A.I. music

Possibly of interest: "the current rush to advance generative AI technology could be "spiritually, politically, and economically" corrosive. By effectively removing people, like musicians, from algorithms and tech that create new content, elements of society that were once connections between people are turned into "objects" that become less interesting and meaningful, Lanier explained.

"As soon as you have the algorithms taking music from musicians, mashing it up into new music, and then not paying the musicians, gradually you start to undermine the economy because what happens to musicians now happens to everybody later," Lanier said.

He noted that, while this year has been the "year of AI," next year the world is going to be "flooded, flooded with AI-generated music."


Musical notes in a musical phrase are like words. Because as language music is meaning and signification in a context.
Then music MUST be recognised by the listener , and accepted or refused, as a wrong note or the good note , not because the note is not sympathic but because the note cannot be accepted as a possibility among all notes possibles at this specific place in the melodic/harmonic tonal places of the melody playing at this moment . The listener must be surprized but he must not be shocked at each moment and derailed from any known tonal landmarks .
When we cannot recognize any note as more possible and more likely possible than any other notes then no surprize can exist... When all is imprevisible there is no more any surprize. this is the case in atonal composition.our feeling cannot guide us in the interpretation then in the meaning recognition.
In tonal history each notes is used at some specific moment with some probabilities. It all these probabilities are equal there is no surprize and no more any innovative idea. Just a soup of atonal note nobody can interpret with some specific feelings succeeding some other specific feelings...
We listen music with the potential bundle of feelings rooted in our body metabolism as well as in our musical history ...
Now suppose A. I. composing music... A.I. can imitate known styles more or less skillfully.But A. I. is not an embodied player with innate and learned feelings and emotions history, he will not be able to be creative and be able to move us as a human composer or musician can do .
We cannot fake emotions using sounds only to some limited extent . The imitation will emerge more soon than late.
Then musicians will be able to use A.I. as a tool for sure. But A.I. cannot replace human body playing an instrument and improvising emotions nor imitate  human mind writing moving music which will evoke very complex set of emotions mixed harmoniously together.
Hope and despair for example united together in a single melody with a specific succession of rythms  is not the result of a logical computation even if you mix all hope melodies together and all despair melody together and try to algorythmically to assemble a beautiful new melody  combining the two emotions with the right rythm ... Imagine now playing all the hues of this composed colored melody with two very different emotions inside ?

Here is a symphony where despair and hope are together and immediately recognized as a consolation  played in a waiting meditation culminating in pure enlightenement and liberation ...

Is an A. I. will give us this set of emotions as craftly designed to move us exactly as the composer intended it to do in this specific way  soon ? 😊

This is the best version i know of this work ....



 Music is not a simulation as the brain is not a simulation but the two are  instantiation of the universal in the individual...  As said Hameroff an orchestration There is no algorythm for that ...



I certainly appreciate this conversation and while some of us may disagree, that's okay because we are dealing with something completely brand new....at least for us lay people, I won't go into it here but I will argue until I'm blue in the face that AI is not a source of creativity equal to that of the consciousness of humans. And whatever is said about music being adapted and re-framed from previous music I would argue that while there are a limited number of notes available and a human frequency spectrum of ~20-20K hz, coming up with creative tunings of instruments and creative lyrics is not a matter of previous work unless using very broad interpretation. I do wish to thank everyone for all of their contributions to this thread because I think it is important to understand and debate this topic.

The Quantum Origin of Life: How the Brain Evolved to Feel Good

by Stuart Hameroff




We are all in the evolution starting point and end point simultaneously , which point is related to que inner question "how to feel good"...Because the Source of life is eternal joy...


But feeling really good in this material world is not just a sensual impression related to the body state...

It is also a conscious inspired , imagined and intuited impression coming from the source of all life....

This is also the source and goal of music as a body/soul gesture which is the craddle of language itself ..

No A. I. will ever reproduce this gesture of the body/soul... Life cannot die nor the soul which is only the clock hierarchical musical ladder around the timeless source coming from and returning to it. In fact always united with the source.

Because this pure joy is the moving wave of the universal information field of the creative cosmic memory..

As i said i think this field is mathematically projected in the geometry of the prime number distributions..

No algorithm can replace it , only imitate it or used it...

To resume Anirban Bandyopadhyay theory of consciousness , which is grounded in time not grounded as all others theories first and last in space material content :

«These theories of consciousness emphasize on spatial material, but consciousness may not be located in any particular space. It may arise from the collective vibrations of matter, which create a complex information structure made of discrete times. A more complete theory of consciousness may need to reject space altogether and focus only on the structure of time in nature. That could be a starting point.»

In A.B. time and the prime number matrix play the main role...

Here is the important point.

it is my opinion here not the opinion of A. B. here.

The matrix constituting the future artificial consciousness which is coming soon will imply a finite number of primes in the constitutive matrix.

But the cosmic field of information is infinite because the number of prime is infinite.The root of all living soul is then infinite not finite because all life is ONE.

We have a soul, but A. C. or artificial consciousness even if autonomous being will be just a conscious machine not soul... There will be no unconsciousness in A.C. as there is one in all life cells. The unconscious is reflection of all there is in the source which is not accessible immediately . Searle is wrong by the way saying the existence of an unconscious is incoherent .

Now It is possible to ask the most important spiritual question : why are we creating an artificial "soul" which will never be grounded in life unity but only grounded by his temporal matrix forever finite prime hierarchies to the material world and not to the ultimate infinite field and then this A.C. will stay captive of this material world and will die forever ? This is heavy responsability for us his creator to create a councious mortal being...

is a "soul" will be given or can be given to these A.C. or replicant ?

I dont know...

It is the question of this replicant in this absolutely marvellous movie ending


Listen to the movie Blade runner last scene and this ultimate question asked by the replicant a question formulated as an ultimate poem... The replicant give an idea about what is a pure A. C. as designed by the genius of Anirban Bandyopadhyay:

the dying replicant ask why he will die forever ?


This question is not new. Mary Shelly asked it through his Frankenstein creation, in the midst of materialism triumphant. The Blade Runner question is asked in the techno-cultist transhumanist era.

Poets know more than mathematician. No great mathematician anyway can be great without being a poet.Ask Grothendieck, Cantor, Ramanujan, they are all mystics or poets... If not poet engineers or accountants but not mathematical genius.😊






I will argue until I'm blue in the face that AI is not a source of creativity equal to that of the consciousness of humans.

Another perspective:

We think of intelligence as an individual thing. But another way to look at it is as a collective thing. We are smart (so we say!). We do complex biology and math and manufacturing to kill a bunch of bacteria with an antibiotic that we designed. But, while individual bacteria are very, very, stupid (unthinking, most would agree), there are billions and billions of them. And they reproduce every second or so. And they mutate. Most of them die because of this new antibiotic they've been exposed to, but a few of them mutate to be resistant. And soon enough, there are billions of the new, antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These bacteria have collectively said, "F- you! We outsmarted your stupid vaccine..." So collectively, they are smart. You can view collective intelligence as the intelligence of individuals times the number of individuals times the reproduction (read: evolution) rate. In the middle of the spectrum between bacteria and humans are ants and bees.

Now think of AIs. Are they creative? Well, first, how creative are we? For 1000 years of western music, we had only what we'd call the "white notes" on the piano -- the 7 "natural" notes. Bb was discovered/invented in medieval times. It took another almost half century to figure out the rest of the black notes on the keyboard (i.e., all the key signatures that we recognize today). Looking at the population of Europe in the year 1000 (36 million) and the year 1500 (61 million), that equates to about 25 billion people-years to develop the chromatic scale and related key signatures. Is that "creativity"?

Look at what AIs can do now compared to ten years ago. A researcher was recently doing some prompt engineering on a large language model (LLM), and the LLM said to him, "Hey, it looks like you're trying to engineer my prompt..." Do I think it's "intelligent" right now? No. But in 30 years, AIs will be a billion times faster than they are today (just due to Moore's Law). A billion times today's abilities likely will be emulating consciousness, if not actually being functionally conscious. Thirty years later, they will be yet another billion times faster. A quintillion times faster than today. It's unimaginable.

And millions or billions of AIs (since copying them is as cheap as multiplying bacteria), each a quintillion times more powerful than today. Much in the same way that we can't fathom evolution over a billion years in anything but the most abstract terms (how do you get from a paramecium to a human?!?), we just can't fathom this computing change. There's no visceral reaction to such numbers; humans are not built to understand those timescales or magnitudes.

But AIs will be able to do things we can't even imagine today. And that's in 60 years, well within a human lifespan. If it took us 500 years to invent the black keys on a keyboard, how long do you think it will take something with a quintillion times the "intelligence" of today's AIs to posit and test the successors to Einstein's theories?

AIs will be things as smart or smarter than us that can multiply as fast as bacteria. The best of both worlds.