It's partially euphemism, but there's also more substance to it than you may realize.

The ratios in the Jansen linkages were originally developed through genetic algorithms in computer simulations. Jansen now builds multiple generations of machines at once and has them compete in various "survival" tasks on the beaches, prioritizing further development based on the success of each "mutation"; an ongoing human-assisted evolutionary process.

The Strandbeest machines are also capable of much more sophisticated behavior than may be evident: they pressurize air using wind power and store it in bottles, which in turn run pneumatic "nervous systems" made from logic gates, oscillators, and flip-flops. As the machines have grown more sophisticated they've gained the ability to sense the waterline (with ground-trailing hoses that detect back-pressure from water) and avoid it, to anchor themselves to the ground when it gets too windy, to steer around simple obstacles, and so on.

Strandbeest machines reproducing independently from humans would be a pipe-dream, but at the very least they should be understood as autonomous, biomimetic robots at the same time as they are sculptures.

I don’t care either way about this conversation, just thought it was interesting, but what you described is essentially every engineered thing.

A pocket watch has more complexity than what you are describing but isn’t any closer to “artificial life” then any other engineered thing that takes and stores external power.

The mechanisms of a pocket watch are specifically designed to avoid influence from the outside environment. A strandbeest has the added complexity of evolving to actual environments, which are pretty complex. The ability to survive is pretty life-like, even more than the ability to function.

Bear in mind he is an artist, and it's de rigueur to have some story or concept with what you make. I learned this the hard way when I used to do algorithmic art back in college, you can't just say what it is or how you made it.

I came here to say this -- OP seems to be reacting not to the work itself, but to the framing. It reminds me of how my friends used to jump down my throat when I said 'AI' instead of 'Machine Learning' -- they had a point; 'Artificial Intelligence', as a coinage, is tendentiously animistic (just like Jensen's 'new forms of life'.)

Yet, of course, that's exactly how we encounter LLMs! The whole _point_ of ChatGPT isn't to do a "mechanical learning" (whatever that might be,) it's to create an experience that is more reminiscent of talking to another human being. An 'intelligence', if you will, but artificial.

At some point, we will need to tease out why engineering culture is so huffy about articulating its own goals; I have this mental image of a magician standing on stage, berating his audience for ever believing that rabbits could ever be made to come out of hats, all the while collecting a tidy sum for doing just that.

The artist's idea is that these machines can ultimately roam the beach independently without the need of human interaction. They also don't need fuel since they only move from the wind they catch. At the same time it looks like some kind of weird huge animal (strandbeest translates to beach beast). And it's an art project so yeah I get why he calls it like that.

I think as a programmer they fascinate me because they feel as simple and elegant as a boid algorithm and looks like life in a similar way but they also exist in the real world. It gives you the idea that you could build other similar simulated life like things.

I think its a cool exploration between art and engineering, with the end effect looking lifelike and emergent. It reminds me of the game of life.

But yeah the peanut gallery with 30k in hn karma probably have something snarky to say about it.

It's lore. Superman is also cool-looking and the whole story around it just adds depth; no one thinks it's real.

That’s just interesting lore.

I mean pasta is just boiled dough by that metric.