If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On May 25, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ): On 5/25/2018 11:38 PM, Bill W wrote: On Fri, 25 May 2018 18:04:37 -0700, Savageduck wrote: I am sure that we will have at least one of the regular participants in this NG who will state that AI is going to be the future for all things creative be it music, or photography. Ray Kurzweil doesn't post here, and he's the only one crazy enough to think that AI will match human functioning. People who are honest about these things know that AI has severe limitations, and probably always will. The issue is whether the potential poster referred to by the Duck actually has an honest belief, or will post just to start an argument. Check the thread. The potential poster I suspected has already made his presence known. He made some nice synths, though. Yes he did. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
In article , Bill W
wrote: I am sure that we will have at least one of the regular participants in this NG who will state that AI is going to be the future for all things creative be it music, or photography. Ray Kurzweil doesn't post here, and he's the only one crazy enough to think that AI will match human functioning. he's not the only one to think that, and he's right. he also has an incredibly good track record of predicting things that have turned out to be true, and approximately when he thought they would. People who are honest about these things know that AI has severe limitations, and probably always will. people who are honest about these things know that it very definitely will. He made some nice synths, though. yes he did, among many other things. in 1965, while in high school, he designed and built a computer that composed music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Neivqp2K4 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On Fri, 25 May 2018 20:54:40 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Nothing new there. It is well established that music can be created by AI. What is lacking is the human nuance. I doubt that AI will ever produce a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi. there's no requirement that it should. there are many more composers in this world than just those three. Well, maybe it will, but it will be a long time. where 'a long time' is 'now': https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...chine-listens- to-bach-then-writes-its-own-music-in-the-same-style/ These guys have developed a neural network that has learned to produce choral cantatas in the style of Bach. They call their machine DeepBach (see also ³AI Songsmith Cranks Out Surprisingly Catchy Tunes²). You miss my point. I wasn't reffing to mere copying. All of those composers broke new ground and have left a lasting impression. Thomas Tallis is another. ... To find out, the team asked more than 1,600 people to listen two different harmonies of the same melody. More than 400 of them were professional musicians or music students. ... When given a DeepBach-generated harmony, around half the voters judged that it was composed by Bach. That¹s significantly higher than with music generated by any other algorithm. ³We consider this to be a good score knowing the complexity of Bach¹s compositions,² say Hadjeres and Pachet. Even when confronted with music composed by Bach himself, participants only judged that correctly 75 percent of the time. and that's just one example. And just consider what modern pop music has done with Bach. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On Sat, 26 May 2018 00:57:48 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Bill W wrote: I am sure that we will have at least one of the regular participants in this NG who will state that AI is going to be the future for all things creative be it music, or photography. Ray Kurzweil doesn't post here, and he's the only one crazy enough to think that AI will match human functioning. he's not the only one to think that, and he's right. he also has an incredibly good track record of predicting things that have turned out to be true, and approximately when he thought they would. People who are honest about these things know that AI has severe limitations, and probably always will. people who are honest about these things know that it very definitely will. He made some nice synths, though. yes he did, among many other things. in 1965, while in high school, he designed and built a computer that composed music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Neivqp2K4 And he wrote (?) the program which controlled how the computer wrote the music. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Ray Kurzweil doesn't post here, and he's the only one crazy enough to think that AI will match human functioning. he's not the only one to think that, and he's right. he also has an incredibly good track record of predicting things that have turned out to be true, and approximately when he thought they would. People who are honest about these things know that AI has severe limitations, and probably always will. people who are honest about these things know that it very definitely will. He made some nice synths, though. yes he did, among many other things. in 1965, while in high school, he designed and built a computer that composed music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Neivqp2K4 And he wrote (?) the program which controlled how the computer wrote the music. yep. and using what is now considered to be ancient technology. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Nothing new there. It is well established that music can be created by AI. What is lacking is the human nuance. I doubt that AI will ever produce a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi. there's no requirement that it should. there are many more composers in this world than just those three. Well, maybe it will, but it will be a long time. where 'a long time' is 'now': https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...chine-listens- to-bach-then-writes-its-own-music-in-the-same-style/ These guys have developed a neural network that has learned to produce choral cantatas in the style of Bach. They call their machine DeepBach (see also 3AI Songsmith Cranks Out Surprisingly Catchy Tunes2). You miss my point. I wasn't reffing to mere copying. i didn't miss a thing and what they did was *not* copying, which means *you* missed the point (as usual). All of those composers broke new ground and have left a lasting impression. Thomas Tallis is another. ai composers will break new ground. some people will even prefer what it creates over bach, beethoven, etc. To find out, the team asked more than 1,600 people to listen two different harmonies of the same melody. More than 400 of them were professional musicians or music students. ... When given a DeepBach-generated harmony, around half the voters judged that it was composed by Bach. That1s significantly higher than with music generated by any other algorithm. 3We consider this to be a good score knowing the complexity of Bach1s compositions,2 say Hadjeres and Pachet. Even when confronted with music composed by Bach himself, participants only judged that correctly 75 percent of the time. and that's just one example. And just consider what modern pop music has done with Bach. what about it? modern pop music is a totally different genre than classical. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On Sat, 26 May 2018 00:17:04 -0400, PeterN
wrote: On 5/25/2018 11:38 PM, Bill W wrote: On Fri, 25 May 2018 18:04:37 -0700, Savageduck wrote: I am sure that we will have at least one of the regular participants in this NG who will state that AI is going to be the future for all things creative be it music, or photography. Ray Kurzweil doesn't post here, and he's the only one crazy enough to think that AI will match human functioning. People who are honest about these things know that AI has severe limitations, and probably always will. The issue is whether the potential poster referred to by the Duck actually has an honest belief, or will post just to start an argument. If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, I freely accept that he knows a lot about a lot of subjects, and I don't believe he ever posts anything just to start an argument. I have really never understood the hostility some show towards him. And yes, I do generally agree with him, but he and I will never agree on certain things regarding AI and fully autonomous vehicles. *Never*. They are however nearly impossible subjects to even argue about. They are far too complex, so complex that it almost turns into something like religious faith. He made some nice synths, though. Yes he did. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On 26/05/2018 06:11, PeterN wrote:
On 5/25/2018 9:04 PM, Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Fri, 25 May 2018 18:16:28 -0400, PeterN Â* wrote: On 5/25/2018 6:42 AM, occam wrote: Here is an interesting article which says: "Google and its AI research team really do think that photography is about deciding what makes a good picture and think it can be automated. Over time photography has become increasingly less skillful. First automatic exposure takes away the skill of setting up the recording equipment and then automatic focus makes it easy to focus on the foreground object. AI driven focus even does away with the need to manually select what should be in focus. All that is left it the moment to press the shutter or record button." The full article (http://www.i-programmer.info/news/19...11821-google-c lips-the-death-of-the-photographer.html) is about Google's Clip App which uses AI to automate the 'critical moment' of photo-taking, which according to the article is currently the last bastion of photographers. Nothing new there. It is well established that music can be created by AI. What is lacking is the human nuance. I doubt that AI will ever produce a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi. Well, maybe it will, but it will be a long time. Agreed, and there are so many more than the three greats you cited that AI will never equal. AI might be able to produce something evocative of the work of some great composer, or jazz improvisor like Brubeck, Bud Powell, or Art Pepper, but will never be their equal. However, I am sure that we will have at least one of the regular participants in this NG who will state that AI is going to be the future for all things creative be it music, or photography. Assuming an infinite number of monkeys........ Sorry, 'infinite monkeys' misses the point. It implies that the AI will generate an infinite number of unlistenable pieces of music, of which one will be perfect. That is not the case. Anyone who thinks AIs will forever lack 'human nuance' is invited to watch the Alphago (2017) film, and be prepared to have your frail human egos shattered. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On Sat, 26 May 2018 01:24:25 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Nothing new there. It is well established that music can be created by AI. What is lacking is the human nuance. I doubt that AI will ever produce a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi. there's no requirement that it should. there are many more composers in this world than just those three. Well, maybe it will, but it will be a long time. where 'a long time' is 'now': https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...chine-listens- to-bach-then-writes-its-own-music-in-the-same-style/ These guys have developed a neural network that has learned to produce choral cantatas in the style of Bach. They call their machine DeepBach (see also 3AI Songsmith Cranks Out Surprisingly Catchy Tunes2). You miss my point. I wasn't reffing to mere copying. i didn't miss a thing and what they did was *not* copying, which means *you* missed the point (as usual). Take an example. You say "These guys have developed a neural network that has learned to produce choral cantatas in the style of Bach." Now neural networks learn. In this case it would have learned the style of Bach. Let it loose and it will use it's learning to create more music in the style of Bach. But how long would it take for it to create from scratch a different and equally powerful style of music from scratch? From what you have said it never would. All of those composers broke new ground and have left a lasting impression. Thomas Tallis is another. ai composers will break new ground. Some do it with an excavator. Others do it with a tea spoon. Bach, Beethoven, Monteverdi and Thomas Tallis all made musical breakthroughs the effects of which are still being felt today. There was no copy or neural learning by these composers: they broke almost com[letely new ground. some people will even prefer what it creates over bach, beethoven, etc. What's that got to do with it? Don't bother asking. It's only another of your red herrings. To find out, the team asked more than 1,600 people to listen two different harmonies of the same melody. More than 400 of them were professional musicians or music students. ... When given a DeepBach-generated harmony, around half the voters judged that it was composed by Bach. That1s significantly higher than with music generated by any other algorithm. 3We consider this to be a good score knowing the complexity of Bach1s compositions,2 say Hadjeres and Pachet. Even when confronted with music composed by Bach himself, participants only judged that correctly 75 percent of the time. and that's just one example. And just consider what modern pop music has done with Bach. what about it? modern pop music is a totally different genre than classical. That shows how much you know about these things. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On Sat, 26 May 2018 01:24:24 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Ray Kurzweil doesn't post here, and he's the only one crazy enough to think that AI will match human functioning. he's not the only one to think that, and he's right. he also has an incredibly good track record of predicting things that have turned out to be true, and approximately when he thought they would. People who are honest about these things know that AI has severe limitations, and probably always will. people who are honest about these things know that it very definitely will. He made some nice synths, though. yes he did, among many other things. in 1965, while in high school, he designed and built a computer that composed music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Neivqp2K4 And he wrote (?) the program which controlled how the computer wrote the music. yep. and using what is now considered to be ancient technology. You are not quite correct to say that the computer wrote music. It would be more accurate to say that the computer generated music. Alternatively I somewhere have a pen which has written music. :-) -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Google Owner agrees to use google for spelling purposes | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 19th 07 04:16 AM |
Newsreel clips | Robert O'Connor | Digital Photography | 3 | January 30th 06 11:42 PM |
film clips | Robert OC | Digital Photography | 2 | January 30th 06 01:29 PM |
Seamless clips from separate clips - Software? | long eddy | Digital Photography | 2 | January 13th 06 08:31 PM |
video clips | Maizie | Digital Point & Shoot Cameras | 1 | December 20th 05 03:42 PM |