Is the human voice 'special'

[AsPeeXXXVIII]

I've heard songs that utilize what sounds like heavily processed vocals so that they're very "machine-like" and almost synth-y in nature. While I do love a raw, unprocessed vocal performance on a song - whether it's recorded or live - I have an equal level of appreciation for heavily processed vocals. But I love them for different reasons: the former from a performance perspective, the latter from a production standpoint.

That said, I find myself surprisingly hard-pressed to form an opinion on this.

[Bodhisan]

I have an equal level of appreciation for heavily processed vocals. But I love them for different reasons: the former from a performance perspective, the latter from a production standpoint.

For me that would be Bon Iver - love his voice processed...not so hot unprocessed.

[jancivil]

^^^ I think it will be easy for an AI singer of an average song to fool an average person. However, AI programmed by cubicle technicians will ever be able to exceed what a creative artist can do.

Except for that pesky *creative* bit.

[jancivil]

at that point the AI is self-aware. By definition, the creative artist is self-aware, and highly so.

I hope we'd have the wisdom to circumvent that. The AI won't have the history of a species which makes art rich anyway. I find this an empty point frankly.

[yellowmix]

at that point the AI is self-aware. By definition, the creative artist is self-aware, and highly so.

It doesn't necessarily need to hinge on self-awareness. And we also need to define "creativity". The field of computational creativity is wrestling with those questions, among many other others. For example, contemporary weak AI can generate pun-based jokes, and make people laugh. Is that creativity?

I hope we'd have the wisdom to circumvent that. The AI won't have the history of a species which makes art rich anyway. I find this an empty point frankly.

That's the fun question, right? Does art require experience? That of the individual and/or that of the long, unbroken genetic lineage since we emerged from water?

If AI designs and produces a novel tool, it's easy to dismiss that as purposeful. If AI produces a novel novel, does it matter it has not experienced anything remotely close to what occurs in it, considering human novelists perform research for what they don't know? Is not a self-aware AI part of the human lineage? And we're not even getting into the likelihood these AIs will want to be corporeal and walk among us, and possibly experience being human, and be saddened and gratified like us.

But to your point about circumventing AI. Many people look at and explore AI as a tool for humanity. It's the tool getting away from us that feels threatening (e.g., Terminator franchise, grey goo). And not just that, but being better than us (in terms of capability).

Then there's stuff like uploading people's brains into computers; effectively the End of Death. Would less intelligent persons be persecuted; would humanity be second-class citizens? Are uploaded people human any more? Are they even the "same" person they were before? It can be deeply unsettling to think about. But there are many good outcomes as well, like humans and AI cooperating, coexisting, and commingling.

[Bodhisan]

But there are many good outcomes as well, like humans and AI cooperating, coexisting, and commingling.

https://youtu.be/WzV6mXIOVl4

[jancivil]

at that point the AI is self-aware. By definition, the creative artist is self-aware, and highly so.

It doesn't necessarily need to hinge on self-awareness.

Sez you. I would be interested in your argument, in your words. I'm doing several things at the moment and yer links are not capturing my attention like that tbh.

I hope we'd have the wisdom to circumvent that. The AI won't have the history of a species which makes art rich anyway. I find this an empty point frankly.

That's the fun question, right? Does art require experience? That of the individual and/or that of the long, unbroken genetic lineage since we emerged from water?

The individual in a vacuum, ahistorical and ignorant, then.

Are we going to fabricate memories?
Is Rachel in Blade Runner capable of being a compelling artist in some way, then?
I feel sure that memories, authentic memories is where compelling art comes from.

If AI designs and produces a novel tool, it's easy to dismiss that as purposeful. If AI produces a novel novel, does it matter it has not experienced anything remotely close to what occurs in it, considering human novelists perform research for what they don't know?

If human novelists work only with research in a lab isolated from actual contact, it's the same as what you have here. I'm not buying that for a microsecond. It matters that the AI has no experiences. It has a programmed, *artificial* framework for everything.

You seem to want to move me off my idea of things. It's going to take more...

But to your point about circumventing AI. Many people look at and explore AI as a tool for humanity. It's the tool getting away from us that feels threatening (e.g., Terminator franchise, grey goo). And not just that, but being better than us (in terms of capability).

I mean circumventing AI becoming self-aware. You get the Terminator reference apparently.
FTR I am not anti-AI.

Then there's stuff like uploading people's brains into computers; effectively the End of Death. Would less intelligent persons be persecuted; would humanity be second-class citizens? Are uploaded people human any more? Are they even the "same" person they were before? It can be deeply unsettling to think about. But there are many good outcomes as well, like humans and AI cooperating, coexisting, and commingling.

Did you happen to catch Altered Carbon, or did you read it?

I saw the series on Netflix; the story rather detests the idea of the End o' Death as portrayed here.

THIS is capturing my imagination.

I'll keep it basic for now: I think death is what gives life its *point*.

[yellowmix]

It doesn't necessarily need to hinge on self-awareness.

Sez you. I would be interested in your argument, in your words. I'm doing several things at the moment and yer links are not capturing my attention like that tbh.

Sure, this is the mental wankery post minus the drama of the other one, so it's not so much an argument but philosophical considerations no longer about the human voice being special (it's not) but what makes humans special as a consequence of the technology necessary to equal the human voice.

In order to preserve that specialness, humans gatekeep creativity in many ways, so there is clearly a line between what is considered creativity and what is not. Congo was a chimpanzee that painted, and public reaction was mixed. Miró, Picasso, and Dalí bought his paintings. Unknown at the time was if chimpanzees are self-aware. Recent science indicates it's likely. Regardless, this triggered a host of "what is art?" questions, but we're concerned with a more basic question of "where is the line that makes something creative or not"?

What we know is no matter the answer, the work can be appreciated, can be analyzed and critiqued (Dalí praised Congo the Chimp with Jackson Pollock), and obviously can be valued economically.

First we need to clarify a few terms and background history I previously linked to for reference. There are three major categories of AI. We currently have "weak AI", that which is good at specifics tasks. The next level is "strong AI", a general intelligence equivalent to human ability. "superintelligent AI" follows, that which exceeds human ability. I touched on this earlier; we're talking about an IQ of 3000 and beyond, which is hard to comprehend since it obliterates the scale. None of these categories consider self-awareness.

AI is a human dream written down millennia ago. For example, Hephaestus crafted thinking robots in Homer's Iliad. He could give them verbal instructions and they understood and carried them out. What's funny, there is a tendency called the AI effect, where AI technology is no longer considered AI when it becomes commonplace. Optical character recognition, for example, was considered a difficult AI problem, and when it was achieved, OCR became a plain technology. We're currently seeing the same thing happen with speech recognition, now that's in our mobile phones and virtual assistants. Self-driving cars ditched the AI label as well.

None of those require creativity, because there is a clearly defined, specific goal and they perform the same logic under clearly-defined rules to achieve it. But what if there is a learning AI that is told to create a novel that would be captivating for humans, given no rules? It's a blank slate, but has the capability to understand and reason. The AI is fed all narrative works in the history of humanity and knows everything else about us (it has seen every news broadcast and read every news and wikipedia article). It's super-intelligent. It knows what we consider classics, all literary devices (it read TVtropes), knows what are watershed works/classics and why. Why wouldn't it be able to create a compelling novel, and in mere seconds (if that)?

Are we going to fabricate memories?
Is Rachel in Blade Runner capable of being a compelling artist in some way, then?
I feel sure that memories, authentic memories is where compelling art comes from.

I can understand that, and agree that many songs/artists benefit from authenticity. Music artists are often questioned about authenticity, and if their lives don't jive with the lyrical topics, well, people don't seem to mind Kid Rock and Gram Parsons were born rich.

In the Blade Runner movie universe, Replicants are given memories because they're self-aware, and are born as adults. Replicants are creative! The movie shows how resourceful they are when escaping, and wanting to be free in the first place. Roy Batty's speech at the end was original. And there's the theory that Deckard is a Replicant.

Did you happen to catch Altered Carbon, or did you read it?

I saw the series on Netflix; the story rather detests the idea of the End o' Death as portrayed here.

THIS is capturing my imagination.

I'll keep it basic for now: I think death is what gives life its *point*.

First I've heard of it but it sounds interesting, I think I'll pick up the book. But mind uploading is an older idea. The philosopher Thomas Reid wrote about it in 1775:

I would be glad to know... whether when my brain has lost its original structure, and when some hundred years after the same materials are fabricated so curiously as to become an intelligent being, whether, I say that being will be me; or, if, two or three such beings should be formed out of my brain; whether they will all be me, and consequently one and the same intelligent being.

Death does give my life a point (among many other things). Many people want to live forever, which attests to its import as they want to avoid it. I sure don't.

Many works concern or factor in death but couldn't immortal people still experience life and make compelling art? Very sure if we get immortality a song about all our friends being dead will top the charts.

[rp314]

Regarding the original question, Chopin and Wagner were almost contemporaries and had widely different preferences for vocals, so...

At a time when almost 100% of non-infomercial network television seems to be singing competitions, it might appear bizarre to lump the voice in with the rest of the instruments but to me it's still about what one is trying to do.

That said, if like Luciano Berio one was married to a professional singer, then it might make more sense not to go the Chopin route...

[Aloysius]

We already have Vocaloid. It sings better than wags (allegedly). In this case it is more special than a human voice.

[jancivil]

Are we going to fabricate memories?
Is Rachel in Blade Runner capable of being a compelling artist in some way, then?
I feel sure that memories, authentic memories is where compelling art comes from.

I can understand that, and agree that many songs/artists benefit from authenticity.

I did not say "authenticity"; I said... it's right there, you see that the word authentic modifies memories. I said memories first, in fact. IE: you had the memory yourself, unlike Rachel in Blade Runner. The question in that story is, does believing the memory is yours make your emotion real. Interesting question, along with a corollary question, does the AI have the capacity to replicate more AI? In that film it appears that it is.

You wanted AI to be creative outside of the self-aware thing. If it is not self-aware, its creativity is that of its creator and it is running routines provided it therein. Will there be an AI Stravinsky? Without going into 'probably not', if so it'll be self aware.