5 ms·

Is it just me or it really sounds like a randomly generated chord progression that barely makes any musical sense?

by mojuba 10y ago

nkozyra 10y ago
"Musical sense" is a pretty subjective thing, which I suspect is one of the primary issues with artificial creativity. That said, assuming training data comes from music with progressions that could be broadly classified as 'popular music,' you would expect to find some regression to the mean with more production and deeper training data. (to abuse a phrase) One other issue that I think will come up is how insular and unevolving artificial creativity will be if it's based on present music for training data. What has historically moved creative trends is disruption; sometimes it's a slow burn and sometimes it's a few catalysts, but experimentation in artificial creativity will be hard to come by early on but quickly needed if it's to supplant human creativity.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  The statistical approach is painfully naive and doesn't work - as is obvious from the example. It's like feeding a net with the complete works of Shakespeare and expecting it to produce a genius-level original play. It's simply not going to happen.
  - nkozyra 10y ago
    The issue is not with the statistical but with the parameters around the output and the organization of training data.
    - zeveb 10y ago
      I think that your assumption is that the genius of Shakespeare's plays can be statistically reproduced through sufficiently-clever organisation. That is not obviously true to me. Some things are just art, capable of being truly understood only by a creature with a head and heart, arms & legs, love & hate, emotions, experiences — in short, a man.
      - naasking 10y ago
        So you're saying humans are not just cleverly organised statistical automata? If so, science would disagree with that position.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - nkozyra 10y ago
        Art is about perception not creation. If autonomously created art produces the same perception and evocative response, it sufficiently passes that test. An autonomous agent doesn't need to understand the underlying emotion, it just needs to mimic it. A autonomous car doesn't know why it shouldn't hit a child that jumps into its path, or why it is making any decisions at all despite those being some of the most important and fundamental to humans on earth. It just needs to reproduce the actions of a human that does understand those things. Yes, I believe that artificial creativity will produce art will be indistinguishable from that made by humans.
raldi 10y ago
Oh, that's just because the input image wasn't good enough.
scottlegrand2 10y ago
Sounds a lot like songsmith to me... http://songsmith.ms/download.html http://songsmith.ms/download.html

Is it just me or it really sounds like a randomly generated chord progression that barely makes any musical sense?

by mojuba 10y ago

Is it just me or it really sounds like a randomly generated chord progression that barely makes any musical sense?

"Musical sense" is a pretty subjective thing, which I suspect is one of the primary issues with artificial creativity. That said, assuming training data comes from music with progressions that could be broadly classified as 'popular music,' you would expect to find some regression to the mean with more production and deeper training data. (to abuse a phrase) One other issue that I think will come up is how insular and unevolving artificial creativity will be if it's based on present music for training data. What has historically moved creative trends is disruption; sometimes it's a slow burn and sometimes it's a few catalysts, but experimentation in artificial creativity will be hard to come by early on but quickly needed if it's to supplant human creativity.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
The statistical approach is painfully naive and doesn't work - as is obvious from the example. It's like feeding a net with the complete works of Shakespeare and expecting it to produce a genius-level original play. It's simply not going to happen.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  The issue is not with the statistical but with the parameters around the output and the organization of training data.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    I think that your assumption is that the genius of Shakespeare's plays can be statistically reproduced through sufficiently-clever organisation. That is not obviously true to me. Some things are just art, capable of being truly understood only by a creature with a head and heart, arms & legs, love & hate, emotions, experiences — in short, a man.
    - naasking 10y ago
      So you're saying humans are not just cleverly organised statistical automata? If so, science would disagree with that position.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - nkozyra 10y ago
      Art is about perception not creation. If autonomously created art produces the same perception and evocative response, it sufficiently passes that test. An autonomous agent doesn't need to understand the underlying emotion, it just needs to mimic it. A autonomous car doesn't know why it shouldn't hit a child that jumps into its path, or why it is making any decisions at all despite those being some of the most important and fundamental to humans on earth. It just needs to reproduce the actions of a human that does understand those things. Yes, I believe that artificial creativity will produce art will be indistinguishable from that made by humans.

raldi 10y ago

Oh, that's just because the input image wasn't good enough.

scottlegrand2 10y ago

Sounds a lot like songsmith to me... http://songsmith.ms/download.html http://songsmith.ms/download.html