If A.I. took the place of musicians, would you listen to it?

@larsman

I'd be perfectly fine with it if I liked it. I don't care much how the sausage is made if it tastes good to me. And AI is still programs created by humans. 

Interesting. Would this extend to painting, novels, art, too?

How about sermons in church?

How about the things your wife or kids say to you? What if they were being written by A.I.? As long you are made happy by them, it doesn't matter where it came from? 

@sns

Interesting questions raised by your post. I definitely agree we can and will be fooled. I am wondering if there's a reason to care if we're fooled. The limit case here is the kind of situation we find in science fiction, e.g. the human who thinks they're in love with another human but is in love with a simulation instead. Some would say, "Sure, give me the robot spouse as long as they please me" whereas others would say, "Being in a relationship means having a partner whose ethical value matters, who I am responsible to and for." One cannot care for a robot and, for me, caring makes me human.

The systems analysts, at least in their roles as technologists advancing company objectives, are (in my mind) more machine than man.

As to your further comment, about sentience, I guess it depends on how that gets defined. One can imagine that if sentience is nothing more than us *thinking* something is sentient, then it is measured by our epistemic limits, which are fairly low.

@tony1954

Until AI is capable of actual creative genius, as opposed to merely clever mimicry

Ah, so it's just their present state of development, and you have no objection to AI in principle -- it's just not good enough. I feel the same way about butter substitutes, but not about art.

@robert53

Emotion, imagination, skill and intelligence are all utilized to play and write music. Does AI have all these?

No. And those are important, to me. To others, they may all be superfluous. E.g. for @larsman, all he/she/they want is to have the right kind of reaction. They need their buttons pushed, and nothing more.

Interesting answers. Thanks.

@snilf -- will download. Thanks so much.

Machines can, because they already do, produce "meaningful" sequences of words, notes, colors, etc. These artifacts become artworks when someone regards them as such.

Thinking about George Dickie as I read your words. Of course, for him (and Danto, and maybe Hume), who that "someone" is matters a great deal. I’ll go read your piece to see your reasoning in more detail. Also agree that Turing test is inadequate. Thanks again.

Beato stuff is great. Strong recommend.

’Sermons in church’? Don’t get me started there.

Not everybody here has a wife and kids.

Those are examples. I’m counting on readers to extrapolate.

For whatever reason I want to hear music that a human being has created of their own imagination after working hard to master (at least to some degree) a musical instrument.

Me too. Just like I want to hear from my "wife and kids" and not a simulation of them and a "sermon in church" and not a simulation. Communication from a human being to another -- in the form of family banter, spiritual wisdom, or even music.

I have been a musician most of my 60 years and know how hard it is to create something that touches people to their core.

This gets at a very important factor for me. It’s not just about being interested or pleased by the "product." It’s about receiving and experiencing something some other living, feeling person has created.

It’s up to you. If you like an AI generated song... fine. I wouldn’t try to censor it. If the real artist can do better then do it and I’ll listen to that instead.

Well stated version of the notion that the only factor that matters is how the consumer feels. Thanks for putting it so definitely!

we live in a culture where those who have the greatest capacity for leveraging technology for the sake of enhancing personal wealth and power enjoy an unhealthy level of influence

Well stated. In addition, the people writing the code are not artists and they don’t care about the range of feelings and emotions and values that artists care about. They care about "consumer satisfaction" in the short term, and that will mean something different than what artists with a longer vision or independent personality care about, I reckon.

No A.I. program would ever have created "Guernica" as Picasso did. A.I. does not tend to make passionate statements against war, injustice, etc. I guess it could, but I wouldn't expect it to. And even if it did, just "who" would be taking a moral stand in that case? It would just be a generated pattern ostensibly against injustice, but not really having a stake in this world at all.

Guessing that only humans can create something truly “new and unique” makes me inclined to dismiss AI as a viable, long-term listening option.

As others point out, A.I. will be getting much more clever, and fast, especially as it sucks up the human-created novelty you value (and I do, too). It will be much harder to avoid and it will be much more engaging and interesting, I suspect. Those with the view "If it pleases me, it’s good" will be completely satisfied by these fabrications.

For most listeners likable music has to sound somewhat familiar without sounding exactly like something else. Music has to sound like you expect it to sound and when it doesn’t it’s hard to engage with.

Very true. Sort of like the homogenization of food taste. Fat, salt, sugar and a nice display -- what more could we want! ;-) And then you go to Italy and taste real butter, cheese, wine -- almost a realization that one has been eating food made on a (Star Trek) replicator. Good, real ingredients create experiences hard to imagine beforehand. Maybe this analogy works with music, maybe not. Kind of depends on what one is listening for and that is a very individualized purpose.

Music, for me, is about the human connection.  I don't appreciate it as a product.  If I can't relate to the musician struggling with their instrument or find an emotional connection with the composer I quickly become disinterested.

I agree. I don't appreciate the "product" of the sentences my friends say to me. I appreciate them. Same with art -- there is someone who matters making it, and that connection is essential.

Those who simply pronounce "It's coming and we can't stop it" have resigned themselves to an inhumane future. A pessimistic defeatism I cannot get on board with. (Plus, they have no evidence. And yet, they pronounce. Sad.)

The may or may not be compositions, but they are organized enough to be readily recognized and they do incite an emotional response. 

This is a really intriguing comment. If they may be a composition, who is the composer?

I admire and get beauty out of nature, too, but I don't attribute intention to those patterns, colors, sounds. A sunset, to me, is not saying anything even though it's beautiful. But some hear the "language" or "meaning" of nature (or God/gods) so I would want to remain open minded, here.

hilde45, you should drop the whole intention angle. It’s misleading. The throbbing of a big twin motor is definitely music to the mechanic’s ears and only a few are immune to the heavy metal thunder -- intent notwithstanding.

Btw, very nice thread you started!

Thanks. I'll think about it.

Let me see if I am getting your point: In music, intention doesn't matter. Don't look for it. Music is whatever sounds like music to someone. Under this description, nature can make music, engines can make music, and Beethoven can make music. There is no more "intention" in a Beethoven piece than in a waterfall, so none should be looked for -- or used to separate "sounds" (however pleasing" from "music."

Am I getting that right?

I can foresee a time when humans won't make  qualitative judgements vis a vis human vs. AI. Over time the lines will blur as to human vs. AI content, we won't be able to differentiate between the two. 

Given the way we are already prone to dehumanize others about more important things today, I have to agree that most people will run, not walk, to replace human artists with machines that pleasure them without getting tired. They will accept the AI text from their spouse, friend, or child and think, "Who cares if it's really them? As long as I'm hearing what I want, nothing more satisfying can be imagined or desired." That's the point at which jumping off bridges will be very popular, too.

@inna Of course, AI is a huge energy user, so I'm glad you mentioned climate.

A.I. use is directly responsible for carbon emissions from non-renewable electricity and for the consumption of millions of gallons of fresh water, and it indirectly boosts impacts from building and maintaining the power-hungry equipment on which A.I. runs. As tech companies seek to embed high-intensity A.I. into everything from resume-writing to kidney transplant medicine and from choosing dog food to climate modeling, they cite many ways A.I. could help reduce humanity’s environmental footprint. But legislators, regulators, activists, and international organizations now want to make sure the benefits aren’t outweighed by A.I.’s mounting hazards.