3 ms·

To answer that question, it is necessary to answer the question "why did we want actual human singers in the past?" If you think it is because there was no alt

To answer that question, it is necessary to answer the question "why did we want actual human singers in the past?" If you think it is because there was no alternative, then you will see no barriers to the adoption of the sort of system you imagine. But if you think it is because all human art is a form (however weird, tangled and opaque) of story telling, and for it to work, the person experiencing the art needs to be believe that there must be a story to be told, then your imagined system is not that interesting. However, we are seeing an overwhelming propensity even today for people (even people who ought to know better) to ascribe intentionality and even emotion to computer systems that demonstrably do not have it (and as far back as Eliza in the 1970s). It seems likely to me that most people will rapidly come to believe in a sufficiently intentional and emtional backstory to your putative wunder-singer that their belief will satisfy their desire for "a person behind the art".

civilitty 3y ago
With multimodal vocal-LLMs we’ll be able to prompt any kind of personality to the singer. “You are a castrato who sailed with Black Beard and survived the holocaust with a degree in Klingon studies from Oxbridge…”
anileated 3y ago
Whether a machine can sing like a human does not matter much as far as appreciation of art: all art is self-expression, and self-expression always requires a self to express and a self to receive. Someone programmed the voice to sing something to someone for some reason. Both human and software-generated singing exist today, and either can be boring nonsense or speak to you and leave an emotional impact. (That said, if said machine is actually a derivative work produced from vocal samples without appropriate licensing, that’d make it dubious legally or morally. To my knowledge, preexisting software-generated singing like Vocaloid does not suffer from this problem.)
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  The production of art demonstrably does not require a self. The production of art that people want to experience probably requires a self, but may only require the belief that a self was involved. The experience of art requires a self, as do all experiences.
  - anileated 3y ago
    If your definition of art includes things made without a self, a thinking mind with intention and agency then go ahead and ponder how the Sun and human DNA are art, I’ll wait for when you come back with a new definition.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      that there can be art made without a self does not imply that anything made without a self is art. that there are things made which are art does not imply that anything made is art. that things can be made does not imply that everything is made.
      - anileated 3y ago
        You are welcome to produce a definition that separates those things. You have seen my definition. By definition an act of self-expression cannot occur without a self. Without clarifying what makes something art, your claim that art can be something produced without a self (i.e., is not self-expression) demotes art to the level of “any random thing”.

civilitty 3y ago

With multimodal vocal-LLMs we’ll be able to prompt any kind of personality to the singer. “You are a castrato who sailed with Black Beard and survived the holocaust with a degree in Klingon studies from Oxbridge…”

anileated 3y ago

Whether a machine can sing like a human does not matter much as far as appreciation of art: all art is self-expression, and self-expression always requires a self to express and a self to receive. Someone programmed the voice to sing something to someone for some reason. Both human and software-generated singing exist today, and either can be boring nonsense or speak to you and leave an emotional impact. (That said, if said machine is actually a derivative work produced from vocal samples without appropriate licensing, that’d make it dubious legally or morally. To my knowledge, preexisting software-generated singing like Vocaloid does not suffer from this problem.)

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
The production of art demonstrably does not require a self. The production of art that people want to experience probably requires a self, but may only require the belief that a self was involved. The experience of art requires a self, as do all experiences.
- anileated 3y ago
  If your definition of art includes things made without a self, a thinking mind with intention and agency then go ahead and ponder how the Sun and human DNA are art, I’ll wait for when you come back with a new definition.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    that there can be art made without a self does not imply that anything made without a self is art. that there are things made which are art does not imply that anything made is art. that things can be made does not imply that everything is made.
    - anileated 3y ago
      You are welcome to produce a definition that separates those things. You have seen my definition. By definition an act of self-expression cannot occur without a self. Without clarifying what makes something art, your claim that art can be something produced without a self (i.e., is not self-expression) demotes art to the level of “any random thing”.