the culinary arts”. In: 28o International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, 2015, pp. 38-42.
[32] P. Gemeinboeck, R. Saunders, “Creative machine performance: computational creativety and robotic art”. In: Fourth International Conference on Computational Creativity, 2013, pp. 215-219.
[33] M. A. Boden, “Computer models of creativity”. In: AI Magazine, V. 30, N. 3, 2009, pp. 23–34.
[34] H. Dupej, Next generation literary machines: the “dynamics network aesthetic” of contemporary poetry generators. PhD Thesis, University of Calgary, 2012.
[35] S. E. Voisen, Computational generation of dream-like narrative: reflections on the uncanny dream machine. Master Thesis, University of California, 2010.
[36] S. Bringsjord, D. A. Ferrucci, “Artificial intelligence and literary creativity: inside the mind of Brutus, a storytelling machine”. In: Computational Linguistics, v. 26, n. 4, 2000, pp. 642-647.
[37] A. Jaya, A pragmatic approach towards automatic story generation and reasoning. PhD Thesis, University Chennai, 2010.
[38] C. U. Andersen, S. B. Pold, “Post-digital books and disruptive literary machines”. In: Formules 18, 2014, pp. 164-183.
[39] J. Schäfer, “Literary machines made in Germany. German proto-cybertexts from the baroque era to the present”. In: M. Eskelinen, R. Koskimaa, (edts.) Ergodic Histories. Cybertext yearbook 2006, University of Jyväskylä, Finland, 2006.
[40] M. Carlson, “The robotic reporter – automated journalism and the redefinition of labor, compositional forms, and journalistic authority”. In: Digital Journalism, v. 3, Iss. 3, 2015, pp. 416-431.
[41] M. Eskelinen, R. Koskimaa (edts.) CyberText Yearbook. University of Jusväskylä, Finland. Available at: