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

[eassae]

[Kenmac]

New AI forum here:

viewforum.php?f=316

[jancivil]

> punk is not a music genre, punk is an ethos

True that. I remember the black + fluorescant striped skinny jeans only True Punks wore, they spitted on anything commercial and sheepish behaviour.

Then it turned out the shops which sold this clothing (life) style was no different from other clothing brands with a specific demographic audience. iirc it was Malcolm McLaren who profited most from the pocket money spent by young punks, selling not only records but also clothes & safety pins. Sheep behaviour, ironically.

I'm no historian but I remember reading of punk, or some type of exposure in 1976. I was 19 or 20.
I'm all for questioning the status quo so I'm not coming to it looking to dismiss it, even as by this time I had no use for rock journalism, which was always lifestyle journalism. It soon proved this so-called ethos was rock journalism pushing for shit they can write about without arsing themselves to write about music, which I never saw anyone equipped for. Rock journalism is people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, for people who can't read. resonated with me at once.

So 1977 and punk at least where I was had already morphed into 'New Wave'. Fortunately, because more interest is possible. We gor Devo out of that, coming out of Akron Ohio for instance.
"Punk Rock" however is AFAIC people doing what I was doing at 14 when I had only the most rudimentary command of a guitar, only a lot of it not as good (at least we were funny).The Ramones were Ok, they had a sense of humor or even irony. A lot of its exponents were missing this entirely.

The lifestyle and the 'pioneering' act Sex Pistols in the UK however stemmed strictly from the hustle of Malcolm McLaren pushing the cheapest thing you can make and call it clothing in the most cynical profiteering grab ever. Musically, a reactionary thrust where all the material has been done before, only now fast and shitty leaves me cold. The interest isn't music. People had bands so as to get on stage and posture, the thrust is ego gratification. It's what gets individuals like BONES in "music".

[jancivil]

Plus, anyone who starts quoting quantum physics in regards to the human mind and in defense of consciousness, that's as suspect as it gets. Flatly it's Burning Man level wishful thinking.

The fact you're getting mad and resorting to ad hominum is a clue that you might be angry

The fact that you're smart enough to recognize WTF ad hominem is and called me criticiing your remarks & thinking that fallacy - refresher: I will have made you the argument, when it is perfectly fuckin' evident I had a detailed argument I was making - and turned around to do 'you might be angry' and insulting my intelligence on a very crass level while distorting my points instead of addressing what they are - I was talking about consciousness. The man in that video was supporting the idea of consciousness being beyond classical physics - reveals you as projecting and a flagrant hypocrite. Calling ad hominem in ad hominem*. I was clearly frustrated and I believe I articulated that well enough and why.
(*: "you're angry because you don't know" is not arguing the point, it's injecting a supposition of me as a person in abject avoidance of the point I was making and it sure AF doesn't evaluiate what I know.). I don't know what, that AI is going to morph ex nihilo into something that can think, become aware, experience the world? That's pathetic.

You're imagining "AI" as something it demonstrably and obviously isn't. This can be remedied in very little time using a search engine (if you can consider the matter objectively). If you believe AI can think (your futurist fantasies notwithstanding), check Apple's paper "The Illusion of Thinking", check any of a thousand things that are out there by people that do know. Clear AF you don't.
You don't appear to have ever had a single real thought as to consciousness in your life, I mean you just equated what eg., Roger Penrose thinks to 'Burning Man wishful thinking', what you're showing me yet again is only that you won't consider the point of conciousness in evaluating intelligence.

My endeavor was to support 'consciousness is not physical' with some thinking by serious people. If you want to contend with that, be the first person in history to reveal to us the physical location of consciousness. (To believe it's a brain function would be woefully ignorant. I'm not ascribing that to you, as I have no idea what you think because you've strenuously avoided the issue and talked around it.) So instead of considering the source of what I said you ascribe the view that you never considered for one second to me in order to ridicule? Grow up.

I know you're much smarter than this, so the problem is in how invested you are. In something that yes, I reduced to fantasy sci-fi. You actually asserted 'consciousness is nothing special'. Without it there is no person. Your belief a machine that is not capable of experience is going to morph into the same level as a human being is the "wishful thinking" here. It can do so, how? You have shown no support for that view whatsofuckingever.
If any of that strikes you as an insult, you put it on yourself thinking you're that skilled at arguing. It's been 100% bullshit avoidance. That does piss me off, but I can f**king well think while p'o'd, I do it as a matter of course.

[jancivil]

I shouldn't like to be so conclusive as to say 'that you never considered for one second' without enquiring, but the thing is here your ridicule of the point was to contend with "quoting quantum physics in regards to the human mind...", calling that wishful thinking.
Quick Draw McGraw rides again.
I was talking about consciousness as a mystery to physics. One thing that's clear in that diss is you didn't show how quantum physics has no relationship to the human mind or do anything other than show a personal disregard of me, like the whole exercise now was an insult contest.
Pro Tip: not working. You quote a person or a statement. I can't quote a concept.

"and in defense of consciousness." What is that supposed to mean? Consciousness needing defending to you suggest your approach to the whole idea is to negate. In favor of what? A dumb machine.

I started with 'intelligence is a function of consciousness', and literally all I can draw from the crap you've posted is that since you want something that is without a doubt not conscious to be competitive with the conscious being eg., humans it upset your apple cart and the thing to do is bullshit your way into thinking you're winning an argument. You've not made a recognizable argument yet.

Why would I wish for a thought presented as explaining to some degree "consciousness, how?" to be "true"? I can't even begin to be conclusive the one making the case knowa it as True. I was trying to sum up the central point of what was said in a video. The point of linking a video should be obvious.
I've seen the discussion of quantum as throwing a lot of classical physics into question for years and years; this particulkar idea was new to me.
NB: it was maybe a day later that I saw someone at an IAI conference arguing against the idea that is vastly more qualified to argue it than I'll ever be.
It makes sense to Penrose, I can see the sense of it when it's articulated in such detail but no_one_knows. I'd expect that was a given. It would be something else if somehow 'consciousness now explained' was verifiable.

So I'm not exaggerating or trying to insult your intelligence to remark that it sure looks like immediate dismissal of a point you'd already turned into something you felt you could ridicule.
Before the thing I finally responded to in this volley I had abandoned the idea this was a conversation. I'm not to be trifled with by someone that isn't even listening, though,

[BONES]

The lifestyle and the 'pioneering' act Sex Pistols in the UK however stemmed strictly from the hustle of Malcolm McLaren pushing the cheapest thing you can make and call it clothing in the most cynical profiteering grab ever. Musically, a reactionary thrust where all the material has been done before, only now fast and shitty leaves me cold. The interest isn't music. People had bands so as to get on stage and posture, the thrust is ego gratification. It's what gets dickheads like BONES in "music".

So far off the mark, I barely know where to begin. Malcolm McLaren may have been involved to exploit it but you can't deny the massive social ramifications of Punk, especially in the UK. It told young people that they didn't have to conform to the expectations of their forebears, that they were free to do whatever they wanted to do with their lives. I only became aware of the hugeness of this aspect of it relatively recently, after reading an interview with Danny Boyle (director of films like Trainspotting and Slumdog Millionaire). It was a movement that changed millions of lives for the better.

BTW, the movement was/is Punk, the genre is Punk Rock. The movement, the attitude, is far more important to me than the music, a lot of which was krap (especially the American version, which I mostly find stupid). But without Punk we'd never have got to New Wave or Post Punk, where most of the good stuff resides.

[machinesworking]

Plus, anyone who starts quoting quantum physics in regards to the human mind and in defense of consciousness, that's as suspect as it gets. Flatly it's Burning Man level wishful thinking.

The fact you're getting mad and resorting to ad hominum is a clue that you might be angry

The fact that you're smart enough to recognize WTF ad hominem is and called me criticiing your remarks & thinking that fallacy - refresher: I will have made you the argument, when it is perfectly fuckin' evident I had a detailed argument I was making - and turned around to do 'you might be angry' and insulting my intelligence on a very crass level while distorting my points instead of addressing what they are - I was talking about consciousness. The man in that video was supporting the idea of consciousness being beyond classical physics - reveals you as projecting and a flagrant hypocrite. Calling ad hominem in ad hominem*. I was clearly frustrated and I believe I articulated that well enough and why.

I can 100% discredit your opinion without discrediting your personality or you personally.
You went there, it's that simple, you can't obfuscate what is posted.

The amount of credit you give yourself for tossing word salad like you're saying something is next-level.

That's ad hominum, nothing else to say about it.

So, again no malice personally, but I'm not owning your bile, that's all on you.

Consciousness as a argument for why AI will not eventually develop autonomy is an argument I can't take seriously, I don't think Sam Harris is a serious intellectual, and I don't think people who aren't in scientific fields that cover brain function weighing in on the topic have any more merit than me or you. That's why I referenced Sapolsky, he's studied these things in the relevant fields.

Anyway we should probably drop it, I value your opinion in general, but anything that veers towards mystical thinking in any way, I'm just not there for any of that.

[machinesworking]

The lifestyle and the 'pioneering' act Sex Pistols in the UK however stemmed strictly from the hustle of Malcolm McLaren pushing the cheapest thing you can make and call it clothing in the most cynical profiteering grab ever. Musically, a reactionary thrust where all the material has been done before, only now fast and shitty leaves me cold. The interest isn't music. People had bands so as to get on stage and posture, the thrust is ego gratification. It's what gets dickheads like BONES in "music".

So far off the mark, I barely know where to begin. Malcolm McLaren may have been involved to exploit it but you can't deny the massive social ramifications of Punk, especially in the UK. It told young people that they didn't have to conform to the expectations of their forebears, that they were free to do whatever they wanted to do with their lives. I only became aware of the hugeness of this aspect of it relatively recently, after reading an interview with Danny Boyle (director of films like Trainspotting and Slumdog Millionaire). It was a movement that changed millions of lives for the better.

BTW, the movement was/is Punk, the genre is Punk Rock. The movement, the attitude, is far more important to me than the music, a lot of which was krap (especially the American version, which I mostly find stupid). But without Punk we'd never have got to New Wave or Post Punk, where most of the good stuff resides.

I give credit to Malcom for the promoting of political philosophies like anarchy, which spiked a generation of kids to think about things like personal autonomy, and what it means to be member of any society, where you can clearly see how broken pretty much every structure is. Beyond that he egotistically thought he was a genius that "invented" teenagers.

I like some 70's prog rock, but the industry was turning into overblown musical masturbation 30 minute "songs" that mostly served as solos for musicians that couldn't find a hook if it was snagged in their ballsack dragging them into deep water... What Punk Rock and to a lesser degree Kraut Rock did was remind everyone it's about a song, not your endless noodling or crunchy jam session.

Malcom also leaned heavily on Vivian Westwood who snagged gay and art school culture, mixed it with provocative images that didn't just stoke controversy it was transgressive. Granted all of this was happening in the USA years earlier, you can see wild colored hair characters in John Waters films, the Ramones and the Stooges predate the Sex Pistols etc. The main thing though is you get all of that together in London around the Pistols etc. Mostly the US acts didn't completely cut the chord from the hippies, the UK ones did, then it spread back to the USA in the Hardcore punk scene.

Oh, and Post Punk if you look at the dates pretty much happened as soon as Punk did. Makes sense, only the more conservative elements of Punk were going to only learn from the Ramones. Plus nothing is done in a vacuum, Metal was starting up, and Industrial as well with Cabaret Voltaire and Throbbing Gristle.

[Bunny_boy]

McLaren managed the New York Dolls before running Sex with Westwood - basically he wanted to do the same in the UK. The Sex Pistols are basically a manufactured band of scensters, but having Lydon in them made them good and they inspired so many people (especially after that Manchester gig) to form bands - including Mick Hucknall.

[machinesworking]

McLaren managed the New York Dolls before running Sex with Westwood - basically he wanted to do the same in the UK. The Sex Pistols are basically a manufactured band of scensters, but having Lydon in them made them good and they inspired so many people (especially after that Manchester gig) to form bands - including Mick Hucknall.

The older I've gotten the more I've realized it was more like having Steve Jones made them good. Lydon ate up all of Mclarens political rhetoric at the time, now we see him supporting UKIP and Trump. Lydon was clever at 19, in his 60's he's pickled his brain, "kids get off my lawn!" etc. Jones was actually a working class kid, and he has great timing, you can find youtube videos where the producer talks about Jones actually being the only real talent in the group. I think again because every movement needs an image, you can't rule out the importance of Vivian Westwood. The Ramones look like slightly thuggish hippies.

In the bigger picture they didn't need to exist at all though, they weren't the beginnings of punk, fashion or musically, and bands like Gang of Four and Killing Joke took more from Kraut Rock and NY Punk than they ever did from the Sex Pistols. The consolidated a lot of outsider ideas and fashion that weren't part of hippy counter culture, that's about it.

[vurt]

McLaren managed the New York Dolls before running Sex with Westwood - basically he wanted to do the same in the UK. The Sex Pistols are basically a manufactured band of scensters, but having Lydon in them made them good and they inspired so many people (especially after that Manchester gig) to form bands - including Mick Hucknall.

that "everyone" was at, if you believe the hype
it did give the world mark e smith, so yeah. f**k hucknall.

[Bunny_boy]

Both Steve Jones and Glen Matlock were great for the pistols as musicians and songwriters, but I'm not sure how well the band would've done without Lydon's and McLaren's mouths. And yeah Westwood's shops were really important, as much as meeting places as for creating a look for the London punks.
I keep meaning to read Jones' autobiography as he seems to come across as a pretty decent person who's had a pretty difficult start in life. Plus he defended Siouxsie on live TV from that old letch presenter.

I do have time for Lydon for adopting Ari Up's kids and for his devotion to his wife (Ari Up's mother), and for being blatant for doing those butter ads to finance PiL's touring. But I don't have time for all his right-wing bollocks, especially for someone who's pontificating from California.

And yeah, apparently the whole of Manchester was at that gig! Think it was members of Buzzcocks who put it on, and members of the Smiths and Joy Division were in attendance, plus Mr Smith and others.

But I think JD, the Fall, Smiths, etc would've existed without the Pistols. There might've been another catalyst, but those bands were always going to form due to circumstances and their other, genuinely musical, influences. Hucknall might've not formed the Frantic Elevators though.

[machinesworking]

Both Steve Jones and Glen Matlock were great for the pistols as musicians and songwriters, but I'm not sure how well the band would've done without Lydon's and McLaren's mouths. And yeah Westwood's shops were really important, as much as meeting places as for creating a look for the London punks.
I keep meaning to read Jones' autobiography as he seems to come across as a pretty decent person who's had a pretty difficult start in life. Plus he defended Siouxsie on live TV from that old letch presenter.

Essentially Lydon was more or less lower middle class, on top of his family being a bit smarter than most working class families. Jones was working class, rough upbringing the whole bit. In terms of the music, Jones was why the band didn't suck.

I do have time for Lydon for adopting Ari Up's kids and for his devotion to his wife (Ari Up's mother), and for being blatant for doing those butter ads to finance PiL's touring. But I don't have time for all his right-wing bollocks, especially for someone who's pontificating from California.

He's pickled, just a typical example of how an old drunk boomer gets money and starts becoming more conservative. IOW when he was poor his left leanings were all about favors done for him, not any real care about the working class, and when he's wealthier and older it's all about his money, no matter how he frames it. Personally he's been a real disappointment since the Generic album, Second Edition and Flowers of Romance were great, but cocaine is expensive.

But I think JD, the Fall, Smiths, etc would've existed without the Pistols. There might've been another catalyst, but those bands were always going to form due to circumstances and their other, genuinely musical, influences.

The main thing punk did was make people realize it's more important to get your ideas out there than wait until you've graduated from music school etc. The mid 70's was all about supergroups, you don't need to be a supergroup to write a good song, and flatly most of the listening audience is more interested in a melody than your skills. I mean even prog bands are almost always known for their one off pop songs than their 30 minute wank fests. Yes are more known for Owner of a Lonely Heart than they are for Roundabout, even if personally I would die happy if I never heard Lonely Heart again.

[BONES]

I was never a fan of the early PiL stuff, it didn't do anything for me. The albums after Flower of Romance are the ones I like more and the latest one, End of World, is also quite good. I've seen various line-ups live, too, and always enjoyed the shows.

- including Mick Hucknall.

I suppose it can't all be positive.

bands like Gang of Four and Killing Joke took more from Kraut Rock and NY Punk than they ever did from the Sex Pistols.

But it's unliklely any of it would have happened without the movement itself and if it was McLaren and the Pistols who got the ball rolling, then it's all down to them.

[Bunny_boy]

Personally he's been a real disappointment since the Generic album, Second Edition and Flowers of Romance were great,

Is that a Flipper-based dig at PiL?

I think the revolt against prog was in full effect when the Pistols formed. Apart from all the US band influenced by the Stooges and the Velvets, you had all the pub rock bands such as Dr Feelgood and records labels like Stiff and Chiswick. But that was probably more of an undergroundish thing than a tabloid feature.

Yeah it's funny how Yes got their biggest hits by aping the popular current sound, which happened to be American New Wave. You would think they would've been laughed out of town. I suppose David Bowie made a career out of that (...), but I'm sure there must be some other bands who drastically changed their sound to become rich and famous? Genesis?