KVR Audio

eassae · Post by **eassae** » Sat Jan 10, 2026 11:44 am

BONES wrote: Sat Jan 10, 2026 11:32 am I can't imagine how utterly daft you'd have to be not to see his point. It is pretty f**king obvious, I'd have thought. Or maybe you need to share the Punk philosophy to get it and I'm just being a c**t?

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 12:50 am

Here's an interesting quote from Graeme Revell, film composer and founding member of SPK - "The cultural meme of machine – logical, emotionless; human – creative, emotional, is ingrained in our civilization. It has been reinforced in popular culture, but it also goes back way further to our delusional sense of exceptionalism in the biological kingdom. Many people cling to this illusion and are unwilling or unable to explore AI with an open mind." This perfectly describes all the nay-sayers here, doesn't it?

It's part of an interview for his new project, SPKtR, you can read the whole thing here if you're interested - https://regenmag.com/interviews/intervi ... -violence/

ksandvik · Post by **ksandvik** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 12:55 am

Yes but SPK controls machines, now we just hint LLMs something and it controls.

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 3:02 am

LLMs don't control anything, they have no agency whatsoever.

ksandvik · Post by **ksandvik** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 3:59 am

LLMs just emit stuff based on pre-existing patterns. I rather use machines than LLM for music.

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 5:02 am

No they don't, they emit what you f**king tell them to emit. They are no more or less likely to create something derivative than you or I are.

revvy · Post by **revvy** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 9:05 am

General purpose LLMs predict the likeliest response to a query based on previously observed patterns. Pretty good definition of derivative, no?

Are most of us more likely to produce something less derivative? Probably not, but some of us definitely are.

camsr · Post by **camsr** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 9:23 am

It's point of view is the Infinite Reflection Paradox. This is what I may describe as a situation where you have a ring of mirrors, that all reflect you (the viewer) around the ring until you see what you just saw. However you cannot see past yourself, because it is you who is interfering in the reflection. If you step aside, the reflections are infinite.

CinningBao · Post by **CinningBao** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 12:31 pm

BONES wrote: Sat Jan 17, 2026 5:02 am No they don't, they emit what you f**king tell them to emit. They are no more or less likely to create something derivative than you or I are.

No they don't. They emit "the most likely thing you're describing" because THAT'S ALL THEY KNOW HOW TO DO. They literally can't do anything they haven't been trained on. Comprendez?

My brain can imagine something disgustingly generic to something completely abstract, and I think yours can too. LLMs cannot. If you can't understand this, then, well, that explains this whole conversation and your relationship with them.

Enjoy not using your brain for what you've been training it on for your whole life and passing it over to some pretend-'imagination' device. I'd rather look inside my head for inspiration, as I think many others also prefer.

eassae · Post by **eassae** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 12:52 pm

BONES wrote: Sat Jan 17, 2026 12:50 am Here's an interesting quote from Graeme Revell, film composer and founding member of SPK - "The cultural meme of machine – logical, emotionless; human – creative, emotional, is ingrained in our civilization. It has been reinforced in popular culture, but it also goes back way further to our delusional sense of exceptionalism in the biological kingdom. Many people cling to this illusion and are unwilling or unable to explore AI with an open mind." This perfectly describes all the nay-sayers here, doesn't it?

It's part of an interview for his new project, SPKtR, you can read the whole thing here if you're interested - https://regenmag.com/interviews/intervi ... -violence/

2 for 2 in finding the dumbest thing I've heard for the day. I just woke up though. I mean where and what does he think civilization was formed from. Where did culture come from.

I do think he's right that we could be a headed for a next step in evolution. I wrote about it that way myself around 14 years ago. But his cyborg theory, although plausible physically, I don't think will manifest because the concept of human "progress" is highly debatable. Our general considerations just don't seem to change that much over time—we'll be the same—just in need of a mechanic. AGI would be a whole other thing, which he said he doesn't believe is possible. I have no prediction either way, but if it did happen then that could actually be the next step in evolution.

Anyway A.I. is for the people that have given up on their wetware, most likely because it was just too hard to be an exceptional human, so they'll settle for being a mediocre machine.

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 9:46 pm

psst, there are no steps in evolution. it's an ongoing process, the steps appear in the fossil record, because we don't have a complete fossil set, from a - z.

we won't wake up one day with xmen

Bunny_boy · Post by **Bunny_boy** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 10:16 pm

vurt wrote: Sat Jan 17, 2026 9:46 pm psst, there are no steps in evolution. it's an ongoing process, the steps appear in the fossil record, because we don't have a complete fossil set, from a - z.

we won't wake up one day with xmen

Only if you pull Storm and Cyclops

Bombadil · Post by **Bombadil** » Sat Jan 17, 2026 10:33 pm

That doesn't account for mutations, which can be fairly abrupt changes.

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Sun Jan 18, 2026 1:30 am

If by abrupt you mean over 10,000 years or so because a single mutation will take a long time to become the dominant branch of that DNA tree. But mutation is the process by which Evolution works.

CinningBao wrote: Sat Jan 17, 2026 12:31 pmThey emit "the most likely thing you're describing" because THAT'S ALL THEY KNOW HOW TO DO. They literally can't do anything they haven't been trained on.

What, and you think you can? Don't make me f**king laugh. All you are doing is proving what Graeme Revell says in the quote. There is nothing unique or special about human consciousness and if you have actually tried to use AI in any creative endeavour, you'd understand that it will do things you or I would never even think of because its training exceeds ours by several orders of magnitude and it's approach is different. That makes it capable of putting things from way out of left field into a piece so it can spit out songs that are just a little bit unique.

You only have to look at how most people use AI to see just how completely lacking in imagination and creativity humans are. That you seem incapable of seeing or understanding how you might be able to use AI to your advantage if proof of your own lack of insight, imagination and creativity. You don't even understand what you are.

My brain can imagine something disgustingly generic to something completely abstract, and I think yours can too. LLMs cannot.

Of course LLMs can because they've been trained on the abstract as well as the concrete. You seem to think that if you upload a reference song and give an AI a prompt, that it will just spit out a copy of that song. Well, go ahead and try it and see what you end up with because we can feed the AI the same song a hundred times and get 100 different results, none of which bear more than a passing resemblance to the reference track. If you can't understand this, then, well, that explains this whole conversation and your relationship with them.

If you can't understand this, then, well, that explains this whole conversation and your relationship with them.

The difference here, of course, is that I am speaking from first-hand experience, you're just talking through your arse. We're two-thirds of the way through making a new album using music written pretty much entirely by AI. All we've done is to rebuild the songs in Studio One with VSTi, tease out the arrangements to make the songs longer, tweak the lyrics where the AI has gone off-script (which it likes to do all the time, often in very productive ways) and we'll record our own vocals in the coming weeks to replace the AI vocals. On a couple of the songs I have added an extra part or two but mostly all the musical ideas have come from Tunee, as directed by us.

The results, so far, are shaping up for this to not only be our best album yet, but one of the best albums I've ever heard. An album so perfectly tailored to what we set out to achieve that it matches our taste almost perfectly. The perfection we have been seeking for 30+ years looks like it will be delivered through the use of AI.

Enjoy not using your brain for what you've been training it on for your whole life and passing it over to some pretend-'imagination' device.

You mean like trying to convince the dumb c**ts around here that they are missing a big opportunity? Yeah, I'm used to it, thanks.

I'd rather look inside my head for inspiration, as I think many others also prefer.

And how's that been working out for ya, champ? You and your "Chonky Old Rave Songs Using Illegal Samples"? How big a f**king fraud does that make you? Stealing samples from real musicians to make some unlistenable mash-up that you can't even call music, in the hope of getting a few hits on YouTube. And the other artists on your website - the kind of mindless, boring garbage they play in the change rooms at work to make sitting at your desk seem exciting. You don't honestly believe there is any creativity or imagination in any of that, do you? It's muzak. AI can spit out 100 better songs a day and you wouldn't even need any prompting skills to manage it. After all your posturing, I was at least expecting something of value from your site but all I got was the same krap that talentless losers have been re-hashing since 1970. I see now why you re so afraid of AI, it's already way beyond your clearly limited abilities. There's no way your meagre song writing services are going to survive.

eassae wrote: Sat Jan 17, 2026 12:52 pm2 for 2 in finding the dumbest thing I've heard for the day. I just woke up though.

Well, it didnt' take you long to same something dumber, so well done on that.

I mean where and what does he think civilization was formed from. Where did culture come from.

Who cares? What's the relevance? What makes our civilisation or culture better than that of ants or bees? Hymenoptera have been far more successful than we have, surviving and thriving since the Triassic. Do you reckon we'll still be around in 250 million years?

Anyway A.I. is for the people that have given up on their wetware, most likely because it was just too hard to be an exceptional human, so they'll settle for being a mediocre machine.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I suppose you never use a calculator, that your brain is more than good enough to compute how much compound interest you'll pay on that loan for your new gee-gaw. And you'd never let sat-nav or Google maps plan a route for you because your tiny brain is more than capable of doing that on it's own, right?

You are just drawing an arbitrary line. You're clearly frightened and/or intimidated by the thought that maybe a machine is better than you are. You seem oblivious to the fact that there are machines all around you that are better at one thing or another than you, that it was inevitable that they would one day be better than you in every way. Welcome to the future, embrace it or fade into irrelevance. Master the technology or let it consume you. The choice is yours.

eassae · Post by **eassae** » Sun Jan 18, 2026 1:56 am

"I've seen the future, brother, it is murder."

Rick Rubin on AI (& now Graeme Revell, too)