5 ms·

Some of us, yes, some of us, no?

SubiculumCode 9y ago
Shall I refine the question then? Would Beethoven, Chopin, or the Beatles be happy if a computer churned out equivalent masterpieces?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rexreed 9y ago
  Define equivalent? I'm sure they had competition in their day.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- itsgreene 9y ago
  The best answer I've heard to this and your previous question was at a QandA with Dr. Daniel J. Levitin. His answer was to a question "Is there any music that can make everyone upset or unhappy?" His answer was that in all his research the only music that can make someone upset or unhappy, was music the listener didn't like. It's 100 percent listener preference. The same was true for music a person did like. Unfortunately, the only way we could find out if Beethoven, Chopin, or the Beatles like the music is to ask them. I'm sure we'll find both support and disdain from the music community on AI generated music. Time will tell if there is a major preference on either side. Dr. Levitin has some really interesting research on music, but also has some great easier to read books for those of us without a neuroscience degree. My favorite is called this is your brain on music. The world in 6 songs was also a great read. http://daniellevitin.com/publicpage/ http://daniellevitin.com/publicpage/
  - dwringer 9y ago
    I wonder how relevant this perspective is to the discussion going on at [1]. Particularly, I am curious how people interpret the notion that a deep learning system could predict a person's musical preferences by their facial features. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15219906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15219906
    - jradd 9y ago
      Also, there are patents available for deterministic models based off of neurophysiological response data obtained from various sensors (primarily heart/pulse, galvanic capacitance of the skin, body temperature). One model mentioned in the patent uses Nigel Osborne's INRM (Innate Neuro-physiological Response to Music) paradigm to make predictions.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - dwringer 9y ago
        "Also?" I was only bringing the subject up for discussion - I think it would be ridiculous to suggest that facial features could actually predict a person's musical tastes. These tastes change in some people from day to day or even minute to minute. People also subjectively evaluate music very differently, even when it's music they enjoy listening to. As for those patents, I would caution against interpreting them to mean a person's musical preferences can be inferred or exploited in this way. Merely evoking a physical response is not the same as satisfying a person's preference or desire. Particularly, a physical response can happen in the absence of a person's consent to receive the stimulus, and in rape trials this is legally recognized to exclude evidence of such a physical response from being used by the defense.
- tw1010 9y ago
  That's not refining the question, that's completely redefining it.
- visarga 9y ago
  We don't need to churn out more of it, we can't raise to the level of the current supply of music. What we need is more power to appreciate genres of music, not more music. Have you tried researching classical music on YT? I have done that intensely, for about 7 years, and I can tell you that I didn't get to listen to more than 1%. There are thousands of composers with hundreds of thousands of pieces and millions of interpretations. If we create computer music it will be done to expand the space of creativity, as usual. Classical music is particularly daring in breaking its molds and expanding to new forms. My favorite imagination game is to pretend I am listening a contemporary piece together with Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven and watching their reactions. So I am doing in my head a simulation of the old masters, like AI is doing, except that I am trying to listen from their perspective instead of trying to create more music in their style.
  - brooklyn_ashey 9y ago
    i don't get this at all. we need music that is about who we are now, and what new sounds we can make and imply and expect and imagine. technology has changed that just like the modern violin bow did for romantic era violinists, computers did for Varese, Antheil, and Percy Grainger, autotune did for Cher, hammond b3 did for jazz, trains did for Honnegger, race riots and loopers did for Strve Reich and on and on... we are at a different launch pad with ML, one that might allow us to shift the focus of our musical labor and practice, one that might allow more diversity in just who gets to make music (hopefully more people who would not otherwise afford to, for one)and more openness in what is called music, in what we consider to be legit instruments. why can't we use all sounds more accessibly like instruments? Why can't we hear how children might hear (usually because they have not yet learned technique) -perhaps our whole concept of what sound and music actually means could change... but first we have to wear ourselves out with all the Bach/Taylor Swift/Ligeti hybrids until we see how shallow that feels to be trapped in that space. Then, a new concept will emerge. I think it's machine learning that might actually get us there- to the end of justified by labor where the real art is. I think we should face the fear we seem to have that we might not actually have ideas--- that's where the art is. Not in a Miles Davis/Mozart hybrid.
    - 9y ago

Shall I refine the question then? Would Beethoven, Chopin, or the Beatles be happy if a computer churned out equivalent masterpieces?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rexreed 9y ago
Define equivalent? I'm sure they had competition in their day.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
itsgreene 9y ago
The best answer I've heard to this and your previous question was at a QandA with Dr. Daniel J. Levitin. His answer was to a question "Is there any music that can make everyone upset or unhappy?" His answer was that in all his research the only music that can make someone upset or unhappy, was music the listener didn't like. It's 100 percent listener preference. The same was true for music a person did like. Unfortunately, the only way we could find out if Beethoven, Chopin, or the Beatles like the music is to ask them. I'm sure we'll find both support and disdain from the music community on AI generated music. Time will tell if there is a major preference on either side. Dr. Levitin has some really interesting research on music, but also has some great easier to read books for those of us without a neuroscience degree. My favorite is called this is your brain on music. The world in 6 songs was also a great read. http://daniellevitin.com/publicpage/ http://daniellevitin.com/publicpage/
- dwringer 9y ago
  I wonder how relevant this perspective is to the discussion going on at [1]. Particularly, I am curious how people interpret the notion that a deep learning system could predict a person's musical preferences by their facial features. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15219906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15219906
  - jradd 9y ago
    Also, there are patents available for deterministic models based off of neurophysiological response data obtained from various sensors (primarily heart/pulse, galvanic capacitance of the skin, body temperature). One model mentioned in the patent uses Nigel Osborne's INRM (Innate Neuro-physiological Response to Music) paradigm to make predictions.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dwringer 9y ago
      "Also?" I was only bringing the subject up for discussion - I think it would be ridiculous to suggest that facial features could actually predict a person's musical tastes. These tastes change in some people from day to day or even minute to minute. People also subjectively evaluate music very differently, even when it's music they enjoy listening to. As for those patents, I would caution against interpreting them to mean a person's musical preferences can be inferred or exploited in this way. Merely evoking a physical response is not the same as satisfying a person's preference or desire. Particularly, a physical response can happen in the absence of a person's consent to receive the stimulus, and in rape trials this is legally recognized to exclude evidence of such a physical response from being used by the defense.
tw1010 9y ago
That's not refining the question, that's completely redefining it.
visarga 9y ago
We don't need to churn out more of it, we can't raise to the level of the current supply of music. What we need is more power to appreciate genres of music, not more music. Have you tried researching classical music on YT? I have done that intensely, for about 7 years, and I can tell you that I didn't get to listen to more than 1%. There are thousands of composers with hundreds of thousands of pieces and millions of interpretations. If we create computer music it will be done to expand the space of creativity, as usual. Classical music is particularly daring in breaking its molds and expanding to new forms. My favorite imagination game is to pretend I am listening a contemporary piece together with Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven and watching their reactions. So I am doing in my head a simulation of the old masters, like AI is doing, except that I am trying to listen from their perspective instead of trying to create more music in their style.
- brooklyn_ashey 9y ago
  i don't get this at all. we need music that is about who we are now, and what new sounds we can make and imply and expect and imagine. technology has changed that just like the modern violin bow did for romantic era violinists, computers did for Varese, Antheil, and Percy Grainger, autotune did for Cher, hammond b3 did for jazz, trains did for Honnegger, race riots and loopers did for Strve Reich and on and on... we are at a different launch pad with ML, one that might allow us to shift the focus of our musical labor and practice, one that might allow more diversity in just who gets to make music (hopefully more people who would not otherwise afford to, for one)and more openness in what is called music, in what we consider to be legit instruments. why can't we use all sounds more accessibly like instruments? Why can't we hear how children might hear (usually because they have not yet learned technique) -perhaps our whole concept of what sound and music actually means could change... but first we have to wear ourselves out with all the Bach/Taylor Swift/Ligeti hybrids until we see how shallow that feels to be trapped in that space. Then, a new concept will emerge. I think it's machine learning that might actually get us there- to the end of justified by labor where the real art is. I think we should face the fear we seem to have that we might not actually have ideas--- that's where the art is. Not in a Miles Davis/Mozart hybrid.
  - 9y ago