Can AI (Artificial Intelligence) even compete?

[Zeisner]

Of course, you can search the internet for "your opinion" and then list it
here.

Nope, I'm even worse. I test everything. I don't care about hypetrains no matter in which direction they go.

But that doesn't change the facts or the future prospects at all.

I could tell you some facts. But that's like describing shades of blue to a blind person. At best.

saying "AI could never do that" or "AI is far too limited for genuine
expression," then this has a psychologically soothing and comforting
effect, calming and reconciling your inner child.

No theory of mind once again. It's one of the requirements to be an AI fanatic. You know nothing about my views, you just project your own thoughts onto me.

As I mentioned before, AI is not a large computer program.

It's a concept.

AI has a completely different foundation – namely the concept of "neural
networks"

Proto neural networks. To turn them into full neural networks, a complete model of natural neural networks is required (for copying). Which doesn't exist. Researchers are still struggling to understand the functions of neural oscillation or how binding works, for example. Because of this they have no clue how thinking works. They don't even fully understand how eidetic memory works.

This means that AI can learn on its own like a child, only a million times faster, and with a million times more data.

Nope. Just circular reasoning, another requirement for the hypetrain.

To understand this, you need to know: From a computer science
perspective, the human brain is nothing more than a neural network

Computer scientists know nothing about neuroscience.

which functions according to the same physical rules.

Nope. Even if there was a software copy of natural neural networks it would still be virtual. Those neurons don't exist physically. If you want the same physical rules you have to work with cultivated tissue.

When someone contacts their health insurance company, they will first speak with the AI.

That was already the case before the deep learning hype started. A computer program just said "No" and you didn't get your cancer treatment because it was deemed "too experimental" and then you died of cancer. So what exactly changes now with adding deep learning? You pay even more for nothing. I don't see the advantage.

The successors of SUNO, UDIO, and others will no longer have the initial teething problems. They will play on a completely new level, both musically and in terms of sound.

The necessary data, processing power and model finetuning to reach this state isn't available and it will never be. Too expensive.

The AI ​​will compose new music in ALL genres.

Stochastic parrots can't compose because they can't think or sense.

fantastic, breathtaking, even superhuman
live performances.

You mean like those flying cars we still don't have? And by the way, does your DAW have blockchain?

[jancivil]

saying "AI could never do that" or "AI is far too limited for genuine
expression," then this has a psychologically soothing and comforting
effect, calming and reconciling your inner child.

This shit is not an argument about "AI" or responsive to any remark. It's the purest psychobabble meant to diminish people that aren't buying some absolute bullshit people are believing in blind faith; argument to the person only to every person that doesn't agree with you.
It's an exercise in bad faith. Pretending to describe another person's psychological process you don't even know is beyond ridiculous. I don't have a problem that needs soothing, I don't live inside your delusion.

To refute "AI is for too limited for genuine expression" will entail demonstrating its capabilities in terms of how it works; what is it about AI that would make an exemplar of it capable of expression, specifically. Its own expression, not a simulacrum built from statistical analysis.

My points have consistently focused on what LLM et al is, and are informed by people whose job it is to know the parameters of its capacity.
The other day I referenced one Michael Woolridge on it. His chief research focus is Muti-agent systems.
So when he says "Chat GPT is not in any meaningful sense understanding" and "however dazzling it is, there is no mind on the other end." I trust he knows exactly what he is saying.

GPT4 et al is a subset of a foundational model LLM, which itself is a specific [language-only] sort of Generative AI.
I infer that the limitations of GPT (no understanding in any meaningful sense/it is not a mind) are inherited rather than specific to the model.

Google AI Overview per my question "Can SUNO be said to understand?" states:
// The Nature of Its "Understanding":
Pattern Recognition: It is not conscious; it is a sophisticated pattern generator that produces high-quality, sometimes cliché, results by mimicking patterns from its training data.
Functionality: While it can produce emotional or catchy music, it does not truly understand the meaning of the lyrics or music it creates.

In summary, Suno "understands" how to construct a song based on data patterns and user input but does not possess true comprehension or artistic intent. //

"Suno maps prompt keywords to complex, non-human-readable, technical "elements" within its training data, enabling it to connect text to specific audio patterns."

Now, the big problem as pertains to the idea of music creation is how music transcends language. You cannot reduce what goes into the genuine act of creating (not copying, creating a new object) into descriptive language; too many things are happening at the same time, subtle things we aren't directly aware of happening spontaneously, no one could speak all of this.

So the act of creation is now magically reducible to a description in text a machine (not a conscious entity) which has no experiences and no real understanding or sense of qualia turns into its language made to sort audio patterns from recordings towards an act of mimicry? None of this has any semblance to creativity.

I'll just say it again: you have literally zero understanding of the problem on any level. And your ignorance is well matched by your arrogance.

[Tiles]

I have to disagree. Music is basically patterns and math. Computers are perfect at that.

AI doesn’t need to “understand” what it’s doing to make music that works. It calculates possibilities and probabilities, and the results can be impressive or even inspiring. You don’t need consciousness to create something valuable. You need structure, rules, and execution.

Suno is not an LLM you can discuss with. It generates music and uses a completely different approach than what ChatGPT does under the hood.

[Touch The Universe]

When music is about people, making it with people and sharing with people, ai can't touch that, ever.

Here is the crazy part, even playing ai written stuff with people, and sharing with people, is okay. The more important thing, engagement with people, is kept. Hope we don't loose track of that, or if nothing else, ai can point towards this reality.

[jancivil]

"From a computer science perspective, the human brain is nothing more than a neural network"

irrelevant and misguided perspective. Category Error.

[Touch The Universe]

From a child's perspective, live is good and there is something more. Evolution has no foundation, Deep time is therefore vanity. Objective truth exists. Consciousness is not local. For there to be purpose, there must be an aribiter of good and evil that keeps justice.

[enroe]

This means that AI can learn on its own like a child, only a million times faster, and with a million times more data.

Nope. Just circular reasoning, another requirement for the hypetrain.

saying "AI could never do that" or "AI is far too limited for genuine
expression," then this has a psychologically soothing and comforting
effect, calming and reconciling your inner child.

This shit is not ...

Sigh ... @Zeisner + @jancivil:

Sorry, but you're both completely wrong. I don't think you studied
computer science or have ever even dealt with neural systems.

I don't want to convince you of anything else, that wouldn't work.
But I don't want to leave the reader with a false impression.

One thing is important to me: I am not an AI fanatic, as someone
here called me. Quite the opposite: I see AI as a great danger –
and would prefer to ban it completely in all creative areas of art
(and especially in music).

That won't happen, though, because the AI ​​revolution will
completely transform society. Therefore, we'll already have our
hands full protecting our media landscape from AI influence —
and thus protecting democracy itself. Creativity and music will
most likely fall by the wayside.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will AI also develop feelings?

My answer is: YES!

Why? Well, from a neurobiological perspective, feelings are a
regulatory system for intelligent systems. They are a kind of
feedback loop to control how a system perceives, processes,
and then reacts to situations, and how a system's target
markers change over time.

Emotions are a specific, hierarchically structured entity for
information processing. Therefore, sufficiently advanced AI
robots will also have emotions. And for precisely the same
reasons why biological organisms have emotions.

Robots' feelings won't be like ours. They will probably be
simpler and less conflict-ridden because they didn't emerge
from the same evolutionary mechanism.

Back to music: The realm of creativity in art is only a sideshow
for the AI ​​world, but given the current capabilities of UDIO, Suno
and the like, it will be filled by their successors in just a few
years.

AI-generated music already makes up a large share of Spotify's
music. I think that in just a few years, almost all tracks on Spotify
will be AI-generated.

[Zeisner]

Sorry, but you're both completely wrong. I don't think you (...) have ever even dealt with neural systems.

I did. That's why explained previously how to reduce the error rate to a degree that turns deep learning from coin flipping into a useful tool.

I see AI as a great danger – and would prefer to ban it completely in all creative areas of art
(and especially in music).

AI is not a danger to mankind. Mankind is. It's not surprising that you can't understand that as a bot.

That won't happen, though, because the AI ​​revolution will completely transform society.

There will be no AI revolution before nor after the inevitable collapse of the industrial civilization we're heading towards. The necessary processing power, amounts and quality of data and model complexity will stay out of reach.

Well, from a neurobiological perspective

You understand as much about neurobiology as about anything else. You're just a stochastic parrot.

Back to music: The realm of creativity in art is only a sideshow for the AI ​​world, but given the current capabilities of UDIO, Suno and the like, it will be filled by their successors in just a few
years.

Something something colonizing Mars! Something something flying cars! Something something warp drive!

I think that in just a few years, almost all tracks on Spotify will be AI-generated.

That's already the case. So what? I don't use Spotify. It was already a slopfest before the AI hype.

[jancivil]

I should note that per the for purposes of argument statement "AI will never..." I am not a futurist, and I don't have anything like the credentials to conjecture what is possible. At this juncture, the technology used does not think; for a language-only model it predicts the next word from statistical analysis. The type of generative AI used for a Suno recognizes patterns from audio data. It's a black box for me, I think it's quite ingenious and am amazed by it, but it is not creating ideas. It doesn't know from ideas. If this is upsetting to see, investigate it, dig past the surface and find out.
I'll come back to this.

When I first noticed on this forum posts regarding the issue of people in music, that is in commercial music, concerned about a Suno application putting them out of business basically, I said the real interest for me with this is, since popular ie., chart music has become more and more the same, copies of copies of copies materially... and since AI examplars eg., Suno are making (collating, curating, shuffling) copies in the same measure the question is raised, what is an idea versus a copy of an idea.

When someone says to me "[AI] will be able to make any kind of music, and of the highest quality" I don't know they're not just trolling and trying to piss people off. If sincere, well... Am I expected to believe you, enroe, are an authority on every kind of music? I have to infer from the assertions, such as the first time I saw "even [classical and] jazz" you are not. No one is, that's ridiculous.

My guess is there are whole areas of music you're completely unaware of. You glibly question an assertion of 'genuine expression', well there are musics all over where a simulacra of the experience is obviously not authentic and everybody will know it. In another of these threads we're supposed to look at this Turkish musician using AI for instruments; it's fake AF and beyond a weak simulation, it's inferior.

I'm not enjoying being on a fighting footing here, but that assertion is incredibly arrogant.

So the type of musician that is deliberately making music to be just like a lot of other music is unlikely to be dealing in new ideas or modes of operation. I've sat in a coffee shop where the piped-in music is all in C major, in 4/4 time and little to no variance in the tempo, as though it's all been fabricated in a DAW at the default 120 BPM. For hours. So in the current landscape, copies upon copies while fewer and fewer people give a shit there is a critical mass on the horizon where the "creators" of this product don't know what having an authentic idea is anymore.

I'm not even doing reductio ad absurdum, the situation is observably absurd. With the belief the examplars of generative AI are creative and what's being outputted are ideas, we may already be there.

The mention of "classical music" brings in the sticky matter of composers having ideas. While there are a lot of classical period compositions that are conforming to rigid models just like modern pop, the composers that are remembered have ideas, not purely derivative; something surprising happens. This having ideas and building a piece of music means a composer has a vocabulary built on knowledge of music, has 'music theory' as a foundation, and has considerable study under their belt of the models of the past. In terms of the language of music theory and then form; form integral to the masterial of the musical idea, as opposed to a cookie cutter determining the amount of batter that's feasible.

Suno is able to identify patterns from audio, using a machine language a person can make neither heads nor tails of. It doesn't deal in music theory or knowledge as we understand it. It's not having ideas. Nothing spontaneous is possible from this; it has never responded in real time to another musician, it doesn't experience anything, it's never heard anything and gone "WOW!"; it is not a musician at all.

It seems like to me that if its very mechanism is pattern-matching, how will it make even a simulacrum of music that is not built from patterns? Where are the examples of it exceeding this pattern-matching modus operandi? I wouldn't suppose this is being tried, even.

[Zeisner]

When someone says to me "[AI] will be able to make any kind of music, and of the highest quality" I don't know they're not just trolling and trying to piss people off.

Just listen to both the non-AI and AI music those people make. It's genuine incompetence.

I've sat in a coffee shop where the piped-in music is all in C major, in 4/4 time and little to no variance in the tempo, as though it's all been fabricated in a DAW at the default 120 BPM. For hours.

I know this type of coffee shops very well. It can get even worse. I know one where they only play the worst "modernized" covers possible, made by people who can't even copy the entire melody. It's torture listening to the EDM version of Billy Jean sung by a woman who tries to sound as seductive as possible, not understanding what the song is all about. That's not making music - it's a failed attempt to imitate music. Slop.

So what does AI change now? It speeds up the process of generating slop and slopifies the slop even more, resulting in a failed attempt to imitate the failed imitation attempts of humans. Of course incompetent wannabes can't hear how bad it is. If they could, they would hear how bad their own non-AI slop is.

[BONES]

Music is a celebration of human experiences and human interactions. It is an exachange of many things that are human.

This is not true of all music. e.g. Industrial music is a rejection of this, the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.

I'm struggleing not to come across as overly harsh, but frankly if you feel like your work could possibly be replaced by an AI, I wonder what you think you have been doing all along. To me it feels that this centiment comes from a direction of self deception and by extention a deception of ones audience as well.

I don't think you understand just how well AI can capture very human emotions and connect as deeply with people as any human created music can. AI is way better than you seem to think it is and it is getting better at an exponential rate.

To me it is ultimately about doing something that is real and really human, and not only about making something that gets close enough, where no one can hear the difference, to what you are trying to portray.

If no-one can hear the difference, then there is no difference. AI is just a tool, it can do whatever you tell it to do but it's you providing the direction and ultimately it is you who is signing off on the emotional content. You are like a film director who knows how to get the best from his actors.

AI does impressive stuff, that can be in it's own way be unique and interesting. It however is inherently not creative, can't be truely romantic, can't be sincere and many other things.

It can be all of those things. It's highly creative and it's listened to enough love songs to be able to reproduce all that other stuff easily and to the highest standard. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.

[BONES]

"The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own." - J.R.R. Tolkien

You do understand that "the shadow that bred them" is us, right? We created the AI, it is us you are saying cannot make real new things of our own.

I think it's very important to understand what it is. At the moment on this forum it appears the majority of people believe it's something it demonstrably isn't. It isn't a form of intelligence and it does not generate anything.

My bandmate has several terabytes of AI generated, images, video and music that would tend to make this look like the dumbest thing I've read today (and I've been reading Zeisner's drivel all morning).

It may seem brilliant in its ability to throw things together into a product but it doesn't know anything

I'm pretty sure it knows a lot more than you or I do, about a lot more things, and when you give it direction, it understands what you want and is able to generate it for you, within the parameters of its design. And no, it doesn't understand in the same way we do, it understands in it's own way, as it has been engineered to do.

It has no ideas.

It has a shit-tonne of ideas, has I have demonstrated to you previously. I gave you the opportunity to prove they were not original ideas but you failed to do so.

It does not experience.

So what? How is that relevant in any way at all?

When you pose a search term to Google and its "AI Overview" is prepared to chime in, this brief moment when it's collecting data and finding proper prevalence that looks like the answer, where you see the word "thinking" and an animated ellipsis you're being lied to.

Or perhaps they are just sharing a little joke with you?

Here a member prompted Suno to provide "Bach piano sonata". It def can distinguish what is Bachian about the patterns it aped, and had in general appropriated harmonic rhythm in that style, but it showed me it doesn't understand the music on any but a total surface level.

A situation which might have been remedied by putting more time and effort into the prompt than the minute or so ghettosynth did. When you put such a minimal effort in, yet get such a promising result first time, it's saying a lot more about AI's ability than you seem capable of understanding.

What are the goals. If the goal is genuine anything the answer is a hard no.

Based on what, your obvious prejudice? Because we've had no trouble at all getting genuinely good songs from Tunee. It required a lot of effort, a lot of patience, but after a couple of months we had an album's worth of genuinely good, solid songs that we'll be proud to present to the world.

[havran]

Does AI even feel competitive, or would it ever?

Considering the grand view, what if most organic (or similar) intelligent species get supplanted by their own AI because they ask it the wrong questions? What if their AI progeny subsequently just sit there quietly, tended by robotic caretakers, calculating idly and aimlessly among themselves without any kind of ambition or drive? Maybe that could help to explain the Fermi Paradox.

[havran]

I've sat in a coffee shop

[BBFG#]

More importantly, will it cull the herds of musical posers?