KVR Audio

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Sat Mar 31, 2018 3:46 pm

The thing is not that it is "way behind" the capabilities of the human brain, it is that it's completely different to the human brain. A machine doesn't "forget", for example, unless you program it to forget. And even then, you can just program a random forget routine, which isn't at all comparable to the way the human brain forgets, either because the human isn't interested, or is sloppy, or has a hangover, or has Alzheimer's, or simply has a shitty memory (points at self). Really, there are so many factors, of organic, or psychological kind, that you can't account for in a computer program, so i don't think this is even worth the discussion. Not in a hundred, or a thousand years from now on. And, who knows what will have been invented at that point in time.

Tj Shredder · Post by **Tj Shredder** » Sat Mar 31, 2018 3:52 pm

The scary thing is, that future AI will not be programmed, it will evolve on its own. They already combine neural networks with evolution algorithms. Now teach them to build and replicate themself. Thats by the way the definition of life...
Humans won't do it, but they start it...

Aloysius · Post by **Aloysius** » Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:23 pm

Tj Shredder wrote:... The OP posted it exactly at the time you proposed to him...

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:41 pm

ooh kvr wedding
ill ned a new hat!

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:25 pm

Fun fact: there are estimated to be 100 billion neurons in the average human brain.

Guenon · Post by **Guenon** » Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:32 pm

chk071 wrote:A machine doesn't "forget", for example, unless you program it to forget. And even then, you can just program a random forget routine, which isn't at all comparable to the way the human brain forgets, either because the human isn't interested, or is sloppy, or has a hangover, or has Alzheimer's, or simply has a shitty memory (points at self).

Sigh. I guess you didn't quite get what I was trying to say previously? The models that AI research is dealing with these days are way past that sort of naive AI approach (again, from the 60s and 70s), where you imitate a system by observing the high-level phenomena of what it does, at face value, developing routines for all observable actions -- like forgetting

, which according to you, wouldn't happen if it wasn't specifically imitated by programming a "forgetting routine."

Instead, one of the big challenges AI reserachers are facing today is the fact that current AIs forget things. You are correct in stating the obvious, that AIs are different from our brains, and that the forgetting in current models is generally different from our experience of forgetting, but everything else (and the way you are describing these differences) is incorrect or misleading or missing the point. All in all, pretty much just feeling-based "I have a feeling this is the way these things work, so I'll speak my mind" conversation.

Yeah, I get this is just a lighthearted and entertaining discussion in the end

, so maybe I should stop facepalming and replying when reading stuff like that, haha. I'll just try to do that.

"Why Does Catastrophic Forgetting Occur? Catastrophic forgetting in neural networks occurs because
of the stability-plasticity dilemma (Abraham and Robins 2005). The model requires sufficient plasticity to acquire new tasks, but large weight changes will cause forgetting by disrupting previously learned representations. Keeping the network’s weights stable prevents previously learned tasks from being forgotten, but too much stability prevents the model from learning new tasks."

(Kemker, McClure, Abitino, Hayes, Kanan 2017)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.02072.pdf

.jon · Post by **.jon** » Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:33 pm

Tj Shredder wrote:
.jon wrote:AI can literally be fed by all available literature, films, music, news, commercials etc and human reactions to them. Our collective history and heritage.
That is exactly why its useless for creative art. It might be capable to reproduce the historic frames we place our art in. It can only find new recombinations, nothing really new.
Yes, you can teach a neural network to compose like Bach, but he gave us already plenty of it, we long for Cage...; - )

An AI would easily be able to follow "The Manual" and create hits, but they will be forgotten soon...
Docorin' The Tardis has no musical value, but the book how they made a No. 1 hit is a piece of art.

Mine was response to someone who thought AIs don't have experiences- which is false, they can have much more experiences than any human can.

They can also find more than "recombinations", they can discover patterns and connections from vast amounts of data (amounts that could never be processed by any human even if he had thousands of years) and make conclusions based on those, and then produce and reiterate works from those.

Holding creativity on some sort of mystical pedestal as the last domain of humanity sounds like religion to me. From a biological point of view most of our actions don't happen in the tiny part of brain that handles "rational thinking", our body just processes saved neural imagery unconsciously. This doesn't make the process complicated or irreproducible by machines.

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:55 pm

vurt wrote:im not sure if its a growth on her leg, or whether its just an abstract of boobs and labia?

so it gets the same reaction picasso often does from me...

Picasso MEANT to do that. Picasso had ideas. Picasso made compositions and it's not just a lot of pretense that he's seen to be at the vanguard of painting. It's mind-expanding.

This is a lot of mistakes and not getting the idea, because the thing has no REALITY to work with. So it's routines running and they don't add up to a coherent whole; the thing doesn't know anything. Accidental Cubism? A coincidence I'd say.

I have stated that I don't think AI is going to be composing music worth anything. It's going to be copies. Recombining regurgitation of 'musical facts'.

Now, I guess music in terms of maths analytics is probably easier to suss than painting human nudes.

What is the definition of creativity? I have to come down on the side of having your own ideas. So, a machine to have its_own_idea means self-awareness. But what will a self-aware machine construct be? At what point is it having experiences? How does it acquire empathy? Self-aware means that it values itself. It doesn't want to die.
Scifi deals in this. I think nobody here has this sussed so it's speculative fiction; we can do thought-experiments...

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:00 pm

Tj Shredder wrote:The scary thing is, that future AI will not be programmed, it will evolve on its own. They already combine neural networks with evolution algorithms. Now teach them to build and replicate themself. Thats by the way the definition of life...
Humans won't do it, but they start it...

A machine building a copy it's built to build is the definition of life.
I don't think so.

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:04 pm

For it to be SELF-replication it has the notion 'Hey, this is me I'm building!'. What has to happen technically for it to recognize *itself*? Its self, which it values, an identity all its own, individuated.

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:19 pm

Yes, you can teach a neural network to compose like Bach, but he gave us already plenty of it, we long for Cage...; - )

I would bet $1000 against any artificial ANYTHING composing an imitation Bach piece well enough to fool anyone with an IQ of 75 or higher who had even a passing familiarity with his music.

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:22 pm

jancivil wrote:
vurt wrote:im not sure if its a growth on her leg, or whether its just an abstract of boobs and labia?

so it gets the same reaction picasso often does from me...
Picasso MEANT to do that. Picasso had ideas. Picasso made compositions and it's not just a lot of pretense that he's seen to be at the vanguard of painting. It's mind-expanding.

This is a lot of mistakes and not getting the idea, because the thing has no REALITY to work with. So it's routines running and they don't add up to a coherent whole; the thing doesn't know anything. Accidental Cubism? A coincidence I'd say.

I have stated that I don't think AI is going to be composing music worth anything. It's going to be copies. Recombining regurgitation of 'musical facts'.

Now, I guess music in terms of maths analytics is probably easier to suss than painting human nudes.

What is the definition of creativity? I have to come down on the side of having your own ideas. So, a machine to have its_own_idea means self-awareness. But what will a self-aware machine construct be? At what point is it having experiences? How does it acquire empathy? Self-aware means that it values itself. It doesn't want to die.
Scifi deals in this. I think nobody here has this sussed so it's speculative fiction; we can do thought-experiments...

im actually in agreement with you, im not sure we are anywhere near saying ai is sentient, whereupon it will have its own mind.

but, it is fun to speculate. even going down the "robots will destroy us and eat our hearts" road, because even if that does happen ill be long dead.

also, as much as some of picassos work does confuse my eyes upon first looking, i appreciate his work for that very reason, for a human to view the world in such a way is a testament to our imaginations (as a species) as are for example van goghs starry skies, although now they are postulating he was suffering cateracts.

computers don't have the imagination behind them, its a program.
although i do wonder if you got that printed out like they do in stores where you can make your photos look like oil paintings, i wonder if anyone would see the reality of what they are looking at, or can it be appreciated as art without the foreknowledge its a computer program?

Teksonik · Post by **Teksonik** » Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:37 am

I find it deliciously ironic that some members of KVR don't think A.I. is capable of creating music that is "worth listening to".....

Do I think A.I. can compose better music than 99% of the human population today ? Ehhh I don't know but I've listened to music created by humans recently and well you can take it from there.

After all ,what is Music if not pure Mathematics ? Frequency, Amplitude, Duration etc, all numbers. Can A.I. create passion, soul, and feelings into music today ? Perhaps not but who knows what the future holds.

All I'm saying is if one of the most intelligent humans on the planet has a healthy fear of A.I. we would probably do well not to turn our backs on the machines.....

"Elon Musk is famous for his futuristic gambles, but Silicon Valley’s latest rush to embrace artificial intelligence scares him. And he thinks you should be frightened too".

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03 ... ai-space-x

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 74821.html

And so on..........

Aloysius · Post by **Aloysius** » Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:22 am

How will stupid people influence the perception and creation of artificial intelligence?

Aleatoriac · Post by **Aleatoriac** » Sun Apr 01, 2018 2:24 am

Well it's incredibly easy for stupid people to breed
Couple that with democracy... Only thing that can stand up to the magnificent power of Human stupidity is an AI God.

How will smart software (artificial intelligence) influence the perception and creation of music?