If AI replaces musicians, does the entire plugin industry die with them?

[ghettosynth]

You misquoted. I'm guessing that you were hoping that I would bite, but you were wrong.

I corrected that.

I was hoping that you would try, that you would believe in your own claims. But you didn't. Conclusion: You are lying. You are well aware that I'm right and you're wrong.

What I'm well aware of is that you don't know how to use LLMs. I can easily see the patterns of your engagement. I was waiting for you to post the answer because the poster set you up correctly.

[Zeisner]

If you don't know how to leverage the usefulness of LLMs, that's not the fault of the model.

You claimed that LLMs can generate ideas. I proved you wrong. You can't make LLMs think with the right prompt because they are not designed to think. Nobody is able to create a machine that can think. Nobody is even able to come up with a complete model of natural neural networks. It's idiotic to believe that an artificial proto neural network inspired by an incomplete model could come even close to thinking.

[ghettosynth]

If you don't know how to leverage the usefulness of LLMs, that's not the fault of the model.

You claimed that LLMs can generate ideas. I proved you wrong.

No, you did not. the LLM did generate ideas. You wanted a specific formulation but didn't constrain the search space enough to find exactly that. Simple queries are fine for simple tasks, but not for more complex spaces.

When I ask an LLM for ideas in a complex space, and I do this quite regularly, I specify the constraints up front and clearly. You only demonstrated that either you don't know how to do that, or that you disingenuously didn't want to do that, or, my bet, both.

[ghettosynth]

I think that is the solution that was described in 2)

In case this was missed, I'll bump it past the nonsense.

[Zeisner]

I think that is the solution that was described in 2)

No, it's not. My approach does not change anything about dynamics nor is it M/S based.

[Zeisner]

the LLM did generate ideas.

Nope. It generated nonsensical crap that is not related to equivalence stereophony in the slightest (ITD!). Those are not ideas. They only look like ideas if you don't know anything about the subject.

You wanted a specific formulation

Specific in the sense that it must feature ILD+ITD+ISD and be mono compatible and not a copy of my own approach. Plenty of constrains.

Simple queries are fine for simple tasks, but not for more complex spaces.

I don't need a stochastic parrot to tell me how to chew food.

When I ask an LLM for ideas in a complex space, and I do this quite regularly, I specify the constraints up front and clearly.

Looks like we have very different views on what is complex...

[Zeisner]

What I'm well aware of is that you don't know how to use LLMs.

Just like Linux fanboys who also blame everything on the user, never acknowledging that the OS could have bugs. It must be perfect! Which is cult thinking. So many studies have been made by now, showing how LLMs fail at thinking and reasoning, even failing at simple math. But none of that matters for fanatics like you. Facts don't matter for cultists, it's all just feelings.

[ghettosynth]

What I'm well aware of is that you don't know how to use LLMs.

Just like Linux fanboys who also blame everything on the user, never acknowledging that the OS could have bugs. It must be perfect! Which is cult thinking. So many studies have been made by now, showing how LLMs fail at thinking and reasoning, even failing at simple math. But none of that matters for fanatics like you. Facts don't matter for cultists, it's all just feelings.

You know, you can just admit that you are not very experienced at prompting. You wouldn't be telling anyone else here, at least those of us who actively use LLMs to do work, anything that we don't already know.

[Zeisner]

You know, you can just admit that you are not very experienced at prompting.

Well, if you're so experienced at prompting, then why didn't you try to solve the provided test with the help of your precious LLM? Because you know that I have a point and you don't. You know very well that you can't provide any foundation for your ridiculous claims about LLMs being able to think and to come up with ideas. I provided proof, you didn't. And you will continue evading tests which would show how bad your precious LLM is at thinking/reasoning. Because it must be good, against all odds, against all facts. Those researchers must all be wrong about their findings!

[wagtunes]

You know what's funny? We're all arguing about AI and AI don't give a crap.

LMAO.

Carry on.

[ghettosynth]

I think that is the solution that was described in 2)

No, it's not. My approach does not change anything about dynamics nor is it M/S based.

I took a look. So, when you say it’s not M/S based, do you mean you didn’t explicitly use an M/S encode/decode block, or are you saying it’s structurally different in the linear-systems sense? In other words, since your construction looks like “a common signal in both channels plus an anti-symmetric add-on that is added to one side and subtracted from the other (so it cancels when you sum to mono),” what property of the construction prevents it from being rewritten as a sum/difference (change-of-basis) representation?

[Grizzellda]

Facts don't matter.

"It's the feelings, (economy) stupid"....

Could be a new "political slogan".

[ghettosynth]

You know, you can just admit that you are not very experienced at prompting.

Well, if you're so experienced at prompting, then why didn't you try to solve the provided test with the help of your precious LLM?

Oh, there's a very good reason. I'm gonna let you think about what that might be.

Here's one, what do you think of this?

[BONES]

You might be surprised at the range of music that gets added to reels, shorts and tik toks.

No, I wouldn't. Even so, it's hardly targeted, you're not going to watch reels all day in the hope of finding new music you'll like. But in 1987 Brisbane's top rating commercial radio station played Oingo Boingo's Stay every day at morning tea time for a couple of months. In 1989 you could tune in to Sydney's most blatantly commercial and highest rating radio station, 2-Day FM, and hear Peter Murphy's Cuts You Up. The same station even used Leftfield Lydon's Open Up on a cinema advertising campaign in the mid-90s. Those days are just f**king gone now.

You really have to go looking these days and if you don't know what it is you're looking for, it's highly unlikely you'll ever find anything you like that you aren't already aware of.

Honestly BONES, I don't hold you in high regard, but if you think those ideas are great, well good for you then. They seem like ideas that would come from a crappy corporate brainstorming meeting, where Brenda accidentally ordered all bran muffins. If that's better than what you can come up with, perhaps this technology is the crutch you need.

Fine but are you now willing to admit they are original ideas? The only one I actually like, that I might want to explore further, is the lyric cycle told by a broken algorithm one but I think they disprove Jancivil's point, which was their actual purpose.

If I'd wanted good ideas, I'd have been more specific with my prompts and refined them until I got something useful. Which is another point I keep making - you only get out of it what you are willing to put in. Which is to say that if it required a brainstroming session among humans to get the same result as a simple prompt with literally no thought put into it, then it's pretty damned impressive.

That "bubble" is reality (and science and engineering) while you're playing the same game as creationists.

Are you really this f**king dense? Having even slightly original ideas requires thinking. It may not be human style thinking (why would it need to be?) but it is thinking, whether you f**king like it or not.

Test: Ask your precious LLM for ideas about how to create fully mono compatible (!) equivalence stereophony. You know, ILD+ITD+ISD.

Mate, I don't have the first f**king idea what that even is, so it's not going to be possible for me to prompt an AI about it in any useful, meaningful way.

I can understand why LLMs must be fascinating for people who are incompetent in the particular field they're trying to work in.

Really? That's strange because I'm the highest paid designer in my department, apart from the boss. I have more than 30 year's experience in my trade and I find LLMs incredibly useful in my work every, single, f**king day. They do the tedious stuff so I'm free to think about the creative side of my work and to complete a job to a higher standard than I was able to previously, given the very tight deadlines we work to in the news room.

But if you're full of shit it's a completely different story.

There, I fixed that up for you.

You claimed that LLMs can generate ideas. I proved you wrong.

No you f**king didn't. I've already posted a response from Co-Pilot, where it generated several original ideas. You used one specific example, of something nobody but you gives a flying f**k about, but you still didn't prove anything because you never put it to the f**king test, you twat. You just stated that it wouldn't be able to do it, which proves nothing at all.

You can't make LLMs think with the right prompt because they are not designed to think.

I think it's time you told us what you believe the word "think" means, because it seems obvious to me you don't f**king don't have the first f**king clue.

[BONES]

Try onomatopoeia for example. Humans can make sense of it while AIs can't. So much about flexibility.

My bandmate saw this (he thinks you're a fuckwit, by the way, and he thinks I'm an idiot for bothering with morons like you), which motivated him to give Gemini this .wav file and ask it to give him onomatopoeia for it -

CRB_Robot Innards_05.wav

"Here is the onomatopoeia for that specific glitch-burst: **KRR-ZZZT-K!** Or, if you want to emphasize the stuttering quality of the distortion: **SK-K-K-R-R-R-UNCH**"

Seems like a pretty decent attempt to me, certainly better than you'd get out of 99% of humans, even if you gave them a day to work on it. So that's another thing you've said that's easily proven to be completely wrong by the simple act of giving it a try. Maybe you should do that next time, before making yourself look stupid yet again?