Discussion:
Eminem - Lose Yourself (1950s style)
Add Reply
Bruce
2024-12-11 06:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink


--
Dean
2024-12-11 10:22:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is losing
its collective soul quickly enough.
Bruce
2024-12-11 16:14:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dean
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is losing
its collective soul quickly enough.
I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I couldn't
figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and then $10 a
month.

ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS

--
DianeE
2024-12-11 17:06:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 12/11/2024 11:14 AM, Bruce wrote:> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:22:19
Post by Bruce
Post by Dean
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is losing
its collective soul quickly enough.
I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I couldn't
figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and then $10 a
month.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
--------------
So that's the hill you pick to die on? Nobody else agrees with you.
Bruce
2024-12-11 18:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DianeE
On 12/11/2024 11:14 AM, Bruce wrote:> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:22:19
Post by Bruce
Post by Dean
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is
losing
Post by Bruce
Post by Dean
its collective soul quickly enough.
I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I couldn't
figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and then $10
a
Post by Bruce
month.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
--------------
So that's the hill you pick to die on? Nobody else agrees with you.
This guy does:



BTW, all of you who say that they disagree will not even listen to these
things to see if they are any good. You made up your minds based on non
music factors.

--
DianeE
2024-12-11 21:27:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
On 12/11/2024 11:14 AM, Bruce wrote:> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:22:19
 >
 >> For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is
losing
 >> its collective soul quickly enough.
 >
 > I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I couldn't
 > figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and then $10
a
 > month.
 >
 > ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
--------------
So that's the hill you pick to die on?  Nobody else agrees with you.
http://youtu.be/zbo6SdyWGns
------------
I meant nobody *here*. I read the youtube comments by all those fools
who said the Zeppelin AI stuff was better than the original album.
------------
Post by Bruce
BTW, all of you who say that they disagree will not even listen to these
things to see if they are any good. You made up your minds based on non
music factors.
----------
Au contraire, here's a musical explanation of how we feel:

Bruce
2024-12-11 21:35:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
On 12/11/2024 11:14 AM, Bruce wrote:> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:22:19
 >
 >> For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is
losing
 >> its collective soul quickly enough.
 >
 > I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I couldn't
 > figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and then $10
a
 > month.
 >
 > ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
--------------
So that's the hill you pick to die on?  Nobody else agrees with you.
http://youtu.be/zbo6SdyWGns
------------
I meant nobody *here*. I read the youtube comments by all those fools
who said the Zeppelin AI stuff was better than the original album.
------------
Post by Bruce
BTW, all of you who say that they disagree will not even listen to these
things to see if they are any good. You made up your minds based on non
music factors.
----------
http://youtu.be/9xL1oAuEBXI
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly with
AI.

--
DianeE
2024-12-11 22:21:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
On 12/11/2024 11:14 AM, Bruce wrote:> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:22:19
Post by Bruce
Post by Dean
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is
losing
Post by Bruce
Post by Dean
its collective soul quickly enough.
I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I couldn't
figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and then $10
a
Post by Bruce
month.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
--------------
So that's the hill you pick to die on? Nobody else agrees with you.
http://youtu.be/zbo6SdyWGns
------------
I meant nobody *here*. I read the youtube comments by all those fools
who said the Zeppelin AI stuff was better than the original album.
------------
Post by Bruce
BTW, all of you who say that they disagree will not even listen to these
things to see if they are any good. You made up your minds based on non
music factors.
----------
http://youtu.be/9xL1oAuEBXI
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly with
AI.
--
---------------
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.

I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.

You say all that matters is what's coming out of the speakers, but I no
longer believe that. Stepping aside from music for a second, look at
the firehose of lies and threats that's been coming out of our speakers
for the past 9 years. When everything that's coming out of the speakers
is fake, false, counterfeit, *inhuman*, it's time for me to turn the
music off. This stuff is as fake as a QAnon conspiracy theory. It may
be amusing at first, but essentially it's a Louis Vuitton purse with a
rusty zipper from a Senegalese street vendor in Chinatown.
Bruce
2024-12-11 23:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
On 12/11/2024 11:14 AM, Bruce wrote:> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:22:19
Post by Bruce
Post by Dean
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity
is
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
losing
Post by Bruce
Post by Dean
its collective soul quickly enough.
I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I
couldn't
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and
then $10
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
a
Post by Bruce
month.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
--------------
So that's the hill you pick to die on? Nobody else agrees with
you.
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
http://youtu.be/zbo6SdyWGns
------------
I meant nobody *here*. I read the youtube comments by all those
fools
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
who said the Zeppelin AI stuff was better than the original album.
------------
Post by Bruce
BTW, all of you who say that they disagree will not even listen to
these
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
things to see if they are any good. You made up your minds based on
non
Post by Bruce
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
music factors.
----------
http://youtu.be/9xL1oAuEBXI
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with
Post by Bruce
AI.
--
---------------
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
You say all that matters is what's coming out of the speakers, but I no
longer believe that.
That rule is ONLY for music. You either like it or don't like it based
SOLELY ON WHAT YOU ARE HEARING.

--
Bruce
2024-12-11 23:21:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?

They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?

AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.

--
DianeE
2024-12-12 02:55:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
------------
Like a *fake* human.
Look, I'm the kind of person who wouldn't pay a bent nickel to see a
tribute band. Cue up "Paper Roses." I like many *remakes* (so cue up
"Paper Roses" by Marie Osmond rather than the odious Anita Bryant), but
I instinctively dislike *imitations*. That's why I watched the video of
Timothee Chalamet playing the role of Bob Dylan singing "Like A Rolling
Stone"...*once*. The kid did a good job, but in the end it was, like
the aforementioned Louis Vuitton bag from Chinatown, an imitation.
DianeE
2024-12-12 03:01:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done.
------------
Why do you say that? This makes me very curious.

From what I've read about him he had what they used to call a Napoleon
complex and enjoyed being able to order other humans around.
Bruce
2024-12-12 03:44:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done.
------------
Why do you say that? This makes me very curious.
From what I've read about him he had what they used to call a Napoleon
complex and enjoyed being able to order other humans around.
He'd much rather have saved the money that he had to pay all these
people. He ordered them around because he considered himself as the
genius who knew how he wanted these recordings to sound and resented
that he could not just do it all himself...which he would have been able
to do now with AI.

To him these were HIS records...not the Ronettes, or Crystals records.
They were just the necessary things he needed to use to get his finished
product.

--
Roger
2024-12-12 15:06:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary

You say its a human creation and so it is.

But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
Bruce
2024-12-12 15:25:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It
doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.

--
DianeE
2024-12-12 18:50:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
 > You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette.  It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing.  Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se.  I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It
doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
-------------
Inevitably, some disgruntled engineer will teach it to do exactly that.
Bruce
2024-12-12 20:46:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
 > You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette.  It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing.  Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se.  I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It
doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
-------------
Inevitably, some disgruntled engineer will teach it to do exactly that.
More like he could always have it on with that program open, expect any
power failure even for a few seconds will shut it down. I suppose
something ca be rigged up where when the power comes back on it will
boot up and go to that program on its own. The engineer can leave a
script on that will have it do things I guess.

--
RWC
2024-12-13 00:16:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
More like he could always have it on with that program open, expect any
power failure even for a few seconds will shut it down.
Computer systems can stay up and running for short periods during
a power failure by using an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) box.
The modest system I use will keep going for 30 minutes or more.
For longer power outages, a generator or other power sources can be
used to keep a system running.

Small UPS (600VA): These can typically keep a home computer running
for about 30 minutes to 1 hour. Initial cost - $80 to $100

Medium UPS (1000VA - 1500VA): These can provide power for
approximately 1 to 2 hours. $150 to $300

Large UPS (2200VA and above): These can last for several hours,
potentially up to 18 hours, depending on the load. $1200 to $3000
Jim Colegrove
2024-12-12 21:37:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It
doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."

"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it’s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what’s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
Bruce
2024-12-12 22:11:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It
doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it’s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what’s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I
don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A
hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and
free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random
number generator.

It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).

--
Jim Colegrove
2024-12-12 22:38:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It
doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it?s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what?s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I
don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A
hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and
free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random
number generator.
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
Maybe not a hard drive. Maybe something on the organic spectrum.
Many sci-fi writers have kicked this idea around since I was a
youngster. But harm it could do as in create conflicts with ghastly
results.
Jim Colegrove
2024-12-12 22:47:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:38:59 -0600, Jim Colegrove
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It
doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it?s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what?s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I
don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A
hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and
free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random
number generator.
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
Maybe not a hard drive. Maybe something on the organic spectrum.
Many sci-fi writers have kicked this idea around since I was a
youngster. But harm it could do as in create conflicts with ghastly
results.
Not to go off on a tangent here but "Free will" made me recall there
is a theory that free will does not exist.

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-scientist-decades-dont-free.html
Bruce
2024-12-12 22:58:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Colegrove
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:38:59 -0600, Jim Colegrove
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It
doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it?s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what?s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I
don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A
hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and
free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random
number generator.
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
Maybe not a hard drive. Maybe something on the organic spectrum.
Many sci-fi writers have kicked this idea around since I was a
youngster. But harm it could do as in create conflicts with ghastly
results.
Not to go off on a tangent here but "Free will" made me recall there
is a theory that free will does not exist.
https://phys.org/news/2023-10-scientist-decades-dont-free.html
There are similar theories saying that ghosts and spirits and God and
angels do exist. All hogwash IMO.

--
Bruce
2024-12-12 22:46:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It
doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it?s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what?s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I
don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A
hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and
free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random
number generator.
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
Maybe not a hard drive. Maybe something on the organic spectrum.
Many sci-fi writers have kicked this idea around since I was a
youngster. But harm it could do as in create conflicts with ghastly
results.
Anything organic would not be A1 anymore, and I don't believe that we
could create life intelligent enough to be evil and purposely do harm.
Of course, we can already create organic things that can do harm, but
only when used that way by humans. Things like nerve gas and other
weaponized chemicals. But there will always be a human behind it, even
if the human teaches monkeys of other life forms how to disperse nerve
gas or something.

In any case if science is ever able to create life that thinks for
itself that will be long after any of us are still around.

--
Jim Colegrove
2024-12-12 23:02:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It
doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it?s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what?s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I
don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A
hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and
free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random
number generator.
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
Maybe not a hard drive. Maybe something on the organic spectrum.
Many sci-fi writers have kicked this idea around since I was a
youngster. But harm it could do as in create conflicts with ghastly
results.
Anything organic would not be A1 anymore, and I don't believe that we
could create life intelligent enough to be evil and purposely do harm.
Of course, we can already create organic things that can do harm, but
only when used that way by humans. Things like nerve gas and other
weaponized chemicals. But there will always be a human behind it, even
if the human teaches monkeys of other life forms how to disperse nerve
gas or something.
In any case if science is ever able to create life that thinks for
itself that will be long after any of us are still around.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949747724000071
Bruce
2024-12-13 00:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It
doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it?s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what?s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I
don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A
hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and
free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random
number generator.
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
Maybe not a hard drive. Maybe something on the organic spectrum.
Many sci-fi writers have kicked this idea around since I was a
youngster. But harm it could do as in create conflicts with ghastly
results.
Anything organic would not be A1 anymore, and I don't believe that we
could create life intelligent enough to be evil and purposely do harm.
Of course, we can already create organic things that can do harm, but
only when used that way by humans. Things like nerve gas and other
weaponized chemicals. But there will always be a human behind it, even
if the human teaches monkeys of other life forms how to disperse nerve
gas or something.
In any case if science is ever able to create life that thinks for
itself that will be long after any of us are still around.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949747724000071
It doesn't just "decide" to predict outcomes. The info is fed in and
THEN it predicts an outcome.

--
RWC
2024-12-13 00:40:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
{AI} may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
I asked Co-pilot:
what is the difference between AI programming and traditional computer
programming

Response:
Great question! AI programming and traditional computer programming
have some key differences:

1. **Objective**:
- **Traditional Programming**: The goal is to write explicit
instructions for the computer to follow. The programmer defines the
logic and rules for the program to execute specific tasks.
- **AI Programming**: The goal is to create systems that can learn
from data and make decisions or predictions. The focus is on
developing algorithms that enable machines to learn and adapt.

2. **Approach**:
- **Traditional Programming**: Uses a rule-based approach where the
programmer writes code to handle specific scenarios. It relies on
predefined logic and conditions.
- **AI Programming**: Uses data-driven approaches, such as machine
learning, where the system learns patterns from data. The programmer
designs models and algorithms that can generalize from examples.

3. **Flexibility**:
- **Traditional Programming**: Less flexible as it requires
explicit coding for each scenario. Changes or new features often
require rewriting or adding new code.
- **AI Programming**: More flexible as the system can adapt to new
data and improve over time. Once trained, AI models can handle a wide
range of scenarios without explicit programming.

4. **Complexity**:
- **Traditional Programming**: Complexity arises from the need to
handle various edge{/rare} cases and scenarios explicitly.
- **AI Programming**: Complexity arises from designing and training
models, selecting appropriate algorithms, and ensuring the quality of
data.

5. **Examples**:
- **Traditional Programming**: Writing a calculator app, developing
a website, or creating a database management system.
- **AI Programming**: Building a recommendation system, developing
a speech recognition system, or creating an image classification
model.

In essence, traditional programming is about giving explicit
instructions, while AI programming is about creating systems that can
learn and make decisions based on data. If you have any more questions
or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
RWC
2024-12-13 01:02:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
While very unwise (for some time to come at least) it would be
theoretically possible to hand over a nation's military defense to AI.

I asked Co-pilot (on behalf of everyone following this AI thread):

could AI in future have the ability to understand context and nuance
in the same way humans can

Response:
AI has made significant strides in understanding context and nuance,
but it still has a long way to go before it can fully match human
capabilities. Here are some key points to consider:

1. **Current Capabilities**: AI can analyze large amounts of data,
recognize patterns, and make predictions based on that data. It can
understand context to a certain extent, especially in specific domains
like language translation or image recognition.

2. **Limitations**: AI lacks the ability to truly understand emotions,
cultural nuances, and the subtleties of human interactions. It
operates based on algorithms and data, which means it can miss the
deeper meanings and intentions behind human communication.

3. **Future Potential**: Advances in machine learning, natural
language processing, and neural networks are continuously improving
AI's ability to understand context and nuance. Researchers are working
on developing more sophisticated models that can better mimic human
thought processes.

4. **Ethical Considerations**: As AI becomes more advanced, it's
crucial to address ethical concerns, such as bias in AI systems and
the potential for misuse. Ensuring that AI is developed and used
responsibly is essential for its future growth.

While AI may never fully replicate the depth of human understanding,
it will likely continue to improve and become more adept at handling
complex tasks and interpreting context. The future holds exciting
possibilities for AI, but it's important to approach its development
with caution and consideration.
DianeE
2024-12-13 01:59:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sorry for top posting, but I'm writing a short reply to a very long post.
One thing CP didn't specifically mention is that it has a hard time
recognizing sarcasm and/or irony, which can lead it to give
crazy-sounding responses.
Post by RWC
Post by Bruce
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
While very unwise (for some time to come at least) it would be
theoretically possible to hand over a nation's military defense to AI.
could AI in future have the ability to understand context and nuance
in the same way humans can
AI has made significant strides in understanding context and nuance,
but it still has a long way to go before it can fully match human
1. **Current Capabilities**: AI can analyze large amounts of data,
recognize patterns, and make predictions based on that data. It can
understand context to a certain extent, especially in specific domains
like language translation or image recognition.
2. **Limitations**: AI lacks the ability to truly understand emotions,
cultural nuances, and the subtleties of human interactions. It
operates based on algorithms and data, which means it can miss the
deeper meanings and intentions behind human communication.
3. **Future Potential**: Advances in machine learning, natural
language processing, and neural networks are continuously improving
AI's ability to understand context and nuance. Researchers are working
on developing more sophisticated models that can better mimic human
thought processes.
4. **Ethical Considerations**: As AI becomes more advanced, it's
crucial to address ethical concerns, such as bias in AI systems and
the potential for misuse. Ensuring that AI is developed and used
responsibly is essential for its future growth.
While AI may never fully replicate the depth of human understanding,
it will likely continue to improve and become more adept at handling
complex tasks and interpreting context. The future holds exciting
possibilities for AI, but it's important to approach its development
with caution and consideration.
RWC
2024-12-13 03:33:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DianeE
Sorry for top posting, but I'm writing a short reply to a very long post.
One thing CP didn't specifically mention is that it has a hard time
recognizing sarcasm and/or irony, which can lead it to give
crazy-sounding responses.
who/what is CP?

44 lines is not a very long post :-)

Roger's Duets (etc) posts are approx. 130 lines
DianeE
2024-12-13 18:03:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by DianeE
Sorry for top posting, but I'm writing a short reply to a very long post.
One thing CP didn't specifically mention is that it has a hard time
recognizing sarcasm and/or irony, which can lead it to give
crazy-sounding responses.
who/what is CP?
------------
It's Co-Pilot, the entity you were talking to.
-----------
Post by RWC
44 lines is not a very long post :-)
Roger's Duets (etc) posts are approx. 130 lines
-----------
That's what I get for trying to be polite.
RWC
2024-12-14 05:36:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DianeE
Post by RWC
who/what is CP?
------------
It's Co-Pilot, the entity you were talking to.
Thanks, I do feel silly or worse, but I'll now know for evermore.
RWC
2024-12-13 02:46:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Question:

in broad terms can you give an example of an algorithm that would
enable a machine to learn and adapt

{note, an unchanging human-designed algorithm creates a model that
chages over time; *it's this model that is used in AI applications*}

Response:

Sure! One common example of an algorithm that enables machines to
learn and adapt is the **Supervised Learning** algorithm. Here's a
broad overview of how it works:

1. **Data Collection**: The algorithm starts with a dataset that
includes input data and corresponding output labels. For example,
for a spam email filter app/model, the input data could be emails,
and the output labels could be "spam" or "not spam."

2. **Training**: The algorithm analyzes this labeled data. It learns
the relationship between the input data and the output labels and
adjusts the model's parameters to minimize the error in its
predictions.

3. **Model Creation**: Once trained, the algorithm creates a model
that can predict the output for new, unseen input data. For instance,
the spam filter can now classify new emails as "spam" or "not spam"
based on what it learned during training.

4. **Evaluation**: The model's performance is evaluated using a
separate set of date {emails} that was not used during training. This
helps ensure that the model generalizes well to new data.

5. **Adaptation**: The model can be continuously updated with new
data to improve its accuracy and adapt to changing patterns. For
example, as new types of spam emails emerge, the spam filter can
learn to recognize them by incorporating new labeled examples into
its training data.

Supervised learning is widely used in various applications, such
as image recognition, speech recognition, and recommendation systems.
It's a powerful way for machines to learn from data and make accurate
predictions.
RWC
2024-12-13 03:12:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What is an AI "Recommendation System" (as mentioned under the
**Supervised Learning** algorithm post):

A recommendation system is a type of AI designed to suggest items to
users based on various factors. These systems are widely used in
various applications, such as e-commerce, streaming services, and
social media. Here are the main types of recommendation systems:

1. **Content-Based Filtering**:
- **How it works**: Recommends items similar to those the user has
liked in the past. It uses features of the items (like genre,
author, or keywords) to make suggestions.
- **Example**: A music streaming service recommending songs by the
same artist or in the same genre as the ones you've listened to.

2. **Collaborative Filtering**:
- **How it works**: Recommends items based on the preferences of
similar users. It finds patterns in user behavior and suggests
items that users with similar tastes have liked.
- **Example**: An online retailer suggesting products that other
users with similar purchase histories have bought.

3. **Hybrid Systems**:
- **How it works**: Combines multiple recommendation techniques to
improve accuracy and performance. It can merge content-based and
collaborative filtering methods.
- **Example**: A streaming service using both your viewing history
and the preferences of similar users to recommend movies.

4. **Knowledge-Based Systems**:
- **How it works**: Uses specific knowledge about the items and
user preferences to make recommendations. It often involves a
more rule-based approach.
- **Example**: A travel website recommending destinations based on
your stated preferences for activities, climate, and budget.

5. **Context-Aware Systems**:
- **How it works**: Takes into account the context of the user,
such as time of day, location, or device being used, to make more
relevant recommendations.
- **Example**: A restaurant app suggesting nearby dining options
based on your current location and the time of day.

Recommendation systems enhance user experience by providing
personalized suggestions, helping users discover new content or
products they might not have found otherwise.
BobRoman
2024-12-13 19:40:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Colegrove
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
I for one welcome our AI overlords.

--
BR
DCartrow
2024-12-13 20:48:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Yes, I can see that, what with Wilhelms gone, baby!!!
Roger
2024-12-13 20:50:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
One of my favorite sci-fi stories answers this question.

In "Answer" by Fredric Brown the most powerful AI enabled supercomputer
ever devised is switched on and the first question is asked of it---a
question that has been asked by every generation of Man for aeons.

The operator asks "IS THERE A GOD?"

The supercomputer answers "YES NOW THERE IS A GOD"

At which reply the fearful operator makes a move to switch off the
machine but a bolt of lightning from a cloudless sky strikes him
dead---and fuses the machine's switch to permanently "ON".
Bruce
2024-12-13 20:57:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
One of my favorite sci-fi stories answers this question.
In "Answer" by Fredric Brown the most powerful AI enabled supercomputer
ever devised is switched on and the first question is asked of it---a
question that has been asked by every generation of Man for aeons.
The operator asks "IS THERE A GOD?"
The supercomputer answers "YES NOW THERE IS A GOD"
At which reply the fearful operator makes a move to switch off the
machine but a bolt of lightning from a cloudless sky strikes him
dead---and fuses the machine's switch to permanently "ON".
You do know that the "FI" part stands for FICTION, right?

And WHY would the machine be outside? It's not gonna be on too long
before the rain shuts it off anyway.

--
bbug
2024-12-13 21:12:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
And WHY would the machine be outside? It's not gonna be on too long
before the rain shuts it off anyway.
I remember a bolt of lightning coming through my window and striking my
computer, which was inside.
Roger
2024-12-15 07:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Roger
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Post by Bruce
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly
with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
One of my favorite sci-fi stories answers this question.
In "Answer" by Fredric Brown the most powerful AI enabled supercomputer
ever devised is switched on and the first question is asked of it---a
question that has been asked by every generation of Man for aeons.
The operator asks "IS THERE A GOD?"
The supercomputer answers "YES NOW THERE IS A GOD"
At which reply the fearful operator makes a move to switch off the
machine but a bolt of lightning from a cloudless sky strikes him
dead---and fuses the machine's switch to permanently "ON".
You do know that the "FI" part stands for FICTION, right?
Yes of course. So?
Post by Bruce
And WHY would the machine be outside? It's not gonna be on too long
before the rain shuts it off anyway.
Nobody said it was "outside".I'm sure most people are aware that the
full effects of a powerful enough lightning strike (and this one is
coming from God himself) can often be very well felt INSIDE a building
Bruce
2024-12-15 15:55:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Nobody said it was "outside". I'm sure most people are aware that the
full effects of a powerful enough lightning strike (and this one is
coming from God himself)
god = fiction

--
DCartrow
2024-12-15 17:12:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You hope, baby!!
DianeE
2024-12-17 01:17:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DCartrow
You hope, baby!!
-----
I know it in my heart. Every cell in my body knows it.
I wish it were otherwise, but it can't be.
Bruce
2024-12-17 01:32:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DianeE
Post by DCartrow
You hope, baby!!
-----
I know it in my heart. Every cell in my body knows it.
I wish it were otherwise, but it can't be.
Why do you wish it were otherwise?

--
DianeE
2024-12-17 03:48:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by DCartrow
You hope, baby!!
-----
I know it in my heart.  Every cell in my body knows it.
I wish it were otherwise, but it can't be.
Why do you wish it were otherwise?
--
--------
I think I'd be happier if I believed someone infinitely good and smart
and loving was in charge of the universe.

Roger
2024-12-15 20:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Nobody said it was "outside". I'm sure most people are aware that the
full effects of a powerful enough lightning strike (and this one is
coming from God himself)
god = fiction
My feelings too but sadly thats all it is.....just feelings

I have no proof that God is fiction as neither do you
Jim Colegrove
2024-12-16 02:28:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Nobody said it was "outside". I'm sure most people are aware that the
full effects of a powerful enough lightning strike (and this one is
coming from God himself)
god = fiction
My feelings too but sadly thats all it is.....just feelings
I have no proof that God is fiction as neither do you
Thankfully, the burden of proof is not on me.
Bruce
2024-12-16 04:43:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Colegrove
Post by Roger
Post by Bruce
Nobody said it was "outside". I'm sure most people are aware that the
full effects of a powerful enough lightning strike (and this one is
coming from God himself)
god = fiction
My feelings too but sadly thats all it is.....just feelings
I have no proof that God is fiction as neither do you
Thankfully, the burden of proof is not on me.
Yup.

I also have no proof that there is not a giant orangutan in the sky that
controls everything on Earth.

--
Dean
2024-12-12 02:52:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
No matter how many times you repeat a bullshit argument, it's still a
bullshit argument.

WHAT MATTERS IS THE FUCKING HUMAN ELEMENT!!!

Why do I even bother explaining humanity to a sociopath? It's like
giving medicine to a corpse.
Bruce
2024-12-12 03:37:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dean
Post by Bruce
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
No matter how many times you repeat a bullshit argument, it's still a
bullshit argument.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE FUCKING HUMAN ELEMENT!!!
Why do I even bother explaining humanity to a sociopath? It's like
giving medicine to a corpse.
It's music. What matters is what it sounds like. Nothing else. But if
you want humanity, the human who uses AI to make the music is the
humanity.

If I am a producer what's the difference if I hire musicians and singers
and tell them what I want the record to sound like or if I tell a
computer what I want the record to sound like, giving it samples of
other music so it understands what kind of sounds I want?

I'm the humanity, using technology to achieve the sound I want. Just
because the technology has advanced now to where IT can make the music
without having to have living beings do it does not mean that is a bad
thing. I say it's a great thing.

I'd bet big money that you like some movies that included characters who
were not real life people, but computer simulated humans. Human actors
are just performing the words and writings of other humans. If a
computer simulated human can do as good or better job of that, why not?
It saves the producer lots of money and also he doesn't have to worry
about dealing with the egos of the actors, with actors being late, or
sick, or refusing to do certain things that are needed.

On the Frankie And Grace show Jane Fonda refused to say the words "Jesus
Christ" that were in the script in one episode and they had to do a
whole rewrite of the scene. That never happens with an AI simulated
character.

If I could master how to use these AI music programs I could make great
records that I could never make using people. The expense alone makes
using people impossible.

--
RWC
2024-12-12 10:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Dean
Post by Bruce
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
No matter how many times you repeat a bullshit argument, it's still a
bullshit argument.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE FUCKING HUMAN ELEMENT!!!
Why do I even bother explaining humanity to a sociopath? It's like
giving medicine to a corpse.
It's music. What matters is what it sounds like. Nothing else. But if
you want humanity, the human who uses AI to make the music is the
humanity.
Bruce, you can argue until the cows come home, but what these folk
want is the sound out of the speaker to come from an actual human.
Bruce
2024-12-12 04:03:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dean
Post by Bruce
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
No matter how many times you repeat a bullshit argument, it's still a
bullshit argument.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE FUCKING HUMAN ELEMENT!!!
Why do I even bother explaining humanity to a sociopath? It's like
giving medicine to a corpse.
The main thing that makes someone a sociopath is not having empathy when
bad things happen to other people. What does that have to do with this
discussion?

--
DianeE
2024-12-12 13:46:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bruce
Post by Dean
Post by Bruce
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
No matter how many times you repeat a bullshit argument, it's still a
bullshit argument.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE FUCKING HUMAN ELEMENT!!!
Why do I even bother explaining humanity to a sociopath? It's like
giving medicine to a corpse.
The main thing that makes someone a sociopath is not having empathy when
bad things happen to other people. What does that have to do with this
discussion?
--
------------
The dictionary definition of a sociopath is "someone with antisocial
personality disorder." (This is a formal DSM-3 diagnosis, not the
common colloquial use of "antisocial" to mean someone who avoids social
events.)

National Institutes of Health (U.S. government website) says:
"Antisocial personality disorder is a mental condition in which a person
has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the
rights of others without any remorse. This behavior may cause problems
in relationships or at work and is often associated with criminal behavior."

It goes on to say that arson and animal cruelty during childhood are
often warning signs of this disorder.

Dean, what you said was funny, but in no way literally true of Bruce.

Maybe Geoff. 🙂
RWC
2024-12-12 22:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DianeE
Post by Bruce
Post by Dean
Post by Bruce
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
No matter how many times you repeat a bullshit argument, it's still a
bullshit argument.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE FUCKING HUMAN ELEMENT!!!
Why do I even bother explaining humanity to a sociopath? It's like
giving medicine to a corpse.
The main thing that makes someone a sociopath is not having empathy when
bad things happen to other people. What does that have to do with this
discussion?
--
------------
The dictionary definition of a sociopath is "someone with antisocial
personality disorder." (This is a formal DSM-3 diagnosis, not the
common colloquial use of "antisocial" to mean someone who avoids social
events.)
"Antisocial personality disorder is a mental condition in which a person
has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the
rights of others without any remorse.
It goes on to say that arson and animal cruelty during childhood are
often warning signs of this disorder.
Dean, what you said was funny, but in no way literally true of Bruce.
Maybe Geoff. ?
Still peeved are we?
Ironically I've sometimes wondered about how *you* got along with
non-supervisory staff in your place of work - were they scared of you,
DianeE, when you were aged 40-65? (of course, if true you're not going
to admit that here).
bbug
2024-12-11 22:43:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dean
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is losing
its collective soul quickly enough.

AMEN!!!
Dean
2024-12-12 02:25:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It is beyond my capacity to explain certain things to certain people.
Among them:

- color to the blind;
- sound to the deaf;
- humanity to the sociopath.

So I won't bother to even try.
Dean
2024-12-13 00:53:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I want to live in a world where A.I. performs menial tasks and people
create books, music, and art. Tragically, we're going in the opposite
direction. I can't stop it, but I damned sure won't enable it by
consuming machine-made "art." I've read enough Isaac Asimov not to buy
into that corrosion.
Bruce
2024-12-13 02:18:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dean
I want to live in a world where A.I. performs menial tasks and people
create books, music, and art. Tragically, we're going in the opposite
direction. I can't stop it, but I damned sure won't enable it by
consuming machine-made "art." I've read enough Isaac Asimov not to buy
into that corrosion.
I hear the Unabomber's old cabin in Montana is available. You can move
there and get away from all of this horrible technology that he said was
going to ruin the world. You know, like the computer you just posted
this on, and that you use to download music from Youtube for free when
you want to do a countdown that includes records that you don't have.
You can live in the cabin with no electricity and no plumbing and read
the rest of Asimov by candlelight.

And you've already consumed lots of machine made art. Computers and
other machines have been part of recorded music for longer than you've
been alive already.

--
Loading...