A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old May 26th 18, 11:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.


more semantic bull****.

ray did not write the music. guess what that means.


It means that he wrote a music generator.


something which you said could not be done.

now you say it can.

use whatever word you want. at the end of the day, the computer (not
ray or any other human) wrote/composed/created the music.

Alternatively I somewhere have a pen which has written music. :-)


completely missing the point, as usual.


That's why I threw it away.


exactly why you continue to spew nonsense.
  #32  
Old May 27th 18, 03:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?

On 5/26/2018 5:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2018 11:00:15 +0200, occam wrote:

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.

Our cats play Go with each other all the time. Periodically they try
to drag me into their play.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rckaj5wsxg...Small.jpg?dl=0


Cute cat. When folk start conflate problems with a finite number of
solutions, based on the probabilities, with human nuance, there is no
point in continuing them discussion.
The principles expounded by Knuth are still valid.

--
PeterN
  #33  
Old May 27th 18, 04:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?

On 5/26/2018 10:21 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/26/2018 5:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2018 11:00:15 +0200, occam wrote:

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
* 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.

Our cats play Go with each other all the time. Periodically they try
to drag me into their play.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rckaj5wsxg...Small.jpg?dl=0


Cute cat. When folk start conflate problems with a finite number of
solutions, based on the probabilities, with human nuance, there is no
point in continuing them discussion.
The principles expounded by Knuth are still valid.

Dare to say my cats have never tried to pull me in to a game of Go,
but they do have some music skills. Baxter watches over my mixing:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yq44cjc0waor0nn/Studio%2001B.jpg
....and is quite the critic at times:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3c4lnhd2b3om3ry/MG_3878%20NOISE%21-1a.jpg
....and #Squiky ...well, she's like totally my fun spokes-cat.
[Not posting .. Google at your risk. G ]
--
==
Later...
Ron C
Duh.. yes, I'm a crazy cat person.
--


  #34  
Old May 27th 18, 08:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?

On Sat, 26 May 2018 18:26:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Well, maybe it will, but it will be a long time.

where 'a long time' is 'now':

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...-machine-liste
ns-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.

not what i said at all.


Then tell me where I got it wrong.


pretty much all of it.

clearly you don't understand what ai can do and more importantly, what
it will be able to do (and sooner than you think).

teach it a different style and it will create something in that style.


That's more or less what I said. In other word it can't create new
styles of music: it can only learn to generate variations of whatever
existing style it has learned.


of course it can create new styles. it can do whatever it's designed to
do.

one day, it won't need to be taught anything because it will have
already scanned and analyzed all existing music at that point in time
and will be able to create its own style, mimic an existing style, or
some combination.


You are predicting that one day it "will be able to create its own
style". Why can't it do that now?


certainly you don't think that whatever hasn't yet been done can't ever
be done, do you?

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.

so what?

one day, ai will also break completely new ground.


In other words, it hasn't done it yet.


so what?

one day it will.

very simple.

your mistake is assuming ai will always be incapable.
that's very shortsighted.


My comment which started all this was " I doubt that AI will ever
produce a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi" and I later added Thomas
Tallis. And I still doubt. I have not made a flat denial: I merely
doubt.


doubt all you want but your doubt is not based on reality.

50 years ago, computers created music with very primitive technology,
created by a high school student.

today, computers *far* more powerful are recreating bach so well that
it has fooled trained music experts.

you're also oblivious to what that could potentially become.


... and you don't doubt.


there's no reason to doubt when one has a solid understanding of the
technology involved and the potential risks.

all you're doing is just spewing "it hasn't happened yet, therefore
it's never going to happen". complete rubbish.

some people will even prefer what it creates over bach, beethoven, etc.

What's that got to do with it?

it has everything to do with it, because music is meant to be enjoyed.


You still haven't said what this has to do with the likelyhood of ai
producing a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi.


actually, i have.

your entire premise is that if it's not bach or beethoven, it's not
worthy.


Nonsense. I could have mentioned Diderich Buxtehude, Heinrich Schutz,
Igor Stravinsky and many others.


whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.

that's pretentious garbage.

if a computer composes music that people enjoy listening to, then it's
a success.


THat doen't mean that it necessarily has made musical breakthrough.


it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't.

composing music is not about breakthroughs.


Every now and then it is. Just ask the Beatles.

Don't bother asking. It's only another
of your red herrings.

nope, and you meant don't bother *answering*, not asking, further
demonstrating your confusion.



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.

which is *much* more than you.

you're stuck in outdated myths.


If you are not aware of the various themes, tunes and musical phrases
pinched from earlier composers like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart etc by
writers of pop music then you are not up to speed on the subject.


that has absolutely nothing to do what what ai can do.

it's nothing more than a diversion because you're very confused.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #35  
Old May 27th 18, 08:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?

On Sat, 26 May 2018 18:26:16 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

more semantic bull****.

ray did not write the music. guess what that means.


It means that he wrote a music generator.


something which you said could not be done.

No I didn't. Please quote the relevant text.

now you say it can.

use whatever word you want. at the end of the day, the computer (not
ray or any other human) wrote/composed/created the music.

Alternatively I somewhere have a pen which has written music. :-)

completely missing the point, as usual.


That's why I threw it away.


exactly why you continue to spew nonsense.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #36  
Old May 27th 18, 09:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?

On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:21:08 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/26/2018 5:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2018 11:00:15 +0200, occam wrote:

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.

Our cats play Go with each other all the time. Periodically they try
to drag me into their play.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rckaj5wsxg...Small.jpg?dl=0


Cute cat.


Our old Balinese queen at about the age 14. She eventually died at the
age of 21.

When folk start conflate problems with a finite number of
solutions, based on the probabilities, with human nuance, there is no
point in continuing them discussion.
The principles expounded by Knuth are still valid.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #37  
Old May 27th 18, 12:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


if a computer composes music that people enjoy listening to, then it's
a success.

THat doen't mean that it necessarily has made musical breakthrough.


it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't.

composing music is not about breakthroughs.


Every now and then it is. Just ask the Beatles.


and?

nothing prevents ai from doing the same. or better.
  #38  
Old May 27th 18, 12:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

more semantic bull****.

ray did not write the music. guess what that means.

It means that he wrote a music generator.


something which you said could not be done.

No I didn't. Please quote the relevant text.


you said it might happen, but not for a long time, which means it can't
happen now.

except that it happened more than 50 years ago and has been happening
ever since, something with which you agree.



In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
I doubt that AI will ever produce a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi.

Well, maybe it will, but it will be a long time.

  #39  
Old May 27th 18, 05:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?

On 5/26/2018 11:14 PM, Ron C wrote:

snip


Dare to say my cats have never tried to pull me in to a game of Go,
but they do have some music skills. Baxter watches over my mixing:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yq44cjc0waor0nn/Studio%2001B.jpg
...and is quite the critic at times:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3c4lnhd2b3om3ry/MG_3878%20NOISE%21-1a.jpg
...and* #Squiky ...well, she's like totally my fun spokes-cat.
[Not posting .. Google at your risk. G ]


Cats can really be characters. My younger daughter has two cats, and my
older has a dog. She trained one of her sisters cats to feed the dog.


--
PeterN
  #40  
Old May 27th 18, 06:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
RJH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?

On 26/05/2018 10:00, occam wrote:
On 26/05/2018 06:11, PeterN wrote:
On 5/25/2018 9:04 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 25, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote

snip
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.


It's a good documentary, and very clever programming, but I wasn't
persuaded on the AI front. Go is 'just' a game, with a degree of
linearity and boundaries.

Ironically, the one thing that demonstrated its superiority at Go were
the 'non-human' moves - the algorithm developed to produce low risk
curve balls that produced likely error-prone human responses to produce
a marginal points win. All good and clever - but it's that ironic
development that produced the win. I'd guess humans would have got
there too - given a few thousand years ;-)

At least AIUI. --
Cheers, Rob
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:16 AM
Newsreel clips Robert O'Connor Digital Photography 3 January 31st 06 12:42 AM
film clips Robert OC Digital Photography 2 January 30th 06 02:29 PM
Seamless clips from separate clips - Software? long eddy Digital Photography 2 January 13th 06 09:31 PM
video clips Maizie Digital Point & Shoot Cameras 1 December 20th 05 04:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.