COCKOS
CONFEDERATED FORUMS
Cockos : REAPER : NINJAM : Forums
Forum Home : Register : FAQ : Members List : Search :
Old 06-12-2016, 04:59 AM   #1
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,594
Default We are soon obsolete...

Welcome to Magenta!
http://magenta.tensorflow.org/welcome-to-magenta

Example of the AI-created music is here:
__________________
// MVHMF
I never always did the right thing, but all I did wasn't wrong...
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 08:25 AM   #2
msore
Human being with feelings
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 11,540
Default

Crock of shit. Why do people still swallow this empty propaganda about AI?

Programmed programs are not intelligent, except in the empty sense that the programmers PUT IN some of their intelligence into the program. The program has no intelligence other than some programmed tricks.

Humans are completely different from that. Human music is completely different from anything a program might output.

More complex than what programs could do before? Yeah, maybe. But "intelligent" or "musical"? Hell no.
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2016, 01:37 AM   #3
viscofisy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Dalriada
Posts: 13,339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
Crock of shit. Why do people still swallow this empty propaganda about AI?

Programmed programs are not intelligent, except in the empty sense that the programmers PUT IN some of their intelligence into the program. The program has no intelligence other than some programmed tricks.

Humans are completely different from that. Human music is completely different from anything a program might output.

More complex than what programs could do before? Yeah, maybe. But "intelligent" or "musical"? Hell no.
Are you saying that modular synth "ambient" music where there's no keyboard involved (ie where the artist twiddles the knobs to "guide" the flow of pulses through the modules) ... isn't music?

Just asking because computers are already able to carry out and compose such music, and you'd have no way of telling if it was a computer or a human which "composed" it.

Example :

viscofisy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2016, 03:36 AM   #4
slipstick
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: UK, near Europe
Posts: 876
Default

Generative music using computers has been around for a long time (at least since IRCAM in the 1970s). The trick is always that some human has set up at least some of the rules that the computer is using. And usually some human decides which parts of the output to publish because they've turned out suitably musical.

In one sense it's not all that different from the very detailed rules that existed for writing counterpoint in the Baroque era.

Steve
slipstick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2016, 07:17 AM   #5
chip mcdonald
Human being with feelings
 
chip mcdonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 3,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
C
Programmed programs are not intelligent, except in the empty sense that the programmers PUT IN some of their intelligence into the program. The program has no intelligence other than some programmed tricks.

Humans are completely different from that. Human music is completely different from anything a program might output.
Neural nets learn. Their behavior is not procedural or programmatic, and what results comes from a complexity that is effectively incomprehensible. It doesn't mean they can make music that humans like, or that I like, but dismiss the technology at our peril. It is NOT what you think it is.
__________________
]]]>-guitar lessons - www.chipmcdonald.com-<[[[
Experiencing Guitar: Essays from Teaching by Chip McDonald https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521877823..._QZJxAbA4GVDC1
chip mcdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2016, 02:27 PM   #6
msore
Human being with feelings
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 11,540
Default

Saying "neural nets learn" is like saying "programs behave as they are programmed". If two instances of the the same neural net are given the same data inputs and the same training parameters, their "learned" (or rather "trained") outputs will be exactly the same. They are mechanical, not intelligent.
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2016, 03:31 PM   #7
nightscope
Human being with feelings
 
nightscope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,044
Default



ns
nightscope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2016, 03:52 PM   #8
morgon
Human being with feelings
 
morgon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: 'straya
Posts: 9,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
Saying "neural nets learn" is like saying "programs behave as they are programmed". If two instances of the the same neural net are given the same data inputs and the same training parameters, their "learned" (or rather "trained") outputs will be exactly the same. They are mechanical, not intelligent.
"Neural nets learn" is like saying the program can familiarize [see definition below] with a set of principles and act on those principles, which they do. As before on this particular subject if we're gonna confine the term "learn" to the biological process of neural network construction then another word for "learn" that applies to AI should be coined, but who gets to decide all that?

I've learned to construct sentences to communicate something, by putting together pre-constructed parts [words] that form an original line. This is similar to what chess progs do, apply principles toward achieving a result and if the result is not favourable the prog will review the sequence and attempt to "learn" what went wrong and estimate a way to improve in future.

So a Grandmaster [or chess prog, even the exact same make and model] winning a game against a top flight Chess prog [rare in the case of GM] will NOT win in the same way using the same moves, time limits, settings etc, the following day. So what are you gonna call that?

And now you might say the info has been "put there" by programmers, yet the prog will produce lines of play that have arisen from the progs own original "experience". Ways of play that the programmer hadn't envisaged, that's why his prog got beat, but doesn't get beat that way again, its not just particular sequences that are noted, it's strategic general stuff such as over or under estimating positions and their intrinsic "nature".

learn

ləːn/

verb

1.

gain or acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) by study, experience, or being taught.

"they'd started learning French"

synonyms:acquire a knowledge of,*gain an understanding of,*acquire skill in,*become competent in,*become proficient in,*grasp,*master,*take in,*absorb,*assimilate,*pick up,*digest,*familiarize oneself with
morgon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2016, 11:54 AM   #9
chip mcdonald
Human being with feelings
 
chip mcdonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NA - North Augusta South Carolina
Posts: 3,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
Saying "neural nets learn" is like saying "programs behave as they are programmed".
Nope.
__________________
]]]>-guitar lessons - www.chipmcdonald.com-<[[[
Experiencing Guitar: Essays from Teaching by Chip McDonald https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521877823..._QZJxAbA4GVDC1
chip mcdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2016, 09:41 AM   #10
msore
Human being with feelings
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 11,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morgon View Post
"Neural nets learn" is like saying the program can familiarize [see definition below] with a set of principles and act on those principles, which they do. As before on this particular subject if we're gonna confine the term "learn" to the biological process of neural network construction then another word for "learn" that applies to AI should be coined, but who gets to decide all that?

I've learned to construct sentences to communicate something, by putting together pre-constructed parts [words] that form an original line. This is similar to what chess progs do, apply principles toward achieving a result and if the result is not favourable the prog will review the sequence and attempt to "learn" what went wrong and estimate a way to improve in future.

So a Grandmaster [or chess prog, even the exact same make and model] winning a game against a top flight Chess prog [rare in the case of GM] will NOT win in the same way using the same moves, time limits, settings etc, the following day. So what are you gonna call that?

And now you might say the info has been "put there" by programmers, yet the prog will produce lines of play that have arisen from the progs own original "experience". Ways of play that the programmer hadn't envisaged, that's why his prog got beat, but doesn't get beat that way again, its not just particular sequences that are noted, it's strategic general stuff such as over or under estimating positions and their intrinsic "nature".

learn

ləːn/

verb

1.

gain or acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) by study, experience, or being taught.

"they'd started learning French"

synonyms:acquire a knowledge of,*gain an understanding of,*acquire skill in,*become competent in,*become proficient in,*grasp,*master,*take in,*absorb,*assimilate,*pick up,*digest,*familiarize oneself with
Well, if one definition fits all, then we are stuck with equating the learning done by worms to the learning done by humans and computers.

But that is not very helpful.

Instead of lumping, it is, and it has been, fruitful to distinguish between programs and brains. Failure to make the critical distinctions leads to bad thinking, fallacy, waste, confusion and the kind of shitty "progress" made by the AI industry.

As I noted above, if two instances of a neural net (on two computers for example) run the same input data and then are given the same recognition or prediction task, they will each do THE VERY SAME THING. Not so with humans. As long as machines are that controlled, and as long as humans are not, then there is no point in saying that we are soon obsolete.
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2016, 12:49 PM   #11
morgon
Human being with feelings
 
morgon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: 'straya
Posts: 9,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
Well, if one definition fits all, then we are stuck with equating the learning done by worms to the learning done by humans and computers.

But that is not very helpful.

Instead of lumping, it is, and it has been, fruitful to distinguish between programs and brains. Failure to make the critical distinctions leads to bad thinking, fallacy, waste, confusion and the kind of shitty "progress" made by the AI industry.
"AI" is the term for what AI is but not for what it isn't [atm ] So eg I'm not to blame [figuratively] for acknowdging what AI is and demonstrating that fundamentally I know how it works, just as I'm not to blame for anyone confused about what it is or isn't and/or making exaggerated or bogus claims about that or anything else unless I were to be the one making those claims. There's all kinds of claims about stuff, good and bad, for all sorts of reasons, self-interest based, mainly

Some seemingly relatively simple things such as ironing a shirt has all but been given up on by AI programmers as too complex! -the prog doesn't know what it's looking at, the random folds in a piece of fabric bamboozles it; calculate an orbit around Saturn, no problem, iron a shirt? no way.

Quote:
As I noted above, if two instances of a neural net (on two computers for example) run the same input data and then are given the same recognition or prediction task, they will each do THE VERY SAME THING. Not so with humans. As long as machines are that controlled, and as long as humans are not, then there is no point in saying that we are soon obsolete.
That there can exist more than one exact copy of a neural net that exactly perform to predetermined spec prolly has it's uses in some applications, "randomness" or "randomness within a reasoning" apposite to that, of course no one here is saying that any machine is sentient atm and I haven't seen such claims made anywhere, yet.

I'm open to theoretical claims about what's possible but the paradox is how would anyone ever really know if a prog is sentient or not?- given that someone will eventually make an irrefutable averment that's within theoretical bounds, theoretically...

But OP is making a joke about synths that program themselves [via a program of course] and not *needing anyone to further input music data* etc? In any case machines are a long way from being good string or horn players afaict , other than sound sample synthesis.

The AI thing is one of the last explorable frontiers though I seriously question the pursuit of it, dangerous as hell but as long as the other guy is developing it then keeping up with the Joneses prolly guarantees proliferation, so extinction or human decimation is prolly the more looming threat than obsolescence, if one were to be realistic cynical about it.
morgon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2016, 03:54 AM   #12
viscofisy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Dalriada
Posts: 13,339
Default

msore - it must have escaped your notice that human babies are pre-programmed with vast amounts of information and templates otherwise they, like computers, could not function.

Humans are not "starting from scratch" - so using that as a criticism of a computer's ability is daft.
viscofisy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2016, 05:04 AM   #13
slipstick
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: UK, near Europe
Posts: 876
Default

Of course you could just use a sort of musical version of the Turing test. If a group of experienced musicians can't tell whether a piece of music was composed/produced by a human or a computer then what exactly is the advantage that humans are supposed to have ?

Oh and bear in mind that 99.95% of humans (even with working brains) couldn't compose or play a reasonable piece of music to save their lives. So it's no surprise that not everything coming from early computer/AI composers sounds like a work of genius .

It will be interesting to see how these systems get on. After all opinions on the worth of art and music should surely be based on the results not the name of the artist/musician.

Steve
slipstick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2016, 08:41 PM   #14
msore
Human being with feelings
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 11,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by viscofisy View Post
msore - it must have escaped your notice that human babies are pre-programmed with vast amounts of information and templates otherwise they, like computers, could not function.

Humans are not "starting from scratch" - so using that as a criticism of a computer's ability is daft.

Whether or not humans have some prior experience that has effect on new generations, or new individuals, it is never the case that providing the same inputs results in the same human reactions. Humans are too complex, too individualistic, too variable, too abstract, and they learn too quickly for that to ever happen.

But it does happen with programs. Same program, same inputs, same outputs.

Yes you can alter that somewhat by allowing for randomness, but who here is willing to say that randomness is equivalent to intelligence?
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2016, 08:44 PM   #15
msore
Human being with feelings
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 11,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slipstick View Post
Of course you could just use a sort of musical version of the Turing test. If a group of experienced musicians can't tell whether a piece of music was composed/produced by a human or a computer then what exactly is the advantage that humans are supposed to have ?

Oh and bear in mind that 99.95% of humans (even with working brains) couldn't compose or play a reasonable piece of music to save their lives. So it's no surprise that not everything coming from early computer/AI composers sounds like a work of genius .

It will be interesting to see how these systems get on. After all opinions on the worth of art and music should surely be based on the results not the name of the artist/musician.

Steve
Steve, no one has ever operationalized, or even defined, how a Turing Test would work.

Would you agree with the statements below?

1) humans can break rules, intelligently and creatively
but
2) programs cannot break their rules, unless programmed to do certain kinds of 'breaking', which should be evident is a matter of following rules for rule-breaking, which is just another level of rule-following.
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2016, 04:50 AM   #16
morgon
Human being with feelings
 
morgon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: 'straya
Posts: 9,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
Steve, no one has ever operationalized, or even defined, how a Turing Test would work.

Would you agree with the statements below?

1) humans can break rules, intelligently and creatively
but
2) programs cannot break their rules, unless programmed to do certain kinds of 'breaking', which should be evident is a matter of following rules for rule-breaking, which is just another level of rule-following.
So you can run rings around that machine then?

Thrash it at the audition? It's *only* a prog but the OP is prolly correct if he's suggesting some composing and/or performance duties might be assumed by it or similar, for the sounds of most insts maybe, but afaict authentic electric rock gtr is still a stumbling block, the holy grail of programmers, that's another reason to love it, right?
morgon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2016, 05:33 AM   #17
slipstick
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: UK, near Europe
Posts: 876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
Steve, no one has ever operationalized, or even defined, how a Turing Test would work.

Would you agree with the statements below?

1) humans can break rules, intelligently and creatively
but
2) programs cannot break their rules, unless programmed to do certain kinds of 'breaking', which should be evident is a matter of following rules for rule-breaking, which is just another level of rule-following.
The real Turing test has been defined and run many times. And in a number of cases it's proved impossible to tell a computer from a human. But it is a very restricted test and it's true that no musical version has yet been defined. That would be an interesting task.

As for the rest it's true that programs can only operate according to their programming but where that consists of self-modifying learning routines it's not easy to regard it as deterministic. And once you include environmental factors as input then you get systems that will never be precisely repeatable because no two can ever be operating in precisely the same conditions.

The crucial difference between computers and brains is that we believe we understand the programming of computers but we know that we don't fully understand the programming of human brains. Psychology is based around trying to understand the brain's programming but trying to do that when you only have a human brain yourself is a bit tricky. To what extent people can break their programming (or perhaps conditioning is a better word) is a bit debatable. And it's at least as debatable how much that ability to "break rules" has to do with creativity.

Not that I think for a second that music programs will make human composers/musicians obsolete. But I do think it possible that they will work alongside us and will very likely be better "musicians" than the vast majority of humans.

Steve
slipstick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2016, 09:20 AM   #18
msore
Human being with feelings
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 11,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morgon View Post
So you can run rings around that machine then?

Thrash it at the audition? It's *only* a prog but the OP is prolly correct if he's suggesting some composing and/or performance duties might be assumed by it or similar, for the sounds of most insts maybe, but afaict authentic electric rock gtr is still a stumbling block, the holy grail of programmers, that's another reason to love it, right?
'run rings around'? I don't get your point.

Machines can certain do some things they are programmed to do better than humans can, if those tasks are programmable, or involve mechanical processes. I cannot solve equations as fast or as well as a computer program, but that is separate from intelligence or creativity.

Morgan's comment here reminds me of the point made for decades in AI circles (at least those circles not parochially limited to Silicon Valley). The point is that simulation is not the same thing as intelligent functioning. And the goal of AI research has vacillated back and forth between DOING what humans can do versus LOOKING like it is doing what humans can do.
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2016, 10:08 AM   #19
msore
Human being with feelings
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 11,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slipstick View Post
The real Turing test has been defined and run many times. And in a number of cases it's proved impossible to tell a computer from a human. But it is a very restricted test and it's true that no musical version has yet been defined. That would be an interesting task.
Steve, I suggest that whoever has "defined and run" a Turing test has done it in an arbitrary and unscientific way.

You and I could define and run a Turing test, but what could science or AI researchers make of the fact that you and I did it in our own way?

If it were scientific (not done by individuals but rather agreed upon in across a whole discipline) then it would be verifiable, replicatable, tested and refined, and somewhat standardized. That is not the case. If you ask a hundred folks in AI or psychology or cog sci, etc. what a Turing test is, or what it should be you will get a hundred answers, and some of those answers are going to sound like mine, which is a denial that there is a scientifically operational way of doing it.

This shows one of the fallacies of the way Silicon Valley pretends to be "scientific". Each researcher, or each company, will make something in their own way, according to their own definitions, according to their own idea of marketability, and then pound the table with their shoe and insist that what they came up with is science.

That pattern, where many folks do a task in many ways, has been seen over and over again in the areas where programming and AI have deviated from science. Areas like language processing, like learning systems, like expert systems, like data mining, like chess playing, like robotics, like driverless cars, and like internet "security".

Do any of those efforts look like "science" in the sense of testing hypotheses, publishing results, debating about methods, and engaging in a competitive clash of theories?

no.
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2016, 12:36 PM   #20
slipstick
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: UK, near Europe
Posts: 876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
Steve, I suggest that whoever has "defined and run" a Turing test has done it in an arbitrary and unscientific way.
Alan Turing defined the test sufficiently well that it is entirely straightforward and repeatable. Which is why it's barely changed in 60+ years. There's no real argument about that.

There is a lot of discussion about what, if anything, the test might prove, which is one reason why I said it is very restricted, limited might be a better word. Although it's often described of a test of "thinking" Turing himself regarded it as testing how well a computer could imitate a human's thinking. Not the same thing at all.

But the main reason why these days it's still impossible to tell if computer systems have intelligence or sentience is that we can't actually define intelligence/sentience. Until you get some complete, yes and scientific, definitions you can't even prove that a human has intelligence or creativity or any of those other interesting characteristics. You basically just take her word for it .

So when you find a computer system devising music which is new, has not been programmed into it and sounds extraordinarily good you might as well takes its word for that fact that it's a musician.

Steve
slipstick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2016, 05:26 AM   #21
morgon
Human being with feelings
 
morgon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: 'straya
Posts: 9,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
'run rings around'? I don't get your point.
There's probably an app for explaining that. It was a joke in the context of the OP which I read as specifically synth progs that can perform certain functions in an ensemble perhaps as accompaniment and aide to composition possibly somewhat negating the need of an extra band member.
Quote:
Machines can certain do some things they are programmed to do better than humans can, if those tasks are programmable, or involve mechanical processes. I cannot solve equations as fast or as well as a computer program, but that is separate from intelligence or creativity.
"Programmed to do" is imo a somewhat perfunctory term in the sense that a machine might be "programmed to do" next weeks weather forecast which could well be a total anomaly, by weighing factors against one another, so the answer is not stored as a recorded memory but arrived at through processes evaluating conditions, mathematically. It's not "creativity" bc the answer kinda pre-exists as an equation waiting to be solved but it's interesting to speculate how those kind of "cognitive" abilities might apply to a "creative" music prog for example. I'm using quotation marks ad nauseum bc this is one of those Msore minefield topics, must tread carefully!
Quote:
Morgan's comment here reminds me of the point made for decades in AI circles (at least those circles not parochially limited to Silicon Valley). The point is that simulation is not the same thing as intelligent functioning. And the goal of AI research has vacillated back and forth between DOING what humans can do versus LOOKING like it is doing what humans can do.
Yes but another way of looking at it is the computer is functioning partly in the manner of human thought iow shares some very similar process methods but the big question of course is can a machine be theoretically sentient and for that matter ever really feel something emotionally. [and how could anyone verify that theory]
morgon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2016, 11:54 PM   #22
inging
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2
Default

Thanks for your sharing!
---------------------------------
http://www.tintingtool.com/
inging is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016, 02:05 PM   #23
Airal
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
Saying "neural nets learn" is like saying "programs behave as they are programmed". If two instances of the the same neural net are given the same data inputs and the same training parameters, their "learned" (or rather "trained") outputs will be exactly the same. They are mechanical, not intelligent.
and yet you think humans are different? Give two identical humans and the same inputs you think they will respond different? Only your ignorance thinks so.

You can believe humans are special, but that's just your ego and ignorance talking. Who programmed humans? How do you explain that much of human biology has been figured out and it is no different from electromechanism found in other things? FACT: Nerves are just electrical impuses. Fact, the Heart beat is based on an electrical carrier network. Musicles respond to electrical signals. The bones are joints that follow the same mechanics as any physical joints made out of metal(How else could we replace bones with metal or plastic versions?).

The fact is, humans are no more than physics and math is the language of god. The proof is in the pudding. If we don't destroy ourselves with our greed and ignorance believing in fairy tales. If we get our shit together as a species we will eventually learn what makes life tick, we are already well down that path.

What is music? You think it's special, but again, only cause of your ignorance and arrogance. Just because you can't comprehend the complex design that god has created only means your ignorant. It's not your fault, The design was intentional, evolution shows us that.

Let me ask you, if aliens came down tomorrow, do you think there music will be a 3 chord trick country song singing about mudd'in or a melodramatic rap song talking about bitches and ho's or something far more complex?

Just in the human race we see a correlation between intelligence and complexity in music. Ignorant people listen to ignorant music. It's pretty obvious why.

So, is generated music intelligent? That's a meaningless question generated by idiots that don't understand the progression of life. It is simply music, part of the human species(in this case, as that is all we've got)... It will evolve like everything does and one day it probably will be an important aspect of musically in a hopefully intelligent sentient human race. Why? Because of complexity... because life is complex and nature is. The creator is complex, and everything the human race has done for "progress"(getting out of the jungle) has been from understanding the complexity.

So yes, generated music is intelligent, because it comes from intelligent people. Idiots or monkeys could not program a computer to create such music. Just because you don't like it means nothing except that you are not in the upside of the bell curve of intelligence on this planet at this particular time. The act that you don't even understand a Turing machine yet claim those who discovered it were wrong proves that. Of course, you are probably smarter than 50% of the population that don't even know what a Turing machine is.

Life is evolving, chose to be part of it or fade away to the past. Your choice.
Airal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2016, 09:17 AM   #24
msore
Human being with feelings
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 11,540
Default

So you start out calling me ignorant.

hmm
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2016, 11:10 AM   #25
Airal
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msore View Post
So you start out calling me ignorant.

hmm
Yes, so? Are you offended? If you are then you are more ignorant than I thought.
Airal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2016, 04:35 PM   #26
hamish
Human being with feelings
 
hamish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Reflection Free Zone
Posts: 3,026
Default

oh dear... go and get some fresh air pal.
hamish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2016, 04:46 PM   #27
msore
Human being with feelings
 
msore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago sometimes
Posts: 11,540
Default resistence is not only futile, but ignorant

Speaking of AI ...

Quote:
The company doesn't deny the accident occurred, but it characterized the incident as a freak accident.

The encounter between the child and machine occurred around 2:30 p.m. In terms of height, girth and weight, Harwin was outnumbered. The boy is 32 inches tall and weighs about 25 pounds; Knightscope's K5 model stands 5 feet in height, weighs 300 pounds and is 3-feet wide, according to the company's website.

When Harwin went down and the robot did not stop or retreat, Teng said she was horrified.

"I screamed. I went in front of the robot and I tried to push it with all of my strength. It was just too heavy," she said.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/breaking...bot-cops-after
run screaming ...
__________________
http://www.reverbnation.com/#!/msorenson
My religion is all or none.
msore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2016, 04:02 AM   #28
nightscope
Human being with feelings
 
nightscope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,044
Default

Knightscope's K5 model stands 5 feet in height, weighs 300 pounds and is 3-feet wide...

True, but I'm on a diet, working out and will be in shape pretty damn soon.

ns
nightscope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2016, 11:30 AM   #29
Airal
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hamish View Post
oh dear... go and get some fresh air pal.
Don't patronize me, you'll need that time to keep up with the Kardashians.
Airal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.