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."
https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-jaron-lanier-ai-advancing-without-human-dignity-undermines-everything-2023-10
Don’t you understand what it means when someone won’t stop talking? However interesting your comments or information -- it's not good thread etiquette. It's obsessive-compulsive, in my opinion. You’re sucking the oxygen out of the thread by posting over and over and over. I’m done with this thread for a while. |
Why not discussing and reading about A.I. ? Why coming after my post without even adressing their content ? Why my invitation to discussion is considered useless ? have you a personality problem ? I consider personal attacks the only posts that are sucking the oxygen here... No poster with a real content is useless... If you are not able to read a thread where someone can contribute more than you then dont open a thread about interesting and difficult matter ... Anybody can object and propose his answers to my proposition... I just propose a deep and free book new and very deep on the matter. Instead of thanking me you claimed that i suck the oxygen around your ego and you then push the thread in personal attacks.. Do you know how many times you did it to me ? 😊 ban me forget my posts and keep silent ...if you are unable of any philosophical deep discussion... Take a poll and ask other people if my posts are useless here if the information annoyed them and i will immediately erase all of them .. Take the poll ...
|
@8th-note I have to disagree with hour premise about all new music is rehashed from others. I’m no scientist but I have long been fascinated by how musical artists come up with their music. I’m talking about truly creative artists not pop artists with which I would agree with you. Without delving into consciousness or the phenomenon, if you listen to interviews with these people they will say that the ideas or at times entire pieces of music just come to them, sometimes in dreams. This mimics some esoteric scientific theories that come to scientists the same way. We don’t understand what that is or how it works. I posit we know precious little about human consciousness. Why are some conduits of information and others not? I find this fascinating and I applaud those creative artists who share their “downloads” with us. |
I concur with your post opinion...😊falconquest Most litterature about creativity sources point toward altered states of consciousness , as NDE, dreams, Nature meditation and walks, even dialogue with god or goddess, in the Grothendieck case and Ramanujan cases which are not isolated cases... The molecule of benzene was dreamed in his geometry ... «The nineteenth-century German chemist August Kekulé claimed to have pictured the ring structure of benzene after dreaming of a snake eating its own tail»
|
This is why I have committed invest in an analog setup and get high quality vinyl records now. I know that in future the way we access digital music will be very different. Depending on your social status or score, you might not be able to listen to some genre or tiles. Let alone not being able to have access to music services all together. |
@falconquest I stand by my opinion that there has never been anything truly original in music composition. Going back to the great classical composers, they often used folk melodies in their compositions and they built upon religious music that was performed in churches and monasteries. Yes, it got more complex, but it was not completely original. I don't want to get too far into the weeds regarding music history but there has been a steady progression of composition for thousands of years, culture by culture, that has slowly and predictably built upon what came before. The music traditions of every culture are remarkably consistent with the musical development of that particular culture. For example, before there was cultural interchange, no East Indian person woke up one morning and wrote a classical composition in the style of Bach or a blues song in the style of Muddy Waters. Nothing like this has ever happened. But once people hear music from another culture they start to incorporate elements of that music into their own and they create something "new." "Genius" has been defined as relating the normally unrelated. Jim Winey, the late designer of Magnapan speakes, had his revelation for speaker design while bonding two magnets together and he looked up at the perforated ceiling tile. Bingo! Flat Panel Speakers! What may seem like a completely novel idea always turns out to be a synthesis of other information. In the book I referenced the author tells the story of teaching an A.I. to play the Chinese game of Go. It was strongly believed that no computer could ever defeat a human at the game. The computer not only beat the Chinese Go Master but it came up with a novel strategy that nobody had ever devised in the 2500 year history of the game. Now we are waiting to see if an A.I. robot can fold laundry. |
Off course creativity grow on recognized historical grounds and implied that every genius is seated as someone famously said on the shoulders of giants.
But reading Kuhn philosophy books, we also know that someone can came and overcome completely a standing paradigm and shift all the old traditions in a new course direction ...
In music Schoenberg did this with atonality , shifting all tonal history on its head...it was a thunder in tonal long history...
Now if we want to understand creativity in human history , we cannot reduce creativity to a false model of the brain , we cannot do that claiming that A.I. worked as the human brain. The last works of Stuart Hameroff and Anirban Bandyopadhyay for example reveal how the smaller scale of the microtubules orchestra works with a hertz band scale way larger than the electrical and chemicals activities of the neurons ( Hamreroff say ; Neurons have 12 orders of frequency dynamics in their microtubules.)
Than neural networks and llm models describe in no way how human brain works and the way our brain is rooted in the cosmos and in the life information field.
Once this is said, human creativity is linked to the history of consciousness itself, and creativity work by paradigms change. It is not at all only the results of an incremental additive process of changes in the algorythmic computations in the brain . We see it in all historical fields. continuity of a paradigm suddenly and irresistibly reversing the course of understanding .
Not only that but on a psychological levels, creativity is clearly related to altered states of consciousness. Any creative person know and experience that.
Then contradicting all that and claiming that A.I. will be more intelligent than human tomorrow is the Kurzweil propaganda for his transhumanist cult promoted by corporate powers in their race for MOLOCH control ...
A.I. did not exist right now as replacement for human intelligence , a fortiori A.I. cannot replace human wisdom in concrete decision field by playing alone for many reasons from which alignment of the A.I. with human is the biggest non resolved problem.
The greatest danger is to delegate human intelligence decisions now to this "speaking encyclopedia" which is A. I. for the time being as said Yann Le Cun in one of his tweet about chapgpt of any kind ...
The problem here is that many A.I. proponent as Kurzweil negate the spiritual existence of consciousness and do not understand that life does not result from computing models but is rooted in a conscious non algorythmic information field beyond logic, randomness or cellullar game ...
Abrupt changes of direction in history are not born from computations.nor from pure randomness. not even by adding these 2 factors.
When Boscovich genius for example created the first quantification theory of matter before Dalton, it does not explain nothing if someone say that it is only a repetition of the Democritus atom model. It is not. If it was the case Heisenberg would have never call Boscovich ,"the Leibnitz of science". he would have called it the Democritus plagiarist.... The fact that there exist archetypal metaphors about matter , as continuity or discrete models all along history dont imply that human creativity is just an incremental addition of information from the past... Claiming that is a great misunderstanding of how history of thinking and science works.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281489710_ROGER_BOSCOVICH_-_THE_FOUNDER_OF_MODERN_SCIENCE
Creativity in human history is not the results of brain computations. This claim is preposterous.
Cantor set theory is born from the mystical experience and studies of Cantor who also taught theology by the way , who proposed his theory against half of europe Mathematicians willing to put him in an asylum for his spiritual delirium very seriously. No computer could imagine from reading books on the internet about the relation between the absolute and the relative and the concept of angels hierarchies the limitation of size principle and then destructing integers arithmetic and recreating another one in a new form . These ideas are jumps into "madness" not computations.
In the same way mystical experience of vision as Grothendieck discussing with "le bon Dieu" at night or as Ramanujan discussing and discovering deep maths formulas at night with lucid dream encounters with the goddess Namagiri could never resulted from neural networks computations from LLM ...Computer cannot had visions and meaningful hallucinations. If it was the case no output from them will be useful. Meaningful hallucination can be used and had been used by human in all their history. Distorted A.I. "hallucinations" in desinging image are not the same "art" forms and are not symbolic forms born from history of consciousness.
For sure A.I. can look for a new road or a new strategy IN A FINITE GAME and beat humans. But the cosmos is not a finite game. Even if the cosmos is finite for human tools. Consciousness is not a finite game result save for uninformed Wolfram who do not takes into account anything which is not a fact comforting his materalism algorythmic belief.
|
«There are 12 orders of frequency and both classical and quantum information processing in neuronal and glial microtubules in each cell. We need to fully map one neuron. The brain is a quantum orchestra, not a computer of cartoon neurons.» Stuart Hameroff
This is why any model of consciousness grounded in neural network computing cannot work.. The main non algorythmic processing is INSIDE each neuron . « What’s missing from the above picture is that neurons have thousands of internal elements called microtubules, organized in bands. They are incredibly, thin, the inner diameter is only about 10 nm (billionths of a meter).»
|
To me, AI is the current "pet rock." We have undergone SXSW 2024- and all the panels were devoted to this. I wouldn’t mind learning how to code in Python, only to understand the technical side better. I’ve been a copyright lawyer for more than 40 years, and to me, the legal issues are pretty straightforward, though not necessarily favorable to the rights owners of existing works that are ingested for "training." Remember Y2K? The world was going to go all SkyNet. Nothing happened. Next "new" thing. Neural networks are kind of fascinating, but I suspect the real advances will be bio-tech, not just circuitry. For what little it is worth, one needs human authorship to claim copyright in any "AI" created work and then, only to the extent of the human contribution. |
For sure artificial biology is the next level...You are right. Read Anirban Bandyopadhyay and my link above. He is the top expert in the world right now and incredibly not so well known. He is the father of the incoming A. C. artificial consciousness over simple A. I.
|
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 Goodby Stuart Hameroff https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B978012420190300020X
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.😊
:
|
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. |
Very good post for all of us and that supplement well the discussion ...Thanks you ...
This is so true that this collective intelligence was discovered recently for insects only in sociobiology studies (Wilson) and by others about the cells , bacteria and viruses etc ...
In psychology this collective intelligence is called "unconscious" by his discoverer Carl Gustav Jung why ? ( as i said Searle is wrong and dont understand why is the unconconscious stating that it is an uncoherent idea, materialism blind him )
Because no individual cells or insects know consciously as an individual what the collective intelligence knows...
Then we must realize that this collective intelligence is in reality a collective unconscious in relation with each individuals be it a cell or a human...
Now we must realize that the actual A.I. design ( which is not A.C. as designed by Anirban which i spoke of above) the actual A.I. design with LLM models takes all his information from the accumulated information of the human species at it is written on the web... Not as it is in an unspoken state in the collective human unconscious... )Please think about this deep distinction and its meaning i just make .
This A. I. is then only ONE MODE among others of tapping the human collective unconscious...
There is another mode to do it by creative human : meditation, studies and altered stated of consciousness in dreams in walking in Nature with psychotropic substance , with prayers as Ramanujan the greatest mathematician since Archimedes and Gauss etc ...
This second modality to tap the collective human unconscious, which is not a reading of all internet information bits, is completely different than A.I. and gave to human way more than just "intelligence" or "information" but what we called "wisdom" and judgement in the development of not only a mere unconscious intelligence as the ants which almost do anything human does but gave us a CONSCIOUS individuality not a mere unconscious individuality...
Judgement is not reducible to logical computation because judgement imply contextual meaning... And meaning transcend any of his narrow manifestations and unify them...
it is so true that language exceed in complexities our actual maths modelization... it is too complex... It is very easy for a man or a machine to learn language but it is not as easy to understand it... Why ? Because language is infinite on not one level but infinite on at least three semiotic levels : phonological, syntaxical and semantical (and pragmatical )... None of these levels is reducible to the others... No signs are arbitrary here , Saussure dogma about signs arbitrarity is a pure convenient working hypothesis but is wrong as a theory and Peirce is right ... Anyway... ( it is the same in maths where we use statistics as a convenient working hypothesis to study primes numbers distribution but this hypothesis dont work as a theory to explain the primes distribution which dont obey statistics)
If i come back to the collective unconscious of human where intelligence is located, i can understand why the individuals manifested it and how he can contribute to it : the how is called the soul as conscious and unconscious, it is a cell immersed in a cosmic information field which is infinite...Not finite as the web information is anyway... The soul is the roots by which the human conscious spirit is immersed in meanings and translate all symbolic forms in information and vice versa through dreams among others phenomenon.
A.I. unlike humans , had no roots in the collective unconscious of human , only an indirect relation to written bits by the web and only in prosaic language mode the poetical mode is over A.I. .
A. I. has no body. And the soul is a manifested informed body in his conscious and unconscious appearence . A. I. what so ever his future progress could be, will stay a FINITE MORTAL entity forever...Human are not mortal finite entity nor any living organism... The conscious /unconscious soul which inform and designed them as tenmporary manifestation this informative field is eternal as all of his individual cells are... Death is a tool for life not a state...
And mathemathics itself is grounded in a non logical non created by human phenomenon : the prime numbers distribution geometry matrix which is an eternal meaningful dynamical field and cell... Anirban used it to design A.C. over simple A. I.
The best of both worlds will be trying to stay human in a sea of A. I. in a corpocratic tyrannical society too immature now for so much power...
The best of both worlds will be learning to stay human in spite of A. I. limitations and absolute control...
The history of science and the history of consciousness on earth are related. We must learn how to not replace diying materialism by techno cultism in a hive society controlled as in bad S-F by corporations...It is Kurzweil and Gates idolatry and ideology...
Anyway the problem is way more complex than your description...
A.I. is already surpassed by new works in synthetic biology, by completely new information theory and new non- algorythmic non- Turing geometrical language with a new maths which will make us human able to design A.C. or artificial consciousness... Here the spiritual stake is even higher... The threat is also higher... With A. C. we have an autonomous A.I. artificially conscious self developing in the real world not gathering bits from the web merely...It is all explained in the many books of the genius Anirban Bandyopadhyay i cited above...
It is urgent to understand what we are individually and collectively...
We are not a simulation of a brain computer grounded at the neurons levels . The brain does not compute, it is an orchestration playing at 12 orders of magnitude under the Neurons levels in mocrotubules. As demonstrated Hameroff with Anirban already. but more than that the consciousness phenomenon cannot be understood in material spatial content information. It is a phenomenon only understood through the concept of time and timing as demonstrated by Anirban in his many books since 2020... We are not simulations in a simulation as thought by Wolfram erroneously... As said Goethe we are an instantiation of the universal in the individual . Not a machine at all ....No living organism can be understood as pure machine. NONE...
Maths is not a game it is the pure symbolic abstraction of the living soul... The brain and the cosmos body must be unified as ONE soul... It is way over the unification of relativity and Quantum mechanics.
|
I’m not so interested in discussing the meaning of “intelligence,” or whether AI is such as I am interested in discussing the implications of an already-difficult occupation, artist (in this case musical artist), now entailing a threat from computers. Really, really smart ones. |
Great testimony as artist... Thank you tylermunns... 😊 It is because i feel the same as you even if i am not a musician as you are that i am interested also by A. I. The threat and his nature ... My very best ...
|
This short article of "psychology today" will interest everyone here perhaps save the OP for sure...😊 I recommend it to tylermunns in particular a true musician which A.I. will never be for sure and could not be ... The metaphor with Black hole is right... But suggesting to integrate A.I. in our education to maintain our autonomy and amplify it as Nosta said is not enough at all ...It is "not even wrong" ... I will only gave my opinion about this if others read it and want to discuss it here .. I posted too much... 😉 LLMs and the Specter of the Cognitive Black Hole
|
