Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

TSBU wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1jL8A20H_k

Your arguments are pictures and "I know more"

Ok, letss talk with facts. by the way, the song I posted, was done by an AI (nearly entire).
1. They can't do it now.
2. We don't know enough to know what exactly are they going to do.

I know some things about AI, enough to see that you ]

"AI" is a misnomer.

I'm sure you and Philx will be happy together in the Twilight Zone.

Better than your dreamworld.

PhilX

Scotland:

https://www.inverse.com/article/24311-s ... fe?amp&amp

PhilX

Since there's a big discussion about robots, I decided to look up its online definition:

"ro·bot
ˈrōˌbät,ˈrōbət/
noun
a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.
synonyms: automaton, android, golem; More
(especially in science fiction) a machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically.
synonyms: automaton, android, golem; More
used to refer to a person who behaves in a mechanical or unemotional manner.
'public servants are not expected to be mindless robots' "

By definition, a driverless car can be regarded as a robot or even human-driven can be a robot, a washing machine, a blender, a smart microwave, an airplane (can Hobbsy fly better than a plane?), etc.

Anybody can be replaced by a robot.

PhilX

Hobbes' Choice wrote: writing music worth listening to.

I have to agree, so far I haven't heard any music composed by a computer that was worth listening to or that couldn't be done better by a human composer. However I have met some people who can't tell the difference, and they might like computer generated music.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: writing music worth listening to.

I have to agree, so far I haven't heard any music composed by a computer that was worth listening to or that couldn't be done better by a human composer. However I have met some people who can't tell the difference, and they might like computer generated music.

LOL Yeah I've me those people too, usually after a couple of tabs of E.
But even the worst kind of rave/garage/house is made by humans even if it can't be performed by them.
For me this stuff that is unperformable does not really qualify as music.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: writing music worth listening to.

I have to agree, so far I haven't heard any music composed by a computer that was worth listening to or that couldn't be done better by a human composer. However I have met some people who can't tell the difference, and they might like computer generated music.

LOL Yeah I've me those people too, usually after a couple of tabs of E.
But even the worst kind of rave/garage/house is made by humans even if it can't be performed by them.
For me this stuff that is unperformable does not really qualify as music.

All this is not to say that a human always produces good music, I've heard some foisted on the listening public that was barely listenable, let alone good. One place I notice this a lot is in the newer Hymnals that are being printed. Some of the Hymns sound like the composer was tone deaf but sat down with a formula of elements that should be included in the Hymn, and if he could check off all the boxes, he thought it was a good Hymn. Perhaps that is what a computer would produce, the programmer provides it with a check list of elements and once the computer has incorporated all the elements it's done.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:
I have to agree, so far I haven't heard any music composed by a computer that was worth listening to or that couldn't be done better by a human composer. However I have met some people who can't tell the difference, and they might like computer generated music.

LOL Yeah I've me those people too, usually after a couple of tabs of E.
But even the worst kind of rave/garage/house is made by humans even if it can't be performed by them.
For me this stuff that is unperformable does not really qualify as music.

All this is not to say that a human always produces good music, I've heard some foisted on the listening public that was barely listenable, let alone good. One place I notice this a lot is in the newer Hymnals that are being printed. Some of the Hymns sound like the composer was tone deaf but sat down with a formula of elements that should be included in the Hymn, and if he could check off all the boxes, he thought it was a good Hymn. Perhaps that is what a computer would produce, the programmer provides it with a check list of elements and once the computer has incorporated all the elements it's done.

What's important here is that some great music can be misunderstood by some people and some bad music can be liked by others. None of this can ever apply to a machine, and they cannot have any interest or understanding of music.
Were they effectively programmed to produce it, they would only have a hit by complete accident as they would have no power of discrimination beyond that already programmed by human feeling and interest.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:
I have to agree, so far I haven't heard any music composed by a computer that was worth listening to or that couldn't be done better by a human composer. However I have met some people who can't tell the difference, and they might like computer generated music.

LOL Yeah I've me those people too, usually after a couple of tabs of E.
But even the worst kind of rave/garage/house is made by humans even if it can't be performed by them.
For me this stuff that is unperformable does not really qualify as music.

All this is not to say that a human always produces good music, I've heard some foisted on the listening public that was barely listenable, let alone good. One place I notice this a lot is in the newer Hymnals that are being printed. Some of the Hymns sound like the composer was tone deaf but sat down with a formula of elements that should be included in the Hymn, and if he could check off all the boxes, he thought it was a good Hymn. Perhaps that is what a computer would produce, the programmer provides it with a check list of elements and once the computer has incorporated all the elements it's done.

You may find this interesting doc:

http://qz.com/844149/a-deaf-musician-is ... ual-music/

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/studio-b ... sic-centre

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
LOL Yeah I've me those people too, usually after a couple of tabs of E.
But even the worst kind of rave/garage/house is made by humans even if it can't be performed by them.
For me this stuff that is unperformable does not really qualify as music.

All this is not to say that a human always produces good music, I've heard some foisted on the listening public that was barely listenable, let alone good. One place I notice this a lot is in the newer Hymnals that are being printed. Some of the Hymns sound like the composer was tone deaf but sat down with a formula of elements that should be included in the Hymn, and if he could check off all the boxes, he thought it was a good Hymn. Perhaps that is what a computer would produce, the programmer provides it with a check list of elements and once the computer has incorporated all the elements it's done.

You may find this interesting doc:

http://qz.com/844149/a-deaf-musician-is ... ual-music/

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/studio-b ... sic-centre

PhilX

Interesting but not in the slightest bit relevant

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

thedoc wrote:
All this is not to say that a human always produces good music, I've heard some foisted on the listening public that was barely listenable, let alone good. One place I notice this a lot is in the newer Hymnals that are being printed. Some of the Hymns sound like the composer was tone deaf but sat down with a formula of elements that should be included in the Hymn, and if he could check off all the boxes, he thought it was a good Hymn. Perhaps that is what a computer would produce, the programmer provides it with a check list of elements and once the computer has incorporated all the elements it's done.

You may find this interesting doc:

http://qz.com/844149/a-deaf-musician-is ... ual-music/

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/studio-b ... sic-centre

PhilX

Interesting but not in the slightest bit relevant

You're a great example of posting off-topic comments. And your name isn't doc.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: And your name isn't doc.

PhilX

Be thankful for small favors.

thedoc wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: And your name isn't doc.

PhilX

Be thankful for small favors.

I most certainly will doc.

PhilX

This article relates to the thread and mirrors what I've been saying:

http://trendintech.com/2016/11/26/the-r ... elligence/

PhilX

More government stupidity,

http://trendintech.com/2016/11/23/no-mo ... ical-cars/

thedoc wrote:More government stupidity,

http://trendintech.com/2016/11/23/no-mo ... ical-cars/

It shows how concerned people are regarding safety who are very sensitive. I may have posted this article onto my driverless car thread.

PhilX