4 ms·

With hundreds of thousands of semi-professional and amateur musicians competing on the Internet for their 15 minutes of fame, getting film or computer game scor

With hundreds of thousands of semi-professional and amateur musicians competing on the Internet for their 15 minutes of fame, getting film or computer game score just isn't a real problem. Besides, this is already doable, without neural networks. E.g. Karma[1]. The fact that most "AI music" enthusiasts don't know/care about such systems is a clear indicator that they aren't really interested in music or helping creators and just want to shove AI in yet another niche where it doesn't belong, then pat themselves on the back for contributing to "progress". Further commodification of what's left of out popular culture isn't something anyone should be excited about. I just can't wait for the endless wave of trite "style blends" and the inevitable "oh, but all human music is garbage anyway" justification. [1] https://www.karma-lab.com/ https://www.karma-lab.com/ Edit: Also, some people don't seem to be aware of it either, but there is already a full-fledged genre of generative music where artists use anything from analog circuits[2] to randomized or algorithmic sequencers/arpeggiators[3] to custom-built digital devices[4] for creating entire tracks. Of course, the point of generative music usually isn't to replace the artist, it's to shift their focus. [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Hr4wBRbaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Hr4wBRbaY [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n6-4buAkts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n6-4buAkts [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KdTIUlGULk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KdTIUlGULk

Permit 8y ago
>just want to shove AI in yet another niche where it doesn't belong and then pat themselves on the back for contributing to "progress". Can you elaborate on why AI doesn't belong in this niche? The results are too good? The results are not good enough?
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  The results are meaningless. This isn't chess or go, where you either win or you don't. Chopin composed for a reason, and it wasn't just an excuse to throw a lot of notes at the page. It might be possible for AI to work at that level someday, but it's not just a technical problem, and you won't be able to solve it by throwing a corpus of compositions at it. Aside from that, this still sounds like aimless noodling. It's far more polished noodling with some awareness of genre cliches, but it's still essentially aimless - and so meaningless.
  - Permit 8y ago
    >This isn't chess or go, where you either win or you don't. Chopin composed for a reason, and it wasn't just an excuse to throw a lot of notes at the page. I disagree based on your following quote: > Aside from that, this still sounds like aimless noodling. It's far more polished noodling with some awareness of genre cliches, but it's still essentially aimless - and so meaningless. This sort of problem can easily be reframed as a win or lose problem, we simply consider whether the music sounds good or not. More concretely: would this music be able to convince you that a gifted human composer created it? I'm fine with the answer being no, but I don't understand why the original comment I replied to wrote off the entire exercise. No we may not be there yet, but this seems like a good step forward to me.
    - erichocean 8y ago
      > More concretely: would this music be able to convince you that a gifted human composer created it? Would a computer? If it could, then in theory it could use that as an optimization goal...
      - trexmix 8y ago
        Yes, that is what he is saying...
    - AkshatM 8y ago
      I think the core difference of opinion here seems to stem from a different interpretation of "meaningless". You're arguing an academic definition of meaningful: can you design an AI that solves a hard problem? gambler (and I think TheOtherHobbes, who you are replying to) are arguing a practical definition of meaningful: does it solve a problem people actually have? It's neat that you can make artificial music, but actually generating music, per gambler's original comment, isn't a problem people have. It also doesn't actually add too much to culture. Essentially, the results are "meaningless" in that, even if it was successful at sounding good, what value would it actually have besides novelty?
      - 8y ago

Permit 8y ago

>just want to shove AI in yet another niche where it doesn't belong and then pat themselves on the back for contributing to "progress". Can you elaborate on why AI doesn't belong in this niche? The results are too good? The results are not good enough?

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
The results are meaningless. This isn't chess or go, where you either win or you don't. Chopin composed for a reason, and it wasn't just an excuse to throw a lot of notes at the page. It might be possible for AI to work at that level someday, but it's not just a technical problem, and you won't be able to solve it by throwing a corpus of compositions at it. Aside from that, this still sounds like aimless noodling. It's far more polished noodling with some awareness of genre cliches, but it's still essentially aimless - and so meaningless.
- Permit 8y ago
  >This isn't chess or go, where you either win or you don't. Chopin composed for a reason, and it wasn't just an excuse to throw a lot of notes at the page. I disagree based on your following quote: > Aside from that, this still sounds like aimless noodling. It's far more polished noodling with some awareness of genre cliches, but it's still essentially aimless - and so meaningless. This sort of problem can easily be reframed as a win or lose problem, we simply consider whether the music sounds good or not. More concretely: would this music be able to convince you that a gifted human composer created it? I'm fine with the answer being no, but I don't understand why the original comment I replied to wrote off the entire exercise. No we may not be there yet, but this seems like a good step forward to me.
  - erichocean 8y ago
    > More concretely: would this music be able to convince you that a gifted human composer created it? Would a computer? If it could, then in theory it could use that as an optimization goal...
    - trexmix 8y ago
      Yes, that is what he is saying...
  - AkshatM 8y ago
    I think the core difference of opinion here seems to stem from a different interpretation of "meaningless". You're arguing an academic definition of meaningful: can you design an AI that solves a hard problem? gambler (and I think TheOtherHobbes, who you are replying to) are arguing a practical definition of meaningful: does it solve a problem people actually have? It's neat that you can make artificial music, but actually generating music, per gambler's original comment, isn't a problem people have. It also doesn't actually add too much to culture. Essentially, the results are "meaningless" in that, even if it was successful at sounding good, what value would it actually have besides novelty?
    - 8y ago