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.
