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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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). 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. 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. 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. 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. your mistake is assuming ai will always be incapable. that's very shortsighted. you're also oblivious to what that could potentially become. 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. your entire premise is that if it's not bach or beethoven, it's not worthy. that's pretentious garbage. if a computer composes music that people enjoy listening to, then it's a success. 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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On 5/26/2018 12:39 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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. I know. -- PeterN |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On 5/26/2018 1:19 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/26/2018 12:39 AM, Savageduck wrote: 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 Â* 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. I know. -- PeterN |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On 5/26/2018 1:19 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/26/2018 12:39 AM, Savageduck wrote: 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 Â* 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. [corrected placement of response.] I know. Sent too soon. My point about "honest belief," remains the same. -- PeterN |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On Sat, 26 May 2018 09:05:44 -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. not what i said at all. Then tell me where I got it wrong. 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. 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? 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. 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. you're also oblivious to what that could potentially become. .... and you don't doubt. 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. 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. 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. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On Sat, 26 May 2018 09:05:46 -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. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
On 5/26/2018 5:35 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2018 09:05:44 -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. not what i said at all. Then tell me where I got it wrong. 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. 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? 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. 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. you're also oblivious to what that could potentially become. ... and you don't doubt. 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. 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. 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. 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. AI photos will appeal to those who think that painting on velvet, or painting by the numbers is good art. It will have a societal function. But as I stated before, the best current AI technology lacks the human element. The closest provable analogy I can think of is when an analysis of profit per square foot was performed for a supermarket. Based on that analysis the least profitable items were candy and snacks at the cash registers. So, they stopped selling candy and snacks at the cash registers. -- PeterN |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
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 -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?
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. 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. |
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 |