an artistic way if he wants to communicate his research. He obviously wants to communicate and talk to others. A scientist invents new objects, and the question is how to describe them. In all of these aspects, science is not very different from art. When I asked him how he defined cybernetics, von Foerster answered: The substance of what we have learned from cybernetics is to think in circles: A leads B, B to C, but C can return to A. Such kinds of arguments are not linear but circular. The significant contribution of cybernetics to our thinking is to accept circular arguments. This means that we have to look at circular processes and understand under which circumstances an equilibrium, and thus a stable structure, emerges. Today, where AI algorithms are applied in daily tasks, one can ask how the human factor is included in these kinds of processes and what role creativity and art could play in relation to them. There are thus different levels to think about when exploring the relation between AI and art. So, what do contemporary artists have to say about artificial intelligence? Artificial Stupidity Hito Steyerl, an artist who works with documentary and experimental film, considers two key aspects that we should keep in mind when reflecting on the implications of AI for society. First, the expectations for so-called artificial intelligence, she says, are often overrated, and the noun “intelligence” is misleading; to counter that, she uses the term “artificial stupidity.” Second, she points out that programmers are now making invisible software algorithms visible through images, but to understand and interpret these images better, we should apply the expertise of artists. Steyerl has worked with computer technology for many years, and her recent artworks have explored surveillance techniques, robots, and such computer games as in How Not to Be Seen (2013), on digital-image technologies, or HellYeahWeFuckDie (2017), about the training of robots in the still-di