Jukedeck

[Aleatoriac]

These sort of tools are very interesting and magical... until you demystify them and the principles which they work with. All they they do is essentially one of the two: follow blindly rules of music theory to always "sound good" or have bit more open rules that allow for non-cohesion BUT they require some sort of midi input where they analyze patterns or otherwise input such as "does this sound good? Y/N" with lot of abstractions (which still conforms to our expectations and would likely converge on boring). As they are right now, they're great for muzak, but not so much for music. Maybe useful if you lack inspiration and really want something to work with, but all the stuff they come up with don't take all that much effort.

Agreed. I can't tell you what exactly it is that we're doing differently though. All I can tell you is that I feel something "off" when I listen to everything at jukedeck.

I'll try and arrange some kind of blind testing.

[woggle]

I wonder if that's why people make music. Other languages fail to convey what we're trying to express. Maybe?

music is utterly grounded in our biology and development, with the construction of musical meaning starting from when we are still in the womb. This paper is pretty good but is mainly concerned with thelink between language and music

Music and early language acquisition
Anthony Brandt 1*, Molly Gebrian1 and L. Robert Slevc2


Emotional systems give rise to meaning - they are not rational systems at all. People are not rational systems (although they can use them).

[Functional]

If viewed as creator of music, sure, AIs are still primitive and can't compete with humans. But since music is subjective, maybe music made by AIs could fool a lot of people, if people don't know, beforehand, that the music was created by AI.

They have already done that, a long time ago. AI's generally speaking are long past the Turing test (unless we accept some very hard definitions to how to pass it, but that game can be played for an eternity; it can be said with some qualitative meaning that they have passed it already). That test, however, is not really meaningful in terms that nothing follows from it, it's just a curiosity, much like you know, some people checking movies to see if the female characters ever have conversations that do not relate to men in general or in that movie. Nothing really follows from it, just a curious point.

maybe AIs that are designed to compose whatever music will surpass humans too, eventually.

How would they do that? They can't. Chess is quite a trivial problem in terms of mathematics because it really is just a game with strict logical rules with rather limited dimension. Sure, from simple rules you get a very complex game with many possibilities, but for AI, it's just a matter of how big the database can get. And it can get big.

Music isn't anything like that, because music is much more than music theory, which is probably the easiest thing to quantify. After that, things get very, very complex. Sometimes its really nice to have heavy distortion on something, but if you allow AI to freely to choose so, well, it most likely will use it when it's not appropriate at all, than in instances where it might be appropriate. Or it can do it only when it's appropriate in your eyes, but then you cripple its creativity completely, because all the instances you can figure out at the moment you program it, won't be enough.

[harryupbabble]

How can it be a blind test when the test is "Guess which music is made by AI"? It depends on how "educated" the guessers are. Consumers of music are not trained musicians, generally? Listeners of pop music don't listen to music thinking things like "Oh, how simple, that little part there was the classic V to I resolution."

For all you know, maybe Kraftwerk's music might have been generated by an AI and the guys in Kraftwerk just performed it and made it more human.

[chaosWyrM]

But who knows, for example, Chess AIs has already surpassed humans, maybe AIs that are designed to compose whatever music will surpass humans too, eventually. It depends on how good the creator(s) of the AI is/are? They get better? Maybe fiction is reality? Roy Batty was a better AI than Deckard (if Deckard is a replicant) because Roy Batty is next generation AI?

ok...2 things here...lets get the second one out of the way.

dekkard and roy batty ARE NOT AI's. they are not robots...they are not androids...they are not mechanical. they do not utilize artificial intelligence at all in any way shape or form. they are flesh and blood human beings...that is why the people who make them are geneticists and not software engineers.

synthetic ≠ artificial.

how do people keep getting that so wrong????


ok now on to the thing about chess. chess "ai" has surpassed humans only because in chess there are a finite number of moves. its relatively easy to get a computer to calculate the possibilities when those possibilities are extremely limited. when we start to talk about using ai to create music (or anything really) we immediately run into the problem that there are no limits...no hard and fast rules to adhere to. its going to be quite some time before computers can actually think...and even more time before they can think things they werent told to think.

checking out jukedeck...i got no sense that it did anything other than follow a basic rule set. its as sterile sounding as one might expect. which i guess makes it ok for what people seem to be using it for...mindless background music for kickstarter campaigns and such. no one is supposed to ever actually listen to anything juckdeck makes i dont think.

its far far less interesting than even basic generative music makers.

[harryupbabble]

An advanced AI might someday absorb the entire recorded music ever made and just process that and create better music, sort of like recipes. People who don't know how to cook could probably make delicious things to eat, all they have to do is follow the recipes super-accurately.

AIs could be programmed to follow recipes of proven note sequences that "touches the heart", sequences similar but not exactly like the ones in, for example, A Whiter Shade of Pale. And it could build databases like "Led Zeppelinesque". It should all just depends on whoever created the AI. Pretend I am an excellent AI creator and you are one too. I doubt if my AI is going to be identical to yours.

[harryupbabble]

*duplicate*

[harryupbabble]

I Googled "artificial" and this is what I found:

"made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural."

[xoxos]

didn't find a second example of jukedeck from their front page. ttbomk i've only seen one precedent work (apart from my own) in ai music that addressed a full setting, eg. procedural music group on FB is full of people doing maybe a piano and a violin or something, or that old ambient generator that always used the same timbres et c. which has always been exasperating.

here's an example of my (very poorly recorded) procedural music from c. *1994*
https://xoxos.bandcamp.com/track/iii-ca ... our-houses

well, with over two decades of application and consideration, you may understand, i don't have time in the day to cover my thoughts here.

but my perspective is from voluminous experience, and i may present some things others disagree with

can AI sound human, it's not even an issue. it's the same as, can synths sound like a rock guitar. regions of consciousness others have no knowledge of.

one thing i will repeat (gawd, it's been many years since i made this boring old point on kvr, a decade) - LYRICS

the power of song connects deeply to the human psyche. it is the energy function of pitched phonemes. i can't discuss this here again, no point in loads of typing to be bludgeoned by troglodytes, but - the way you think, your memetics, are cultural.

procedural lyrics are, well, i'll just say *the* cure for what ails *you*. in simple terms, people repeat the semantic devices they are familiar with. procedural lyrics catalyse semantic agility (now you know why no one understands what i say.. you're barely moving!) so that... the audience learns to fit a wider scope of adjectives to qualify their nouns, and don't rely on their old skinny bag of cultural adjuncts. semantic expansion is cultural expansion.

from lyrics2 http://www.xoxos.net/software/software.html

vaguest between the powerful pouches
to your roamer its wise rider shouted
purified chargers for those unbrowned thoughts
flying sunnily from that white outlaw

feast over there from that delicious height
you were going to live during a type
you with that air haven't often been ranked
your present below it's unsweet tree spanks

from sired defenses within those voices
to her unwise monarch I was pointing
purely design those feats between those lairs
our ocean without a medal won't stare

around a mouth an attack has shifted
for the meteor you must be spinning
you will be ruminating with the scene
concluded quietly of the harmonies

they with that known valley were erupting
it's slain, unwoken cheeses amongst wits
violently wished aside his bared ribbons
beautifully damaged below prisons

saying this is nonsense is ignorant. this is meaning in quadrature, complex meaning with a real and imaginary component. you can say you deal with the real and ignore the imaginary part, but that doesn't make it go away.

*tiphat*

i like that poem because it was first out, and there's a reason it was first out, because it's exactly what it is. the profundity of it is .. vaguest between the powerful pouches.

and when you discover that this "random proceduralism" not only produces absolute coherency, but a transsubstantiative coherency that supercedes the Small Things You Know, you will understand the


the....





"voodoo leffanta its ultraviolence".

anyway, you all talk now.

[jancivil]

So, the algorithm that's cleverly built enough to analyze for tendencies is reductive to a surface that a machine lacking a history of experience can manage, so the music is going to be superficial by definition.

Agreed, but I must ask, what exactly is it that Humans are doing that is so different?

f**king

[xoxos]

old carrot shoes.

see? not difficult.

[Functional]

So, the algorithm that's cleverly built enough to analyze for tendencies is reductive to a surface that a machine lacking a history of experience can manage, so the music is going to be superficial by definition.

Agreed, but I must ask, what exactly is it that Humans are doing that is so different?

f**king

You shouldn't encourage people like this. It only gets creepier when the existing stuff gets additional modules; it doesn't take much imagination to figure out when it's gonna be forte or upwards...

[jancivil]

and when you discover that this "random proceduralism" not only produces absolute coherency, but a transsubstantiative coherency that supercedes the Small Things You Know, you will understand the

I don't know if that was random or what, how would I, not my work.
Are you saying an AI knows more than people per se? or what exactly.

Anyway, words are not music. Words may seem musical, but words_are_not_music.
So this doesn't move me to any point regarding AI doing music. I've done words. I was a poet for a time. I would say with some confidence now that music is vastly richer than words.

You have a result which has analyzed poetry, and a brilliant copy of thought it is, it appears to me. I don't think it's very good poetry, albeit I'm not here to be a poetry critic. I feel fairly sure I'd feel the same if this was presented as a human's work.

There was a line in the television drama The OA impressed me: Knowledge is a rumor until it lives in the body. Knowing from apparent meaning of words, as digested well and spat back out does not equal the things the AI has imitated from human experience, or the poetry of the puny human out of her experience. So, does some words supersede what "I" know? It's poetry, what are we supposed to do with that. If this is about superseding what anyone can know, well... does it supersede what the code knows. Is there a ghost in the machine? I don't know. If so, who put it there? Is this poetry-producing AI already sentient? I tend to doubt it. Therein lies the rub.
Transubstantiative? This was a religious experience for you?

[Aleatoriac]

Emotional systems give rise to meaning - they are not rational systems at all. People are not rational systems (although they can use them).

Thanks for the info, I'll check that out.

I had a similar discussion with somebody recently about the fact/value "dichotomy"

My point was: the very act of either discovering or establishing facts is a value, and that value is itself a result of needs.

The conversation started as a point that without some... shall we say objective power... we couldn't know anything at all; and I was like... oh yeah? I pointed to my emotions as the underlying basis for valuing logic at all. Yeah. So what?

Well said: people are not rational systems although they can use them.

[jancivil]

"my perspective is from voluminous experience"
I've take quite a lot of LSD myself.

If I'm not attached to this particular time-space locus
Then I can free my awareness from my body
And I can become one with it all ~ I can merge with the divine mother