Generative art

Generative art is post-conceptual art that has been created (in whole or in part) with the use of an autonomous system. An autonomous system in this context is generally one that is non-human and can independently determine features of an artwork that would otherwise require decisions made directly by the artist. In some cases the human creator may claim that the generative system represents their own artistic idea, and in others that the system takes on the role of the creator. "Generative art" often refers to algorithmic art (algorithmically determined computer generated artwork) and synthetic media (general term for any algorithmically generated media), but artists can also make generative art using systems of chemistry, biology, mechanics and robotics, smart materials, manual randomization, mathematics, data mapping, symmetry, and tiling. Generative algorithms, algorithms programmed to produce artistic works through predefined rules, stochastic methods, or procedural logic, often yielding dynamic, unique, and contextually adaptable outputs—are central to many of these practices. == History == The use of the word "generative" in the discussion of art has developed over time. The use of "Artificial DNA" defines a generative approach to art focused on the construction of a system able to generate unpredictable events, all with a recognizable common character. The use of autonomous systems, required by some contemporary definitions, focuses a generative approach where the controls are strongly reduced. This approach is also named "emergent". Margaret Boden and Ernest Edmonds have noted the use of the term "generative art" in the broad context of automated computer graphics in the 1960s, beginning with artwork exhibited by Georg Nees and Frieder Nake in 1965: A. Michael Noll did his initial computer art, combining randomness with order, in 1962, and exhibited it along with works by Bell Julesz in 1965. The terms "generative art" and "computer art" have been used in tandem, and more or less interchangeably, since the very earliest days. The first such exhibition showed the work of Nees in February 1965, which some claim was titled "Generative Computergrafik". While Nees does not himself remember, this was the title of his doctoral thesis published a few years later. The correct title of the first exhibition and catalog was "computer-grafik". "Generative art" and related terms was in common use by several other early computer artists around this time, including Manfred Mohr and Ken Knowlton. Vera Molnár (born 1924) is a French media artist of Hungarian origin. Molnar is widely considered to be a pioneer of generative art, and is also one of the first women to use computers in her art practice. The term "Generative Art" with the meaning of dynamic artwork-systems able to generate multiple artwork-events was clearly used the first time for the "Generative Art" conference in Milan in 1998. The term has also been used to describe geometric abstract art where simple elements are repeated, transformed, or varied to generate more complex forms. Thus defined, generative art was practiced by the Argentinian artists Eduardo Mac Entyre and Miguel Ángel Vidal in the late 1960s. In 1972 the Romanian-born Paul Neagu created the Generative Art Group in Britain. It was populated exclusively by Neagu using aliases such as "Hunsy Belmood" and "Edward Larsocchi". In 1972 Neagu gave a lecture titled 'Generative Art Forms' at the Queen's University, Belfast Festival. In 1970 the School of the Art Institute of Chicago created a department called Generative Systems. As described by Sonia Landy Sheridan the focus was on art practices using the then new technologies for the capture, inter-machine transfer, printing and transmission of images, as well as the exploration of the aspect of time in the transformation of image information. Also noteworthy is John Dunn, first a student and then a collaborator of Sheridan. In 1988 Clauser identified the aspect of systemic autonomy as a critical element in generative art: It should be evident from the above description of the evolution of generative art that process (or structuring) and change (or transformation) are among its most definitive features, and that these features and the very term 'generative' imply dynamic development and motion. (the result) is not a creation by the artist but rather the product of the generative process - a self-precipitating structure. In 1989 Celestino Soddu defined the Generative Design approach to Architecture and Town Design in his book Citta' Aleatorie. In 1989 Franke referred to "generative mathematics" as "the study of mathematical operations suitable for generating artistic images." From the mid-1990s Brian Eno popularized the terms generative music and generative systems, making a connection with earlier experimental music by Terry Riley, Steve Reich and Philip Glass. From the end of the 20th century, communities of generative artists, designers, musicians and theoreticians began to meet, forming cross-disciplinary perspectives. The first meeting about generative Art was in 1998, at the inaugural International Generative Art conference at Politecnico di Milano University, Italy. In Australia, the Iterate conference on generative systems in the electronic arts followed in 1999. On-line discussion has centered around the eu-gene mailing list, which began late 1999, and has hosted much of the debate which has defined the field. These activities have more recently been joined by the Generator.x conference in Berlin starting in 2005. In 2012 the new journal GASATHJ, Generative Art Science and Technology Hard Journal was founded by Celestino Soddu and Enrica Colabella jointing several generative artists and scientists in the editorial board. Some have argued that as a result of this engagement across disciplinary boundaries, the community has converged on a shared meaning of the term. As Boden and Edmonds put it in 2011: Today, the term "Generative Art" is still current within the relevant artistic community. Since 1998 a series of conferences have been held in Milan with that title (Generativeart.com), and Brian Eno has been influential in promoting and using generative art methods (Eno, 1996). Both in music and in visual art, the use of the term has now converged on work that has been produced by the activation of a set of rules and where the artist lets a computer system take over at least some of the decision-making (although, of course, the artist determines the rules). In the call of the Generative Art conferences in Milan (annually starting from 1998), the definition of Generative Art by Celestino Soddu: Generative Art is the idea realized as genetic code of artificial events, as construction of dynamic complex systems able to generate endless variations. Each Generative Project is a concept-software that works producing unique and non-repeatable events, like music or 3D Objects, as possible and manifold expressions of the generating idea strongly recognizable as a vision belonging to an artist / designer / musician / architect /mathematician. Discussion on the eu-gene mailing list was framed by the following definition by Adrian Ward from 1999: Generative art is a term given to work which stems from concentrating on the processes involved in producing an artwork, usually (although not strictly) automated by the use of a machine or computer, or by using mathematic or pragmatic instructions to define the rules by which such artworks are executed. A similar definition is provided by Philip Galanter: Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist creates a process, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is then set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art. Around the 2020s, generative AI models learned to imitate the distinct style of particular authors. For example, a generative image model such as Stable Diffusion is able to model the stylistic characteristics of an artist like Pablo Picasso (including his particular brush strokes, use of colour, perspective, and so on), and a user can engineer a prompt such as "an astronaut riding a horse, by Picasso" to cause the model to generate a novel image applying the artist's style to an arbitrary subject. Generative image models have received significant backlash from artists who object to their style being imitated without their permission, arguing that this harms their ability to profit from their own work. The emergence of text-to-image generative AI systems has expanded debates over authorship, copyright, and artistic labor. The main issues in these debates include the eligibility of AI-generated outputs for copyright protection and the legal and ethical questions of using existing copyrighted works as training data for generative AI systems. == Types == === Music === Johann Kirnberger's Mu

Level set (data structures)

In computer science, a level set is a data structure designed to represent discretely sampled dynamic level sets of functions. A common use of this form of data structure is in efficient image rendering. The underlying method constructs a signed distance field that extends from the boundary, and can be used to solve the motion of the boundary in this field. == Chronological developments == The powerful level-set method is due to Osher and Sethian 1988. However, the straightforward implementation via a dense d-dimensional array of values, results in both time and storage complexity of O ( n d ) {\displaystyle O(n^{d})} , where n {\displaystyle n} is the cross sectional resolution of the spatial extents of the domain and d {\displaystyle d} is the number of spatial dimensions of the domain. === Narrow band === The narrow band level set method, introduced in 1995 by Adalsteinsson and Sethian, restricted most computations to a thin band of active voxels immediately surrounding the interface, thus reducing the time complexity in three dimensions to O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} for most operations. Periodic updates of the narrowband structure, to rebuild the list of active voxels, were required which entailed an O ( n 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{3})} operation in which voxels over the entire volume were accessed. The storage complexity for this narrowband scheme was still O ( n 3 ) . {\displaystyle O(n^{3}).} Differential constructions over the narrow band domain edge require careful interpolation and domain alteration schemes to stabilise the solution. === Sparse field === This O ( n 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{3})} time complexity was eliminated in the approximate "sparse field" level set method introduced by Whitaker in 1998. The sparse field level set method employs a set of linked lists to track the active voxels around the interface. This allows incremental extension of the active region as needed without incurring any significant overhead. While consistently O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} efficient in time, O ( n 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{3})} storage space is still required by the sparse field level set method. See for implementation details. === Sparse block grid === The sparse block grid method, introduced by Bridson in 2003, divides the entire bounding volume of size n 3 {\displaystyle n^{3}} into small cubic blocks of m 3 {\displaystyle m^{3}} voxels each. A coarse grid of size ( n / m ) 3 {\displaystyle (n/m)^{3}} then stores pointers only to those blocks that intersect the narrow band of the level set. Block allocation and deallocation occur as the surface propagates to accommodate to the deformations. This method has a suboptimal storage complexity of O ( ( n m ) 3 + m 3 n 2 ) {\displaystyle O\left((nm)3+m^{3}n^{2}\right)} , but retains the constant time access inherent to dense grids. === Octree === The octree level set method, introduced by Strain in 1999 and refined by Losasso, Gibou and Fedkiw, and more recently by Min and Gibou uses a tree of nested cubes of which the leaf nodes contain signed distance values. Octree level sets currently require uniform refinement along the interface (i.e. the narrow band) in order to obtain sufficient precision. This representation is efficient in terms of storage, O ( n 2 ) , {\displaystyle O(n^{2}),} and relatively efficient in terms of access queries, O ( log n ) . {\displaystyle O(\log \,n).} An advantage of the level method on octree data structures is that one can solve the partial differential equations associated with typical free boundary problems that use the level set method. The CASL research group has developed this line of work in computational materials, computational fluid dynamics, electrokinetics, image-guided surgery and controls. === Run-length encoded === The run-length encoding (RLE) level set method, introduced in 2004, applies the RLE scheme to compress regions away from the narrow band to just their sign representation while storing with full precision the narrow band. The sequential traversal of the narrow band is optimal and storage efficiency is further improved over the octree level set. The addition of an acceleration lookup table allows for fast O ( log ⁡ r ) {\displaystyle O(\log r)} random access, where r is the number of runs per cross section. Additional efficiency is gained by applying the RLE scheme in a dimensional recursive fashion, a technique introduced by Nielsen & Museth's similar DT-Grid. === Hash Table Local Level Set === The Hash Table Local Level Set method was introduced in 2011 by Eyiyurekli and Breen and extended in 2012 by Brun, Guittet, and Gibou, only computes the level set data in a band around the interface, as in the Narrow Band Level-Set Method, but also only stores the data in that same band. A hash table data structure is used, which provides an O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle O(1)} access to the data. However, Brun et al. conclude that their method, while being easier to implement, performs worse than a quadtree implementation. They find that as it is, [...] a quadtree data structure seems more adapted than the hash table data structure for level-set algorithms. Three main reasons for worse efficiency are listed: to obtain accurate results, a rather large band is required close to the interface, which counterbalances the absence of grid nodes far from the interface; the performances are deteriorated by extrapolation procedures on the outer edges of the local grid and the width of the band restricts the time step and slows down the method. === Point-based === Corbett in 2005 introduced the point-based level set method. Instead of using a uniform sampling of the level set, the continuous level set function is reconstructed from a set of unorganized point samples via moving least squares.

CU-RTC-WEB

Customizable, Ubiquitous Real Time Communication over the Web is an API definition being drafted by Bernard Aboba at Microsoft. It is a competing standard to WebRTC, which drafted by a World Wide Web Consortium working group since May 2011. As of 2024, CU-RTC-WEB is still in the drafting phase, with ongoing discussions and contributions from various stakeholders in the tech community. Bernard Aboba, who serves as a co-chair of the W3C WebRTC Working Group, is actively involved in both CU-RTC-WEB and WebRTC, indicating a commitment to advancing real-time communication standards across platforms.

Ethiopian feminists facing digital gender-based violence

Against a background of traditional views of women, rising internet use, a young population and an unsafe offline life, women and girls in Ethiopia are facing increasing amounts of digital violence. Some women, feeling endangered, have left the country as a result. Researchers, activists and lawyers have called for online content to be taken down and specific digital legislation to be drafted and enforced. == Online violence and its offline effects == Sexual violence against women and girls in Ethiopia is common. In 2023, in the Women, Peace and Security Index by Georgetown University, Ethiopia came 146 out of 177 countries. Over several years online harassment of and violence against women and girls in Ethiopia has increased. It can range from sexist remarks about appearance and women’s role in society, to revenge porn, threats of beating, acid attacks, abduction, rape or death. The real-life effect on women and girls of these attacks can include mental health problems, damaged reputations and a withdrawal from public and economic life. When the online attacks migrate to the real world, for example when online attackers find out where the targeted women and girls live, this can result in physical attacks, street harassment, threats to children and can cause victims to move house or job or even flee the country in fear of femicide. In a country that criminalises homosexuality, it can also lead to physical attacks on LGBTQI+ people in particular and indeed on anybody labelled as homosexual. == Research studies == The Centre for Information Resilience (CIR) conducted interviews with Ethiopian women holding public roles or being active online. The centre published a report on this in 2024 entitled ‘Silenced, Shamed and Threatened’. They found that technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) had become “normalised to the point of invisibility.” In 2024, CER also published an analysis of gendered hate speech on social media in Ethiopia called ‘Normalised and invisible.’ It is thought that traditional views of women, the young population, the rise in internet use and the war in Tigray, when sexual violence was used as a weapon of war by Ethiopian and Eritrean soldiers, have all helped to create an online environment in which even femicide is considered unremarkable. AFP Fact Check collaborated with Deutsche Welle Akademie, to investigate the cyber harassment of women in Ethiopia, analysing misogynistic posts published on TikTok and Facebook. They discovered disparaging remarks about women’s physical appearance, threats of acid attacks and other physical violence, and the public sharing of women’s phone numbers. == Individuals affected == Women in particular jeopardy of digital gender-based violence are feminists, activists, politicians and those with a public profile. Some women are known to have fled Ethiopia fearing for their lives after online and offline threats. Yordanos Bezabih, an Ethiopian women’s rights activist, started a campaign with the hashtag #JusticeforHeaven to fight against gender-based cyberspace violence. As a result, she herself become a target. She experienced years of online threats of acid attacks, gang-rape and death. In 2025, subscribers to an online community organised a search for her address. Deepfake nude images of her were shared, she was filmed in real life, her house and online accounts were broken into, her private photos and messages posted on social media. When the attackers finally circulated her address, suggesting that she be executed, she left Ethiopia on a human rights defender scholarship. In 2023, Lella Misikir helped to start a campaign, called ‘My Whistle, My Voice’, that suggested women carry whistles and use them if they were harassed in the street. A TikTok video of the campaign became popular. Shortly after, videos of Misikir were circulated suggesting that she was gay. Her online attackers next searched for her address. In November 2024, Misikir left the country. == Legal issues == Ethiopia has some laws on online harassment and defamation, for example the Computer Crimes Proclamation. However, technology-facilitated, gender-based violence (TFGBV), such as deepfakes, non-consensual image sharing, and coordinated harassment, is not explicitly recognized as crime. In practice too, women are often not believed when reporting such violence and are not taken seriously. Police advice is often that women affected should simply leave the online space. Social media platforms can remove content when it is brought to their attention but the offenders are not banned. Users can only block them.

Web worker

A web worker, as defined by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG), is a JavaScript script executed from an HTML page that runs in the background, independently of scripts that may also have been executed from the same HTML page. Web workers are often able to utilize multi-core CPUs more effectively. The W3C and WHATWG envision web workers as long-running scripts that are not interrupted by scripts that respond to clicks or other user interactions. Keeping such workers from being interrupted by user activities should allow Web pages to remain responsive at the same time as they are running long tasks in the background. The web worker specification is part of the HTML Living Standard. == Overview == As envisioned by WHATWG, web workers are relatively heavy-weight and are not intended to be used in large numbers. They are expected to be long-lived, with a high start-up performance cost, and a high per-instance memory cost. Web workers run outside the context of an HTML document's scripts. Consequently, while they do not have access to the DOM, they can facilitate concurrent execution of JavaScript programs. == Features == Web workers interact with the main document via message passing. The following code creates a Worker that will execute the JavaScript in the given file. To send a message to the worker, the postMessage method of the worker object is used as shown below. The onmessage property uses an event handler to retrieve information from a worker. Once a worker is terminated, it goes out of scope and the variable referencing it becomes undefined; at this point a new worker has to be created if needed. == Example == The simplest use of web workers is for performing a computationally expensive task without interrupting the user interface. In this example, the main document spawns a web worker to compute prime numbers, and progressively displays the most recently found prime number. The main page is as follows: The Worker() constructor call creates a web worker and returns a worker object representing that web worker, which is used to communicate with the web worker. That object's onmessage event handler allows the code to receive messages from the web worker. The Web Worker itself is as follows: To send a message back to the page, the postMessage() method is used to post a message when a prime is found. == Support == If the browser supports web workers, a Worker property will be available on the global window object. The Worker property will be undefined if the browser does not support it. The following example code checks for web worker support on a browser Web workers are currently supported by Chrome, Opera, Edge, Internet Explorer (version 10), Mozilla Firefox, and Safari. Mobile Safari for iOS has supported web workers since iOS 5. The Android browser first supported web workers in Android 2.1, but support was removed in Android versions 2.2–4.3 before being restored in Android 4.4.

Stochastic parrot

In machine learning, the term stochastic parrot is a metaphor that frames large language models as systems that statistically mimic text without real understanding. The word "stochastic" – from the ancient Greek "στοχαστικός" (stokhastikos, 'based on guesswork') – is a term from probability theory meaning "randomly determined". The word "parrot" refers to parrots' ability to mimic human speech. The term was introduced in a 2021 paper on AI ethics titled "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜" and authored by Timnit Gebru, Emily M. Bender, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Margaret Mitchell. The paper outlined possible risks associated with large language models (LLMs). In December 2020, it was the subject of a workplace dispute between Gebru (then co-leader of Google's Ethical Artificial Intelligence Team) and Google, which had requested the retraction of the paper. The incident culminated in Gebru's controversial departure from the company. The paper was later presented at the 2021 ACM Conference, and the term "stochastic parrot" has seen widespread use in academic research concerning generative AI and LLMs. The term has been interpreted negatively as an insult towards AI. == Background == Timnit Gebru is an AI ethics researcher, Emily M. Bender is a linguist specializing in computational linguistics, and Margaret Mitchell is a computer scientist specializing in algorithmic bias. Gebru had joined Google in 2018, where she co-led a team on the ethics of artificial intelligence with Mitchell. In late 2020, the paper "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜" was co-written by Gebru and five other researchers, four of whom were Google employees. The paper argues that large language models (LLMs) present significant risks such as environmental and financial costs, inscrutability leading to unknown dangerous biases, and potential for deception as LLMs do not understand the concepts underlying what they learn. The paper states that LLMs are "stitching together sequences of linguistic forms ... observed in its vast training data, according to probabilistic information about how they combine, but without any reference to meaning." Therefore, they are labeled "stochastic parrots". === Dismissal of Gebru by Google === After the paper was submitted for consideration to the 2021 ACM Conference, Google requested that Gebru either retract the paper from the conference or remove the names of Google employees from it. Gebru refused to do so without further discussion, and emailed Google Research vice president Megan Kacholia that if the company could not explain the request for retraction and address other concerns regarding similar projects, she would plan to resign after a transition period, stating that they could "work on a last date". The following day, on December 2, 2020, Gebru received an email saying that Google was "accepting her resignation". Her abrupt firing sparked protests by Google employees and negative publicity for the company. == Usage == The phrase has been used by AI skeptics to signify that LLMs lack understanding of the meaning of their outputs. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, used the term shortly after the release of ChatGPT in December 2022, tweeting "i am a stochastic parrot, and so r u". The term was nominated as the 2023 AI-related Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society. == Debate == Some LLMs, such as ChatGPT, have become capable of interacting with users in convincingly human-like conversations. The development of these new systems has deepened the discussion of the extent to which LLMs understand or are simply "parroting". According to machine learning researchers Lindholm, Wahlström, Lindsten, and Schön, the term "stochastic parrot" highlights two vital limitations of LLMs: LLMs are limited by the data they are trained on and are simply stochastically repeating contents of datasets. Because they are just making up outputs based on training data, LLMs do not understand if they are saying something incorrect or inappropriate. Lindholm et al. noted that, with poor quality datasets and other limitations, a learning machine might produce results that are "dangerously wrong". === Subjective experience === In the mind of a human being, words and language correspond to things one has experienced. For LLMs, according to proponents of the theory, words correspond only to other words and patterns of usage fed into their training data. Proponents of the idea of stochastic parrots thus conclude that statements about LLMs are due to "the human tendency to attribute meaning to text", and claim this occurs despite the LLMs not actually understanding language. === Fine-tuning === Kelsey Piper argued that the claim that LLMs are stochastic parrots or mere "next-token predictors" focuses on pre-training, ignoring that modern LLMs are also fine-tuned to follow instructions and to prefer accurate answers. === Hallucinations and mistakes === The tendency of LLMs to pass off false information as fact is held as support. Called hallucinations or confabulations, LLMs will occasionally synthesize information that matches some pattern. LLMs may fail to distinguish fact and fiction, which leads to the claim that they can't connect words to a comprehension of the world, as humans do. Furthermore, LLMs may fail to decipher complex or ambiguous grammar cases that rely on understanding the meaning of language. For example: The wet newspaper that fell down off the table is my favorite newspaper. But now that my favorite newspaper fired the editor I might not like reading it anymore. Can I replace 'my favorite newspaper' by 'the wet newspaper that fell down off the table' in the second sentence? GPT-4, an LLM released in March 2023, responded yes, not understanding that the meaning of "newspaper" is different in these two contexts; it is first an object and second an institution. === Benchmarks and experiments === One argument against the hypothesis that LLMs are stochastic parrot is their results on benchmarks for reasoning, common sense and language understanding. In 2023, some LLMs have shown good results on many language understanding tests, such as the Super General Language Understanding Evaluation (SuperGLUE). GPT-4 scored in the >90th-percentile on the Uniform Bar Examination and achieved 93% accuracy on the MATH benchmark of high-school Olympiad problems, results that exceed rote pattern-matching expectations. Such tests, and the smoothness of many LLM responses, help as many as 51% of AI professionals believe they can truly understand language with enough data, according to a 2022 survey. === Expert rebuttals === Some AI researchers dispute the notion that LLMs merely "parrot" their training data. Geoffrey Hinton, a pioneering figure in neural networks, counters that the metaphor misunderstands the prerequisite for accurate language prediction. He argues that "to predict the next word accurately, you have to understand the sentence", a view he presented on 60 Minutes in 2023. From this perspective, understanding is not an alternative to statistical prediction, but rather an emergent property required to perform it effectively at scale. Hinton also uses logical puzzles to demonstrate that LLMs actually understand language. A 2024 Scientific American investigation described a closed Berkeley workshop where state-of-the-art models solved novel tier-4 mathematics problems and produced coherent proofs, indicating reasoning abilities beyond memorization. The GPT-4 Technical Report showed human-level results on professional and academic exams (e.g., the Uniform Bar Exam and USMLE), challenging the "parrot" characterization. Anthropic conducted mechanistic interpretability research on Claude, using attribution graphs to identify circuits. The research showed how the LLM processes information via chains of fuzzy logical inference, and indicated an ability to plan ahead. They found that Claude 3.5 Haiku "employs remarkably general abstractions", forms "internally generated plans for its future outputs" and "works backwards from its longer-term goals". They noted that "The mechanisms of the model can apparently only be faithfully described using an overwhelmingly large causal graph." They also found that the model includes "mechanisms that could underlie a simple form of metacognition", in that it "thinks about" the level of its own knowledge before reaching its answer. === Interpretability === Another line of evidence against the 'stochastic parrot' claim comes from mechanistic interpretability, a research field dedicated to reverse-engineering LLMs to understand their internal workings. Rather than only observing the model's input-output behavior, these techniques probe the model's internal activations, which can be used to determine if they contain structured representations of the world. The goal is to investigate whether LLMs are merely manipulating surface statistics or if t

General-Purpose Serial Interface

General-Purpose Serial Interface, also known as GPSI, 7-wire interface, or 7WS, is a 7 wire communications interface. It is used as an interface between Ethernet MAC and PHY blocks. Data is received and transmitted using separate data paths (TXD, RXD) and separate data clocks (TXCLK, RXCLK). Other signals consist of transmit enable (TXEN), receive carrier sense (CRS), and collision (COL).