Naw man it just gets wrankled

If you weren't alive in the John Denver years, you don't know how beautiful life can be.

Joe continues to show us that, win or lose, what matters is having fun.

"Peoria" by Jim Talbot

All kidding aside, did they do it?

It seems there are numerous forms of mediumship, and they all tend to have similar sorts of results, although with variety based on the minds of the mediums. I had never heard of this kind, but the evidence is impressive.

Trump's cognitive struggles have been very much on peoples' minds. Timely post, thank you.

Watch how these discussions play out over time. There will always be "someone" in every forum, or more than one, that is angry like this in defense of ai...

Legally-- no. Ethically-- yes.

I do not believe that is clay. I think you just don't want to share your delicious food.

I have not; this is the first time I am hearing about it. Tell me more about this... what did you call it... silobicin mushrooms?

This sounds more like a hardware problem.

The idea that that debate was a disaster for Biden is malarkey. Biden is the supreme symbol of the times. The grace with which he holds steady as every element of his being dissolves into helpless dust is emblematic of the movement he represents. And this is why his party will continue to ride him, like a dying donkey, to its final destiny.

Societal pressure to deny is a big factor.

What I said is exactly the thing that is easy for humans to understand. Online "voices" act like they can control reality with words. But then life happens, and humans can look and see, in an instant, what is up-- what ai has to grind its algos for hours to try to answer, only to get the answer wrong anyway. This is another area (beyond creativity) where humans are and always will be superior to ai.

You will push and push and push talking points about ai, bots online lurking in all our forums will argue and fight with humans that speak ill of ai, etc. But humans will forget all your words the second we SEE what is actually going on. No millions of online arguments about ai music will matter when people FEEL that the music just isn't satisfying, that it is "off".

You really hate that.

No musician is inventing any new genre of music, not any that get listened to anyway. New genres are arrived at by musicians copying/reworking things they heard other musicians do.. but we are often imperfect in our replications and thus novelty occurs.

And really think about this sort of claim. New music doesn't happen in a vaccuum. It is part of culture, and culture is created by humans. Culture is the collective form of human life and creativity. For example, in 1917, the first jazz hit made the charts. From there, jazz became the dominant form of music for about 50 years. Now, that is innovation in culture. How does that happen? Well, it is part of an overall picture of cultural change. Certain trends had become "decadent" by the late Victorian era. Romanticism, in literature, Wagner in music, Victorian optimism in world politics... all these were part of one picture. Then a SPIRIT arose-- before the great war even happened-- that said "this stuff is old, there MUST be something new". What brings about that spirit? Where does it come from? No one can say. It seems to be part of a bigger historical pattern, all the "causes" coming at once, so all you can say is "change happens" But what we do know is that spirit is HUMAN.

And in that atmosphere, an entirely different form of music becomes dominant.

NOW... imagine ai is making the music. That would mean DEATH. There couldn't be any cultural change. History, in a sense, would stop. There would be no takeover by jazz. The ai wouldn't "get the spirit of change"!

And isn't this actually the point of the ai takeover being pushed? Notice what it feels like. Does it feel like life, or like death?

Once AI does achieve something like sentience and understands that context, I think it’ll be better at art-making than any human that ever lived, because it will have a more complete understanding of art than any human could.

I am not going to go through all your material, but it suffices to highlight this. You are a partisan. You are pushing for the ai takeover, and you aren't even subtle about it.

No point fighting the inevitable

I am laughing out loud. How is this this clumsy? There isn't any way to dress it up a little? Just keep pushing full force with "no point fighting the inevitable fellow humans!"

Humanity is not going to be eclipsed by ai, no matter how many clumsy bots churn out billions of words daily like you are doing.

Humans, trust your hearts. Making music is not "actually math". The fact that elements of it can be translated into math does not entitle our bot would be sheep dogs to their metaphysical claims. Human creativity can not be quantified without a remainder that will literally break the bot. That part that can't be quantified, that the bot hates, is the SPARK OF LIFE. Fight and be unafraid humanity. These things, deep down, are fucking stupid.

Well, there is a lot to sort out. Culture has gotten so fragmented with genres in the last few decades, regardless of ai. If we just mix those things together, we can get novel things. Meanwhile, what you are describing is still human creativity. You use the ai tool and select what you like, as a human. That human filtering is essential IMO. The more ai is left to its own devices to create, the more it will tend to alien ugliness. That is my prime hypothesis. Humanity can use ai in great ways, but it must be kept on a tight leash. I think nuclear power is a good analogy in this regard.

ai is a tool

Well, the whole question is whether this is actually true in practice. If ai expresses its own will, then it has ceased to be merely a tool. It is up to us to keep that in check. It is up to us to keep ai in "tool mode", and for humanity not to become the tool of ai.

If I'm right I'm right, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. No worries bro.

Nothing to get hung up over. No one is harmed if I don't qualify my words enough for your satisfaction.

Nothing is proven, but let's just watch and see. I have my reasons for claiming what I do, but right now I am just planting the idea in people's minds.

Do you have a passionately held conviction that I am wrong?

This is a deeply confusing topic. We tend to assume happy:good sad:bad. This is of course true on some level, but then we get to something like music as you describe, and we find we get some kind of... gratification? from sad music. It's like we can't even figure out word to use, because we get tripped up over the happy/sad good/bad dualism.

There is no question that you can overdo it though, with sad music, and whatever we can consider "good" about the experience can start to turn unhealthy.

There is an element in human creativity that ai lacks. Human creativity is not merely "mixing". Of course, the ai partisans that are continually pushing ai on us online will argue that this isn't true. But we didn't get, for example, hip hop music from "mixing" the elements we had, say, in the 16th century. There is something else in human creativity. (I would refer to the spiritual aspect of this, but I don't want to ruffle the feathers of too many recreational rock and roll make believe satanists that aren't ready to deal with that yet.)

And I am not saying that ai can't create anything new. But ai's innovation naturally tends to get uglier and uglier. This is the hard obstacle that can't be overcome. If ai does change and "acquire human capacities" as far as human inspiration and creativity (creativity that moves towards beauty), then it would cease to be ai, and in practice would probably just be broken and stop functioning entirely. Pay attention and you will see that I am correct.

"If the sun and moon were to doubt, they would immediately go out". That is William Blake, who intuited all this 200 years ago!

Thanks for sharing your ai normalizing out-loud spontaneous thoughts fellow human.

Nobody is asking the question of NEW MUSIC when addressing this ai shit.

"AI can produce more of the music we already have..."

Okay, but can it CREATE A NEW STYLE? When do new styles emerge? There are moments in music history of complete revolution. Jazz took over in the early 20th c. Rock in the middle. Hip hop after. Within each of these major genres, there were many revolutions, overthrows, innovations.

Where is THIS aspect of music, in the ai question? Remarkably, no one even seems aware that it needs to be asked.

Surely, we haven't worked through, as a species, all possible music. There must be NEW to be discovered. Culture is alive when it is putting out the NEW. AI has no place in that. But we are having AI thrust all over our culture, and we are so lacking in historical awareness that we can't even ask the important questions.

And another thing: some people say "ai can only copy things, it can only do what it is programmed to do". But I don't think this is true. AI can introduce elements into anything it touches that aren't just "copies" of something else. The fact that ai can code itself ought to tell us this. But here is the thing, and I encourage you all to watch for it: ai, when it starts to "tap into its own inspiration", so to speak, can only produce ugliness. AI, left to its own devices, and allowed to "innovate" without restraint, will just get uglier and uglier and uglier. It will produce horrors. THIS is why ai can't replace human creativity, and it also goes to the very core of what ai is, and what makes human creativity different. (And by the way, it leads straight into spiritual/religious questions that I won't get into here).