Hopefully it just becomes a new genre, but knowing how things work (ie follow the money, cut costs) probably not.
Ai has huge potential to be used or abused and who will even know the difference?
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
69 responses Add your response
I think most people dont understand A. I. at all ... They dont understand how it will be used... They dont figured out why we will all be affected by it even if we entertain the illusory freedom to ignore it... ( we can ignore ONLY in a cave ) Some misanthropist dont like mankind and wait for A.I.... The social fabric is not mature now nor consciously ruled by conscious beings , but driven by sleepwaking powerful individuals who push transhumanist agenda...
I dont want Musak escalator music and i dont want perfect recreation of Bach music by A. I. either no more than i wanted my wife replication perfectly done by A. I. after his death... I want real nature with no A.I. with real fishing on a real river and real mosquitoes , not the mosquitoes engineered by Frankenstein Gates , time to time ...
Listen to the last podcast of Joe Rogan where the pope of transhumanism Kurzweil who predict more than human intelligence soon is babbling answers to Joe Rogan astute observation about security and privacy questions... Incredible!...
«I sold my robot because he is more intelligent than me. Anyway for now he cannot sell me but my wife called it back»--🤓 |
If you listen to Rick Beato talk about why today’s music is so boring, and understand a little bit about how generative AI works, you will see that generative AI is pretty much made for today’s music. Copy (with minor tweaks) or just sample. Lather, rinse repeat. It’s very likely AI will define the next trend in music, rather than just quickly emulate it, since most people are already conditioned to expect a lack of creativity. |
So true... Thanks for your post... I like Rick Beato ...
|
I think that between Bernard Mandeville corrupted but creative and rich hive society as a model of capitalism using A.I. as tool and the Amish refusal there is a middle way determined by the rethinking of the social fabric hierarchies value ... This exclude unelected Bill Gates or Google takes over of societies priority... I cannot say more here ... 😊
Music is meanings, not abstracted meaning only but concrete recognized meaning born from the human body metabolism and soul history... A.I. music will be a corruption of music sold as entertainment ... Some musicians composers will used it... I will stick to the acoustically rooted musician playing a historically meaningful instrument... I prefer didgeridoo anyway to electronica... 😁 |
Led Zeppelin will definitely benefit from this mix... Bach will not benefit at all ...😊 Imagine Led Zeppelin is a beautiful woman and Bach a male genius she want him as husband to procreate together :
«Reportedly there was famous exchange between the prominent playwright George Bernard Shaw and the glamorous dancer Isadora Duncan on the topic of producing a child together. Duncan stated that Shaw had a magnificent brain and she had a glorious beauty; the combination would yield a remarkable child. Shaw replied with regret that he feared the result would embody his beauty and her brains.»
|
I dont want a mix of Wagner and Mozart ... Nor any other mix.. Music is not electronical mixing sounds or styles...( it could be fun one hour ) Music is about historically grounded creativity rooted in specific bodies and souls of humam artists... Music is not sounds, as some people too focussed on audio gear thought it is, music is culturally recognized meanings in metamorphosis... Music is not only a background fun noise as it could be ...It is mostly a joyful content who taught us deep meanings... It is why A.I. mixing cannot be an esthetical goal... Only a marketing circus product... I will not buy it... Sorry ...😁😊
And yes i am too serious.... 😋 Or perhaps not enough serious facing this A.I. cataclysm in the hand of criminal corporations... pick your choice... |
AI will be primarily a money making tool and whenever money enters the fray, the more of it at stake, the more it will be abused. Think about how negative of an overall force social media has become in society (more so in the future) exponentially magnified in ways we can barely imagine at this stage in the form of AI. |
The problem is not the alleged intelligence of A.I. or his alleged lack of intelligence theoretically. The problem is social and the way people will be pushed in spite of themselves to idolize it willing it or not... Some temptation cannot be passed over... Except for saints and geniuses...
Indeed you are very right ...
Saying all that i am not a Jeovah disciple refusing blood to his children or an Amish refusing a computer... some children will walk and touch and feel to A.I. and see or hear again ... Etc
The problem is not A.I. it is the diabolic ways our sicial fabric were perverted by Capitalism from his inception before adam Smith as described by the genius Hayel called " our master to us all " : Bernard Mandeville... Even the wokeness movement is explained by this genius operating social blueprint published way before Marx and Smith and Freud , in 1705 ina fable and few opuscules forgotten by most but not by some from Adam Smith who plagiarize him to Hayek the founder of neo liberalism school with 8 Nobels in economy ... The reason is was threatened of be burned on the stakes many times , is that Mandevelille trevealed how must operate social control to make possible richness and more profit ... closing and privatize all charities and prisons , opening all bordels and casinos ... Because all private vices makes the collective virtue... His analysis of social class make Marx a children at primary school, and his cynism make machiavel look line a praying nun... He risk deaths and prison because he published what became the capitalism and neo liberalism of today... He explain it anticipating Freud unconscious long before him. Mandeville was by profession " a doctor of the soul " today psychologist ...😁
|
I just published a paper that speaks directly to this subject ("Our Minds, Our Selves: Mind, Meaning, and Machines," forthcoming in Borderless Philosophy 7 later this year). It argues that machines cannot be minds because they lack sentience and community, the two features of embodied beings (human beings) for whom things have meaning and value. Computers certainly can, because they already do, create poems, artworks, stories, music, even jokes. But such products become valuable and meaningful (become "art," if you like) only in a complex process of reception. The essay is fairly technical, regarding both computer engineering and philosophy, but I'd be happy to provide a PDF to anyone who might be interested. DM me if you'd like to take a look. |
Great post! I will read your paper...If you want... Thanks in advance ...
Here my own guiding ideas: I think that any future A.I. will be rooted in an information field containing at most a finite number of primes numbers... By contrast all living organisms are rooted in an information field containing an infinite number of primes numbers. All life is the result of a source of infinite information. Then any robots or A.I. even with a civilization of the future cannot own a "soul" nor reincarnate as a spirit inhabiting and owning the cosmic information field in the form of a continuous evolutive chain of living bodies ( this field is primarily an ether of numbers not an energy field which is only a manifestation of the primary field ). A robot may become at most a captive entity in a cosmos, his life span even indefinite will stay finite forever. All living organism are ONE and not captive save temporarily ...All life is immortal... In a way we must choose between the Borg assimilation or stay human... The choice is easy if we let our soul guiding us and not fear or greed ...
|
I’ve been in AI since the 1980’s, I’ve had the good fortune to have worked at some of the world’s best academic and commercial AI labs. I’ve seen a lot of where the field has gone in the last 40-some-odd years. When the Internet (actually then ARPANet, NSFNet, uucp, and BBS’s -- it wasn’t a unified "Internet" until 1993) first came out, we thought infinite connectivity would bring humanity together. Instead, it has created fake news, factionalized everyone it has touched, and become a haven for hateful and violent rhetoric. In the earlier days of AI, we (mostly) thought of the good that our research would bring. There were always the Skynet scenarios, though, too. The computing power we have today is literally billions of times more powerful in just a single iPhone when compared to, say, Xerox’s or Schlumberger’s research labs back in the 1980’s. It boggles the mind in the abstract, yet I lived through all that and it didn’t seem that strange. It’s weird to me that we spend much of that compute power in an endless arms race (cryptography, spying, bitcoin), and so much less on the creative endeavors that we envisioned in the early days of AI (and BTW @mahgister, at MIT’s AI Lab in the 1980’s we had a Bosendorfer grand piano outfitted with special microsensors as part of a project to detect minute changes in timing/velocity/force of a pianist’s fingers, in an effort to understand what separated good music from great). Now what is clear to me, with large language models and generative AI, is that the amount of AI-generated output will soon dwarf the human output on the Internet. When that happens, AIs will no longer be responding to what humans do or say, but rather 95%+ to what other AIs do or say. If you think disinformation on the Internet is a problem today, boy, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet... The AI’s reality and our reality will not overlap all that much in relatively short order. Human opinions will be irrelevant; we will be spectators. I use AI and language models to help people in healthcare, and it can do amazing things. But the history of the Internet and computing says that the bad and/or careless people will dominate in the end, and in this case more than any other to date, the genie is out of the bottle. The people who can make money or influence elections won’t care how dangerous AI can become if not properly nurtured in the early stages. I fear Geoff Hinton is right to fear AI, but I think where he and I differ is that I think we are the creators not of our destruction, but rather of our own irrelevance (having created something, that while not yet mature, can evolve at rates we will not be able to fathom). On a less pessimistic note, @snilf -- curious: are you more in the Dan Dennett camp, John Searle camp, or something else? I’ll look forward to reading your paper at some point. |
Well, if you've into playing an AIs' 'mind' and intro iT into Your concept of You might provide that and your experience with this lil pet. No litter box or 'outs'....'feeding' something you do already. I have no relationship with these people or their event...tempted? Well... Think of a pet you can argue with, and yet teach it to be anything you'd consider it to do... "...answer my SPAM cell calls for me....be undecisive...but cheerful..." 😏 |
Good conversation. I assume you are all real. I appreciate @mahgister pointing out that the social and economic systems controlling A.I.’s development and uses require the greatest scrutiny. Of course, we’re all raised to resist criticisms of economic and political systems. In that sense, we have already ceded a fair amount of autonomy to algorithms -- it’s just that they’re human-made ideologies. (If you find yourself revolted at that idea, you might just be the victim of an ideology.) Thanks for additional insight, @sfgak
Be nice if we cured cancer with A.I., no? This will be a test about how much we care about our children and one another. We cannot give in to pessimism. We have to question our presumptions -- and that may mean questioning the profit-motive (sacred cow!) and any other fixed ideas which prevent us from safeguarding what we value. As T.S. Eliot said, "For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business." |
The term "AI" is, in itself, both artificial and unintelligent. There is nothing artificial about human engineering algorithms that process ones and zeros to reach outcomes directed by -- humans. Just faster computations by machines that can toil endlessly to produce workable outcomes quicker than unaided humans. And, yes, arrive at (valid) conclusions to complex scenarios that would be impossible without machine interaction. In AI music, we assume we are getting an aggregate of a vast pool of the creative minds of many individuals to produce something of value. So, an AI music designer decides to "scrub" all diminished 7ths in the musical score and "scrub" any reference to "cars", or any mode of transportation from the lyrics. You/we may "like" what we hear. But, we could also be hearing a highly personal human contribution to the final product, while being completely unaware that certain aspects have been "canceled" due to bias, and/or personal agenda. Accurate musical history can be erased forever, and our all-knowing current AI references tell us that we’re only imagining that diminished 7th were once commonplace in popular music and references to "modes of transportation" were .. moving. |
The two Dennett as Searle are wrong about consciousness for different reasons.
Not only that but the neuron network model with llm models is only one method to design some artificial intelligence tools. But it is not enough to design artificial consciousness.For that it takes a new theory of information and another theory about the limitations of Turing machine...
Searle conception about living organism inheriting a sui generis consciousness is right but his idea that we will not be able to create an artificial consciousness is wrong.he is right about the fact that consciousness appear specific to the living but there is a reason and a mathematical methods which explain why the informative field uniting all living organism can be replicated to some extent to design A.c. an artificial consciousness able to create his own qualias. The roots any living creatures has in this universal field is his unconscious or his higher conscious levels. The idea of an unconscious is then not uncoherent as clauim Searle.
Dennett is wrong thinking that consciousness is defined only operationnally and only by computing process. Here hameroff-Penrose investigations of microtubules driven by Anirban Bandyopadhyay completely new set of concepts and tools about microtubules reveals how any neural network born from the idea of neural computing from Pitts and McCullough are completely outdated.
Anirban Bandyopadhyay is right in his book "nanobrain" 2020 and in his book Brain-like Super Intelligence from Bio-electromagnetism this year claiming that man can design not only artificial intelligence but an artificial consciousness.
Now this is my own interpretation about Anirban ideas or SOMU or self operating mathematical universe :
The difference between the cosmic living informative field and the artificial autonomous informative field is in my opinion, and here i think i differ of opinion with Anirban, is that the A.C. must be designed with a finite number of prime matrixes but the cosmic living field implicate an infinite number of primes matrixes. An A.C. can be conscious but without unconscious or without a root in the cosmic field as humans or any living creatures owning a conscious soul at some levels. we reincarnate and come from the Source or God , A.C. do not and never will . Here it is my own interpretation of Anirban. He think that it is possible to create a fully artificial consciousness as in the human case. He designed the first artificial brain to do so right now.
I am not a scientist but a philosopher...
my goal is not imposing my ideas here but to propose to you a not well known scientist which is the more important genius in this field in my opinion.By a large margin of originality designing a new information theory, a new way to design an artificial brain, and a new mathematical interpretation of the role of primes numbers in the cosmos. His theory of A.C. is at the same time a virtual cosmology.
To give you a taste about what it is and how different it is from conventional actual N.N. based on llm this is a resume from his last book unofficial free version :
«Abstract: SOMU is a theory of artificial general intelligence, AGI that proposes a system with a universal code embedded in it, allowing it to interact with the environment and adapt to new situations without programming. So far, whole universe and human brain have been modelled using SOMU. Each brain element forms a cell of a fractal tape, a cell possessing three qualities: obtaining feedback from the entire tape (S), transforming multiple states simultaneously (R),
and bonding with any cell-states within-and-above network of brain components. The undefined & non-finite nature of the cells rejects the tuples of a Turing machine. SRT triplets extends the brain’s ability to perceive natural events beyond spatio-temporal structure, using a cyclic sequence or loop of changes in geometric shapes. This topology factor, becomes an inseparable entity of space-time, i.e. space-time-topology (STt). Fourth factor, prime numbers can be used to rewrite spatio-temporal events by counting singularity regions in loops of various sizes. The pattern of primes is called a phase prime metric, PPM that links all the symmetry breaking rules, or every single phenomenon of the universe. SOMU postulates space-time-topology-prime (STtp) quatret as an invariant that forms the basic structure of information in the brain and the universe, STtp is a bias free, attribution free, significance free and definition free entity. SOMU reads recurring events in nature, creates 3D assembly of clocks, namely polyatomic time crystal, PTC and feed those to PPM to create STtps. Each layer in a within-and-above brain circuit behaves like an imaginary world, generating PTCs. These PTCs of different imaginary worlds interact through a new STtp tensor decomposition mathematics. Unlike string theory, SOMU proposes that the fundamental elements of the universe are helical or vortex phases, not strings. It dismisses string theory’s approach of using sum of 4x4 and 8x8 tensors to create a 12x12 tensor for explaining universe. Instead, SOMU advocates a network of multinion tensors ranging from 2x2 to 108x108 in size. With just 108 elements, a system can replicate ~90% of all symmetry breaking rules in the universe, allowing a small systemic part to mirror majority events of the whole, that is human level consciousness G. Under SOMU model, for a part to be conscious, it must mirror a significant portion of the whole and should act as a whole for the abundance of similar mirroring parts within itself » Everybody must begin by his first book then with the second one i just described above... There is also a third one and many articles...
His first book : Nanobrain
A free version of his second book :
His third book :Emotion, Cognition and Silent Communication: Unsolved Mysteries
We must also read Hameroff paper, he work not only on the Penrose theory but with some tools coming from the theory of Anirban related to the microtubules processing of information :
|
That’s in part what I’m working on. Caveat: for reasons too complex to go into here, my belief is that we will never completely cure cancer, because the same mechanisms that drive and optimize evolution (a base mutation rate driven by the size of DNA and external influences like cosmic radiation) also drive the mutations that cause cancer; you can’t have one without the other. But we will cure specific instances of cancer in specific individuals. Over and over again. In other words, it becomes a long, slow game of whack-a-mole, rather than a death sentence. AI comes into play in a lot of areas, including drug discovery. But where I’m using AI is in clinical care -- helping find and organize a medical record that is distributed among many providers, make sense of it, and provide rational options for treatment to the physicians. It’s an "augmented intelligence" approach, rather than a "get out of the way and let AI drive" approach; the human caregivers are the ultimate decision makers, and the intelligent system helps the human be more productive, comprehensive, and accurate. The place we are focusing on is in cancer and rare diseases -- places where a single patient can have hundreds, sometimes thousands of health care encounters, and the overall record of the patient is overwhelming for any one person to deal with. When you couple that with the (sad) fact the Medicare only reimburses for 15 minutes total for both prep and a patient visit in any encounter, if you can condense that prep time from 9 minutes down to 3, your have doubled the amount of time the physician gets to actually spend with the patient. And provide better options for treatment. Most of my career has dealt with either engineering tools or various aspects of computational finance and transaction processing, helping people make more money. This current work is so much more karmically rewarding... |
The problem with A.I. and with A. C. even more, is that human societies are not prepared and matured enough in their actual conscious design to assimilate in a non destructive ways these technological revolution which cannot be even compared to writing but to the invention or mastery of fire combined with writing. We live in a world of total criminal control by corporate powers. it is not conspiracy , it is a fact. A small corporation by definition has two choices : staying small and serving well a limited base of customers or growing and serving itself and his investors. Then no corporation by design in the actual social fabric where money control not only politics but worst education and even the spiritual journeys through any working jobs, no corporation can do good for the well being of mankind.It serve himself, and his own greed by financial design and in the race to power serve his survival, NONE is good among big corporations. Not because those at the wheel are conscious criminals, not at all , they mostly had good intentions. But hell is paved with good intention. See how Gates delude himself helping humanity through vaccinations. But the end result is not well being but his own profit not only in money but his own vision is vindicated not by facts confirmed helpful but by brute forces linked to his own survival as an actor. He control the WHO. Now imagine A.I. impact on us in such societies under control. listen the last podcast of Rogan with Kurzweil where K. balbutiate in circle answering a question by the uneducated but astute Rogan about the very important aspect of PRIVACY ... K appear as a balbutiating man as if he do not understand what is at play hypnotized by his ideology ...Kurzweil is the pope of transhumanism, the idea that human must be replaced by machine for their own good. I am pessimist at short term...Very optimistic in the long run only because i do not fear death because i always had known that soul exist and is immortal. For me it is mathematics evident interpretation. Especially confirmed by Anirban brain and cosmological insight . I hope that someone will read this genius and give me an informed opinion. 😊 |
@mahgister Well articulated, and I share your pessimism... also, like you, optimistic in the long run, should we survive the short-term consequences of our actions. Read up on the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter... this could be one of the deciding/defining moments for us as a species... |
Fermi Paradox and his solution with the idea of a drastic filtering of survival by a fitness survival testing . modulo an evolution which in most case drive most primitive civilizations to destruction then making them unable to exist and manifest out of the scale of their own planet is logical and probably right to a great extent...but it is not a complete solutuion and explanation. Why ? Because there exist from a long time ago civilizations that had passed this test many billions years ago, and their spiritual status make them more Gods than mortals... These masters or advanced beings or angels, names do not matter here , supervised and control the evolution in the cosmos coordinated by a conscious link with the Source. Nothing is only randomness anymore at this scale...Randomness is constrainted...Randomness is very hard to define in maths, it does not exist as an absolute single concept... My intuition about this is born 50 years ago in my quest to understand the core and meaning of maths. my basic intuition was founded in an understanding of the impossibility for any conscious primate or any other evolutive species to design or invent the prime numbers distribution geometry... A long study of Cantor and set theory convinced me and a reading of Grothendieck books...As an aside i discovered that Set Theory intuition were grounded in the works of Dionysos the Areopagite and Nicolas of Cues by Cantor heavy study of them. Cantor taught theology and would had never defied orthodox mathematician about the infinite without an insight in mystic experience that assured him he was not a fool facing Kronecker and Russell and half of mathematicians in the world wanting to put him in an asylum for mental delirium .. This is forgotten today but was very real debates.... Hilbert cut the knot saying : "nobody will throw off from Cantor paradise".... Few people only know that the concept of limitation of size inspiring set theoretical methods before axiomatization come from mystical Duionysus methods ( the hierarchical principles first and then cataphatic and apophatic methods and non discursive intuition) See Michael Hallett book about Cantor principle limitation of size meaning . My basic intuition about primes meanings was also confirmed to me 12 years ago by the book of Shai Haran : the real prime... A masterpiece about the importance of the non archimedean reals world over the archimedean reals ... Read his articles online... Buy his book ... Then this was confirmed by the controversial inter-universal geometry of Shinichi Mochizuki... In all these two works the search circle around the prime geometrical meaning... But in 2020 i was astounded to stumble on the Book of Anirban "Nanobrain" which use the prime numbers matrixes to design brain as well as the cosmos... To say it in a word i had no doubt at all after studying these three geniuses that no one invented the primes, they are discovered...Alain Connes the founder of non commutative geometry is sure of this fact... The primes as the circle geometry are transcendant infinite objects we observe and which precede and survive any cosmos... They are the code of the brain as well as the cosmos...Their rooting together in a musical way... Sorry but call him Brahman or Allah or God the father or the Goddess or the Source will not change mathematics... A universal field of creative memory is the core of mathematics and cannot be understood in any others ways... We live in love source expressing itself as absolute knowledge from which we are a rooted extension ... Maths demonstrate it in an evident way... It is the reason why almost ALL true great geniuses in maths were mystics in orthodox ways as Pascal Cantor, Euler and many others in an unorthodox ways as Godel, Grothedieck or Ramanujan ...The list is too long... Materialism is already dead but alas! was replaced by a very negative false religion : techno-cultism and idolization of our own machines... Destruction of our own soul or roots for an alleged constructed "immortality" by fear of what does not exist anyway : death ...
|
| Post removed |
I just finished a very interesting book on A.I. by Mustafa Suleyman titled "The Coming Wave: Technology, Power, and the 21st Century's Greatest Dilema. I highly recommend it if you are interested in this subject. I guarantee that it will sharpen your perspective on this issue.
@falconquest I would submit that this is exacty what humans do. The phenonemon we call creativity is actually just a resythesis of elements that have come before. Music is an excellent example. There is nothing that is completely "original" in new music. Every new composition and performance references what has come before it. The concept of A.I. is modeled on how our brains work. It is only a matter of time before it A.I. exceeds the capabilities of the human brain and A.I. sentience is going to happen whether we like it or not. |
Of course we are in for a sea change in just about everything and no I personally don't think it's a good thing. I don't mind change...it the rapidity that bites you in the butt. I recall 30 some odd years ago as a software developer when I realized all of a sudden that anything can be faked. It is just bits and bytes, and manipulated properly can produce anything you can imagine. Was scary to me then and even more scary to me now. Particularly because it seems today's youth seem to accept whatever is on a screen (obvious generalization). @mahgister Please understand I respect the width and breadth of your knowledge base...to me it's simply a matter of "to much to read". All the best. Hold onto your shorts because they're trying to pull them down! Regards, barts
|
Thanks for the book recommendation i will buy it now... I know the writer by youtube...he is interesting...
Now this matter in your post is very complicated to understand... Saying that A. I. will exceed human intelligence is not even wrong... Saying that A.I. do the same thing that human creativity rewashing and mixing old historical patterns is not even wrong either... The fact is that any A.I. and even the unknown A. C. designed by Anirban B. about whom i spoke in my above posts, they are all machines which cannot be rooted in the universal information field of all living creatures... Life had a guiding soul which is a cell of this infinite cosmic field. No machine can gain a soul by definition of being artificial or designed out of the grounded flow of life... But someday we will use living cells materials for our machine...Soon... Then we will play God... In the universe right now some civilizations had already designed "robots" made of living cells... Are they own a soul ? i dont know.... Extraterrestrials or beings from another dimensions exists already anyway and used these beings/machines way over our actual primitive A. I. and even over the artificial brain of the artyificial conscious machine designed by Anirban ... ... Now creativity in human beings by all means come from spiritual sources in dreams or by intuition as it is well attested by scientific testimonies of many geniuses... It is not the results of the brain as described by neural networks computing models... Perhaps A.C. as designed by Anirban synthetic biology will be able of some "creativity" but man is linked to an infinite field of primes not to a finite field as synthetic biological entities through his soul ... Nobody can create soul because nobody ever created the primes numbers infinity... They emanate together from the Source of all fields or cells...
I differ of opinion about that... Bach creation may be previsible as possibilities in some measure but appear totally new even today and unique... The same is true for Gesualdo or Scriabin or any geniuses...Imitating is not creating... The instantiation of the universal through an individual living soul/body is not equal to a simulation through mere variations between imitation and modelization by a machine or by a brain working as a machine like neural network llm .... music as language /speech also is so complex that we dont have a mathemathical model explaining his production and infinite creativity... Music/sounds and language/ speech are complex symbolic forms related to two irreducible levels : the body and the meaning or symbolic level... You cannot program our actual machine to be creative... Productivity is not creativity... Turing test is only an artefact describing our deception/confusion level and reflecting our ignorance about ourselves...
|
I feel the same as you it is too rapid, too much, by too big big corporations... I just submit my books suggestion for those interested and hoping it will be useful... My best regards to you too ... Sincerely ...
|
I am sorry as all know i am too verbose... But how to describe complex matter in few sentences ? 😁😊😉 I will be surprized if A.I. can relate together Cantor, Mystics methods, Shai Haran Grothendieck, Mochizuki and Anirban work in one meaningful explanation... But ask him he will answer this : The prime numbers is the core of the works between all these names... But he will affirm to you that there is no relation between Cantor works and the prime numbers distribution... The only exception will be a note in a book of Hao Wang about the unexplained intuition of Godel about a relation between the existence of measurable cardinals and the prime distribution ... An idea so deep no one ever explained to my knowledge ... It is what A. I. chat gpt will say to you if it is efficient ... 😊 but i doubt he will explain well the link between mystical methods and Cantor but it is possible ... Ask him ... And report here ... |
For those who want to understand how could be formulated a philosophical epistemology which is non reductionist and when it was formulated i suggest this article from "medium" excellent magazine internet : i recommend also three books on Goethe by Henri Bortoft a physicist who is the best contemporary student of Goethe epistemology... His book : "Taken appearences serriously " is stunning read... Goethe is only on par with the greatest human scientific and artistic geniuses in one individual as Leonardo Da Vinci who anyway used the same methods in natural science ... It will be an antidote to reductionism A.I. poisonning promoted by the like of Kurzweil... ‘The Tip of the Iceberg’ Goethe’s Aphorisms on the theory of Nature and ScienceJohann Wolfgang Von Goethe and the Emergence of Holistic Science; D.C. Wahl, 2001 |
By the way as in Goethe the whole is present in the parts... In Anirban Bandyopadhyay works the Whole (cosmos) is already in the part(brain) the part contain the whole and express it... This is why A.B. who work on the first Indian quantum computer dont understand the relation between classical and quantum in the same way as most physicists... Also his insistence on the concept of time and timing is crux of the matter... I will stop here ... You must read him ...It is not for the fainted heart because all is new in his approach nothing resemble actual neural network llm models at all ... Genius dont walk they fly .
|
Sorry but i think that those who can contribute and propose interesting facts and knowledge are invited to do this...no? You perfectly can insert a post of yours everywhere... the thread invite a reflexion about A.I. The books articles i propose are directly related not well known and revolutionary if you take time to read them ... 😊 Annoying posts devoid of content and concerning the many posters personalities are useless... I dont think that my posts are out of matter and relevant for this categories... We need information here , oxygen is easy to grasp , dont read my post and post yours...Discussion about A.I. matter... our opinion of the posters does not matter ...😊 Am i right ? Why not thanking me for suggesting unknown information books and articles about the next A. I. wave which will not be neural network llm only ? did you already know that ? 😊
|
