Am I staring extinction in the face?’: classical music and AI

[SafeandSound Mastering]

It is often cited ay aye is a tool. A different interpretation is that it is an agent.

This means an individual, organization or group has to actively hand over control to something. In this case something that many people don't understand what they are handing over to, or the consequences for themselves or others in the future.

I am staving that off as far as possible for as long as possible because I don't want to be part of what appears might be potentially very dangerous.

For myself it is a case of not jumping on board a train where I do not know the desitination, which could very well be off the edge of a cliff.

[Arpangel]

just like anything else, we only have two choices, no choice and no choice at all.

There is an alternative, the question is have we got the guts to take it? you "can" stop "progress" if that’s what you want to call it.

Half the world has to wake in the morning and wonder where the next meal is coming from let alone shatGPT

Half the world is used by the rest, technology only makes it easier to take even more food out of their starving mouths, to make money to finance arms factories.
I heard some idiot on the box the other night saying what a wonderful thing it was that jobs have been created in his town, making submarines, and they’d put a replica interactive submarine in a shopping mall, why not put an interactive atomic warhead in Tesco's?
When I hear things like this from people who are supposed to be in charge, sane "upstanding decent people" I can feel the vomit welling up in my throat.

[BJG145]

Maybe there will be hybrid bands, where AI and humans play and improvise alongside each other. That could be quite interesting.

That would be cool...but who needs other band members? How about an AI-assisted instrument...like power steering but with more accidentals. Play like Coltrane on your smart Sax-a-Boom.

***************************

I just got back from a birdwatching mini-break with a friend near Snettisham. (Had to get up at 5.30 to visit a flock of oystercatchers, still recovering.) I was wondering if this new tech could help me gain an unfair advantage. Now saving for a pair of smart binoculars that can identify 9000 birds. (Will take some time.)

***************************

I hate all this AI cr*p really. Terrible idea.

[OneWorld]

just like anything else, we only have two choices, no choice and no choice at all.

There is an alternative, the question is have we got the guts to take it? you "can" stop "progress" if that’s what you want to call it.

Half the world has to wake in the morning and wonder where the next meal is coming from let alone shatGPT

Half the world is used by the rest, technology only makes it easier to take even more food out of their starving mouths, to make money to finance arms factories.
I heard some idiot on the box the other night saying what a wonderful thing it was that jobs have been created in his town, making submarines, and they’d put a replica interactive submarine in a shopping mall, why not put an interactive atomic warhead in Tesco's?
When I hear things like this from people who are supposed to be in charge, sane "upstanding decent people" I can feel the vomit welling up in my throat.

"Alternatives" and "Choices" are two different things, that's why there exists two different words, they are not interchangeable, in Set Theory there might be an intersect but there isn't a 1-to-1 mapping between them.

When we make a choice, it is driven not by what alternatives there are out there, but what choices of those alternatives available are within our circumstances.

And that is absolute poverty, as opposed to relative poverty, a rich millionaire is not as rich as a poor billionaire. Absolute poverty is that where there is no choice nor option of rising above ones circumstances, no education to improve their knowledge, no decent food to nourish and sustain them, at dinner time they just have the choice of rice or rice, and if they don't like rice then dinner is over.

You write........"and they’d put a replica interactive submarine in a shopping mall,"

Am I reading right? if this is true, and I am not denying that it is true, then I despair sometimes, I really do. I sometimes wonder, put myself in the shoes of someone working in a factory where they make bullets - does that person ever take a few minutes to ask him/herself...."I wonder whose daughter, son, father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife will this bullet kill?"

Yes people could say, but that bullet might be fired in defence, defence from what? another bullet?

[Martin Walker]

Well the Guardian is starting to publish chuckle-worthy anti-AI articles, today from columnist Marina Harper, on Sam Altman's AI video generator Sora 2, released very recently.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -generator

A few quotes form said article to give you an idea:

"The past fortnight for Sam has involved the release of AI video generator Sora 2 – a staggering upgrade on the Sora of barely 10 months ago – and its instant descent into a sludge of stolen copyrighted goods."

"And look, no offence to Sora’s “creators”. I often walk through art galleries and realise the stuff on the walls would be so much better if I simply stole it and drew hilarious penises on it or whatever, and that they wouldn’t have made it publicly viewable if they didn’t want that."

"I’ve seen it said that OpenAI’s motto should be “better to beg forgiveness than ask permission”, but that cosies it preposterously. Its actual motto seems to be “we’ll do what we want and you’ll let us, bitch”."

"Many of us remember a time – about 15 minutes ago – when rightsholders meant the people who hold the rights. I mean, the clue’s right there in the word. But Sam is post-rights. The question is: if he’s post creative rights, can we honestly believe he isn’t effectively post other kinds of rights?"

I'd like more articles of this ilk mself, as humour tends to reach more people than reasoned discussion.

Martin

[OneWorld]

Refreshing to see a measured and non-reverential perspective about AI. All the alarmist shock, horror, run for the hills, lock up your daughters/non-binaries, tether your 'oss and batten down the hatches are meant to do nothing but attract clicks and keep the names of the actors in the public gaze, to give the issue some cache.

Will it affect my day? 'appen, will it ruin my day? won't be the first thing that's done that, won't be the last - oh dear what a shame never mind.....as long as I go to bed with a full belly and a roof over my head, it won't amount to much. A hoot I do not give.

'Hype' - my favourite word - Not!

[Albatross]

I heard an author on the radio a few days ago. She was really quite down about AI, that her boooks had been scraped and that the thing could knock up something in her style in minutes. As she said, "it takes years to write a book, a lifetime of thought and experiences."

I can't help thinking that the worst side of AI is it seems to be spreading a, 'what is the point" attitude within the creative community. Its not easy being an artist. Its a constant battle with feelings of being pointless and uneasy about not having a proper job. It plagues most artists all their lives and they exist on the edge a lot of the time.

Sad to see it. Its going to make a lot of very talented people take a long hard look at what they do and why they do it.

[BJG145]

I don't think an AI could write an interesting novel yet. I'd like to think that was some time away, but it'll probably come sooner than we expect. Kind of hard to believe, but, will probably happen.

[RichardT]

Maybe there will be hybrid bands, where AI and humans play and improvise alongside each other. That could be quite interesting.

That would be cool...but who needs other band members? How about an AI-assisted instrument...like power steering but with more accidentals. Play like Coltrane on your smart Sax-a-Boom.

***************************

I just got back from a birdwatching mini-break with a friend near Snettisham. (Had to get up at 5.30 to visit a flock of oystercatchers, still recovering.) I was wondering if this new tech could help me gain an unfair advantage. Now saving for a pair of smart binoculars that can identify 9000 birds. (Will take some time.)

***************************

I hate all this AI cr*p really. Terrible idea.

I use the Merlin app to identify birds by song, and I’ve found it’s very helpful in learning bird songs and calls. I think it’s down to how it’s used. If the binoculars were used to completely replace human expertise that would be dispiriting, but as a learning aid they could be quite valuable.

[BJG145]

I use the Merlin app to identify birds by song

...yes, they had that on all the time. I mostly looked on and nodded while they agonised about whether it was a bar-tailed or black-tailed godwit they'd just seen.

[Arpangel]

Yes people could say, but that bullet might be fired in defence, defence from what? another bullet?

Exactly.

[ef37a]

ALL present company excepted of course but I cannot lose the feeling that all the worries about AI are stemming from its steady creep up the "intellectual ladder"?

Ever since the invention of the power loom, people have been put out of work by machines. "Automation" it was called when I was growing up. First it affected manual labour but computers* made jobs involving number crunching, money say, much easier, quicker and cheaper for the businesses.

The pattern was set long ago. Replace people with 'dumb' machines and **** the people they displace. Sophisticated industrial robots remove ever more jobs. They don't sleep, can work in the dark and the cold/hot, don't need a canteen, toilets, breaks, HR! Most of all they don't pay taxes nor NI. The vast savings and profits they reap go to a tiny number of people who mostly stash the cash offshore in tax havens.

Where were the "intellectuals" when factory workers were being shafted?

It is well known that the gap between rich and poor just keeps getting wider I don't see any government anywhere in the world having a solution to that (or indeed the will? THEY hope to ride the gravy train) All I see sooner or later is bloody revolution.

*But not sometimes that well? I can recall our gas was administered by East Midlands Gas Board" The man came and read the meters and (I guess) an army of folks processed the bills by hand with a desktop mechanical calculator. We never got bills for £10,000 for a quarter or one for £0.00. Because a PERSON would see that was 'king stupid!

Dave.

[James Perrett]

ALL present company excepted of course but I cannot lose the feeling that all the worries about AI are stemming from its steady creep up the "intellectual ladder"?

I'd totally agree with this. It is noticeable that much of the noise about AI has come about because it is starting to take the jobs of those who make a living from words - either written or spoken. These are the people who have easy access to the media so we get to hear endlessly about their woes.

However, we still have craftspeople who make things in the old ways and there is still a demand for their products but only the skilled craftspeople have really survived. In the same way, creators will have to up their game and learn to create works that can't be created by AI.

[OneWorld]

"These are the people who have easy access to the media so we get to hear endlessly about their woes."

Yep, as if they have the monopoly on woes - "Welcome to planet earth" I tell them

[Hugh Robjohns]

Sky news published two lists of the jobs most and least at risk from AI. All pretty obvious (and with a suspiciously American selection of jobs):

https://news.sky.com/liveblog-webview/m ... g-13040934

They think those most at risk included roles like proof-readers, interpreters and translators, authors, technical writers, journalists, telephone operators (I didn't know that job still existed!), broadcasting announcers and radio DJs, customer services representatives, market research analysts, advertising sales agents, archivists and historians, and public relations specialists.... and more.

The jobs least at risk include floor sanders and finishers, firemen, pile-driver operatives, railway maintenance workers, logging equipment operators, roofers, builders, road maintainers, dentists, surgeons, optometrists, maids and cleaners, dishwashers and food servers, truck and tractor drivers, painters, plasterers, embalmers, masseurs....

So, I'm retraining as a masseur offering happy embalming endings, with a bit of logging at weekends.

[amanise]

...
So, I'm retraining as a masseur offering happy embalming endings, with a bit of logging at weekends.

You'll probably only have to do half the course once they take your PhD into account. Gotta love life long learning

[James Perrett]

Sky news published two lists of the jobs most and least at risk from AI. All pretty obvious (and with a suspiciously American selection of jobs):

https://news.sky.com/liveblog-webview/m ... g-13040934

They think those most at risk included roles like proof-readers, interpreters and translators, authors, technical writers, journalists, telephone operators (I didn't know that job still existed!), broadcasting announcers and radio DJs, customer services representatives, market research analysts, advertising sales agents, archivists and historians, and public relations specialists.... and more.

That's another journalist talking about things they're worried about.

AI doesn't work well when you need to appeal to specialists - and it has a habit of hallucinating. This has been highlighted in the US where lawyers have used it to cite non-existent cases and incurred the wrath of judges. So we will still need people to proof read the output of AI - even if AI does the nitty gritty work.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Yeah.... the lists are infantile bollarks. Clearly, manual jobs of all kinds can not be performed by AI...

As for the rest, 30 seconds reading the AI summary of any Google search reveals how unsuited AI (currently) is when it comes to critical, intelligent writing of any form...

AI might well be able to assist in usefully productive ways, now or soon, but replacing it completely? Not for quite a while.... But I wouldn't bet against it in the longer term.

[ef37a]

"However, we still have craftspeople who make things in the old ways and there is still a demand for their products but only the skilled craftspeople have really survived. In the same way, creators will have to up their game and learn to create works that can't be created by AI."

I would not be too sure about that James. My dad was a master craftsman woodworker (they don't let you make church organs unless you are!) but he embraced "technology" whenever it helped the job. He convinced a very conservative boss to replace smelly, messy hot glue with PVA and get in better machines. If a machine can cut perfect dovetails under the hands of a craftsman it can be controlled by a computer. CNC machines have been able to engineer products vastly more accurately than any human for decades.

There is also a difference to me between a craftsman and an artist. The former does a job very well for reward. The artist finds his/her own reward in their work and often live a very tough life in the process. So, the craftsman has always looked for ways to make his goods as quickly as possible because they needed the money! The great painters in Paris etc did not paint EVERYTHING on the canvas! They did the finishing touches and had apprentices for the donkey work. Today, robots could do such preparation.

Regarding plumbers, electricians etc. Yes, these jobs will stay with humans but there is a problem. Either people don't want to pay them a decent wedge or, increasingly people have either no job, or are so poorly paid they can't afford a good tradesman. The local social media I dip into is full every day with folks wanting basic work done but always with the caveat "must be cheap".

As a society we are not paying the people we really need enough money. I am no economist so I have no solutions to that but then neither it seems do the "experts"?

Dave.

[OneWorld]

Sky news published two lists of the jobs most and least at risk from AI. All pretty obvious (and with a suspiciously American selection of jobs):

https://news.sky.com/liveblog-webview/m ... g-13040934

They think those most at risk included roles like proof-readers, interpreters and translators, authors, technical writers, journalists, telephone operators (I didn't know that job still existed!), broadcasting announcers and radio DJs, customer services representatives, market research analysts, advertising sales agents, archivists and historians, and public relations specialists.... and more.

The jobs least at risk include floor sanders and finishers, firemen, pile-driver operatives, railway maintenance workers, logging equipment operators, roofers, builders, road maintainers, dentists, surgeons, optometrists, maids and cleaners, dishwashers and food servers, truck and tractor drivers, painters, plasterers, embalmers, masseurs....

So, I'm retraining as a masseur offering happy embalming endings, with a bit of logging at weekends.

There was a seemingly intelligent chap that phoned Nick Abbot during his show on LBC last night. Now, the caller was all in a tiz about how sinister chatGPT was, and what exercised this bloke enough to have him almost wetting his pants was this, firstly, some background........

SOme years ago, two top snooker players had a serious bust-up in the tunnel to the changing rooms and it was said, one of the snooker players said something very unseemly about the other snooker player's wife, and what was said has remained the subject of no amount of speculation.

So the caller typed into chatGPT "What was it that X said about Y's wife in their bust-up during the tournament at the Crucible in <whenever>"

The answer came back "I know what was said but policy does not allow me to disclose that information"

From another AI software, the caller got the reply,........

"I am not allowed to make that known to you"

Another......

"I do not keep that kind of information"

And this caller had convinced himself that the various AI's were intelligent enough to deduce the issue was somewhat controversial and decided that he - the caller, could not be told that information.

And the bloke (the caller) was tying himself in knots over this, in awe that this AI was now making value judgements based on what questions whomsoever posed. It didn't dawn on him that such a question involves no more reasoning that a vast and sophisticated pattern matching ability, but essentially is nothing more than a gargantuan database, that deal with nouns and verbs, and of course is coded in such a way to flag up keywords/phrases....

Input:Name
Input:Age
If Age=>18 THEN PRINT "You are old enough to buy me a pint"
Else PRINT "Too young"

Now in the Snooker Player example, a string of text in typed in - nouns and verbs eg "What was it that X said about Y's wife in their bust-up during the tournament at the Crucible in <whenever>"

PARSE THE SENTANCE and identify the players and what they did - NOUNS, VERBS Who Did/Said What

X=NOUN, Y=NOUN

I can't be bothered typing out the algorithm, you'll get the picture anyway, but essentially, after parsing, the lexicon database is consulted and matches identified - where does X, Y appear together together in the phrase also containing bustup/argument/fight etc and once that string has been identified, then the associations relating to that phrase become the output and in this case, to give the output some cache, some gravitas, the impression of 'human intelligence' the output will be "I am not allowed to disclose this", "You are not allowed to see this"

Whereas what could be output could be a simple "Don't know" but to maintain
the appearance of reasoning and intelligent, a more dramatic answer is displayed.

It is all kidology. NOw that is not to say that in AI there is no 'intelligence' abstract reasoning, and my example here is over simplified, because AI's 'reasoning' encompasses logic, set theory, probability and anyone interested take a look at the book "Mathematical Linguistics" it'll boil your brain.

But we should not be so awe struck. Think about it. In an ordinary day, how often do we use our brain? much of what we do is habit, re-iterated, recursive, it doesn't really take much working out. OK if we are writing a symphony for full orchestra of 20 minutes duration, yep, we need use our noodle, or nay, just wring a song with the guitar, that can be mind boggling too, that's where creativity comes into things and that I would argue is one instance where we need put on our thinking caps, unless we are writing a 3-chord trick sort of song, which I hasten to add can also demand deep thought. AI can do a reasonable job of writing a tune because there are so many musical cliches. I was listening to a highly regarded(and rightly so) singer t'other day and I concluded "Learn six chords and you have all her portfolio under your fingers" she happens to write infectious melodies on top though and is a consummate professional, she writes from the heart and writes with her head resulting in flawless performances in such engaging manner - show me a robot that will do that and I'll show my ass in Greggs' window

[Martin Walker]

So we will still need people to proof read the output of AI - even if AI does the nitty gritty work.

This is catching out students too - there are plenty relying on AI to write their essays which are subsequently found by tutors to have basic factual errors.

At the moment, AI is supremely confident of its written abilities, to the detriment of accuracy.

[Murray B]

At the moment, AI is supremely confident of its written abilities, to the detriment of accuracy.

I listened to an episode of Cautionary Tales on BBC Sounds where they were reflecting on the prophet like predictions regarding AI from Douglas Adams, and they likened Chat GPT to Eddie the onboard computer on the Heart of Gold. It seemed like a rather good call.

[Martin Walker]

...they likened Chat GPT to Eddie the onboard computer on the Heart of Gold. It seemed like a rather good call.

Exactly!

[Matt Houghton]

Clearly, manual jobs of all kinds can not be performed by AI...

Why?

We have robots. We have self-driving vehicles. It may need instructions to start, but so-called AI technology is capable of providing both with instructions.

It's not a question of whether it's truly intelligent (it isn't). It's a question of when it becomes cheaper/less hassle/more reliable for someone to replace a human with a system based on AI and machines.

That someone might be an Evil Billionaire's Corporation deciding to replace human roles with computers and machines. Or it may be customers deciding to rent an 'intelligent machine' to do a 'DIY' job cheaper/sooner than they can find a capable human to do it.

There's no reason in theory why an AI-instructed robot couldn't, say, sand and finish a wooden floor. Or patch the potholes in a stretch of road. Obviously some manual jobs are more challenging technically than others. But that's not a question of principle.

The biggest questions for me are who gets to benefit from any revolution. And how those who don't benefit then react socially and politically...

[Matt Houghton]

On a more focused note... classical music is precisely the sort of music I'd expect AI to be half-decent at 'creating'. There's so much of it to draw on, and so much in particular styles, with specific instrumentation that there's a frankly incredibly data set for it to learn from.