# NVIDIA AIVA.. Beginning of the end



## Grim_Universe (Feb 26, 2018)

Today I was shocked by the results that AI can achieve by simply analyzing the JW work.
The most terryfying thing is that AI can compose endless hours of music that is similar to your favorite composer's music, so you can choose two or three minutes of incredible music and then make a great composition using this material. It's like a bottomless well of ideas and you have to simply choose which one you really like.. Terryfying!
Soon anybody will be able to train his own AI by analyzing Debussy, JW and his own music to make something, that includes the styles of great composers, and only few people will be able to distinguish a fake. The whole industry will be completely ruled by those who have access to such AI.
It feels like the time has come to change the job.
What do you think?


----------



## Alex Fraser (Feb 26, 2018)

Impressive as it is, it sounds like the AI was basically fed "Rey's Theme"


----------



## Daryl (Feb 26, 2018)

Doesn't worry me in the slightest, for various reasons:

1. Playing anything with a real orchestra (even one as out of tune as this...!) makes stuff sound much better than it really is.
2. If you really want to save money and time, you have to do it with samples.
3. The music was really uninspiring.
4. Did the AI come up with the printed material? We don't know. I would bet that an orchestrator sorted it out.
5. Certainly eventually AI is going to take work away from the people who are at the bottom of the industry, but it won't replace people at the top.


----------



## mac (Feb 26, 2018)

How long before Spotify integrates AI which creates music on the fly, suitable for your current activity or mood? Scary and amazing at the same time.


----------



## Nico (Feb 26, 2018)

We, humans, are going to be very bored once these machines do everything for us.


----------



## Zhao Shen (Feb 26, 2018)

ka00 said:


> Here’s an hour’s worth of music created by this AI:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the full implications of AI on humanity will be, you can be sure AI will figure those implications out first.




This is patently wrong. I can't claim to be an expert in the field, but I regularly work with deep learning and keep up with the latest academic papers and advancements. AI in movies and media is completely different than "AI" in machine learning as it is applied today.

You shouldn't be worried about Aiva. The reason music exists is because it's such a universally relatable form of expression, and because people come up with new material all the time. Aiva is a marvelous tech demo for what machine learning is capable of, and it will surely get even more advanced in the years to come, but it is not after your jobs. Aiva is literally incapable of original thought. Sure, there are plenty of Hans Zimmer clones out there, but none of them is actually drawing everything they know from Hans' previous scores. And in her current form, Aiva cannot customize the music to suit a client's needs.

That's not to say that AI won't eventually be able to do these things eventually. But in her current state, Aiva is far from being able to take your jobs.

Now, I don't know about original compositions, but I have frequently dwelled on the potential applications of deep learning to sample libraries. Imagine a system capable of splicing together samples to imitate a real recorded performance as perfectly as possible. There's much less room for "poor scripting" when the sample splicing is mathematically as realistic as possible, not to mention the opportunity for greatly accelerated release cycles. I'll have to look into that some more...


----------



## Greg (Feb 26, 2018)

Robots can play soccer too! What's the point of watching Messi anymore


----------



## gjelul (Feb 26, 2018)

You have the guy saying:
"What do you think, incredible, right?" He probably never composed a note in his life 

Not sure what the "incredible" thing is here, the AI ability or the quality of music. The machine vs human discussion will be there forever. As a composer, I am not worried at the slightest because there will always be a new technology 'threatening' our profession. We should use it to our advantage, same as with Midi, DAW's, notation programs, etc.

You have thousands of libraries out there that do give you the 'sound alike,' like this or like that, fast, quick and with top notch quality. Yes, it's kind of cool to have a computer compose, or paint, or write a book for that matter, by clicking on a few check boxes. However, the arts, as we know them, will never be replaced by machines. Unless, we as humans change our esthetics built over thousands of years.


----------



## tack (Feb 26, 2018)

Alex Fraser said:


> Impressive as it is, it sounds like the AI was basically fed "Rey's Theme"


I had this exact impression. And really an underwhelming facsimile of Rey's theme. I really wish I had been introduced without knowing it was done by an AI, as I obviously went into it biased. (However the likeness to Rey's theme is unavoidable, and I still would have felt it was a cheap knock-off.)

It was still arranged and orchestrated by a human, and perhaps the unmistakable similarity to Rey's theme was introduced by the human process rather than the AI-based composition.


----------



## Grim_Universe (Feb 26, 2018)

Great points of view, but it seems that you don't understand what is the greatest danger. AI never gets tired and it can generate hours of music without any problem at all. Yes, there will be a lot of bad stuff there, but you can choose what you like and make a good structure using all those themes.
And I think that the track feels very uninspired just because arrangers wanted to copy the Rey's theme structure, AI has nothing to do about it. Also don't forget that we are musicians and we know that AI used the same chord porgressions and modulations in this piece as JW did, but ordinary listeners won't notice anything.
Great themes are mostly random, and very often you don't know will the idea work or not. Now imagine that AI can generate thousand of those. Simply because of coincidence it can generate great stuff, which you can use and develop then.
I see only one solution to the problem: we must move away from standardized orchestral music not in the depth of theory (AI can emulate even the hardest and most advanced music, then orchestrators will do the rest of work), but in the depths of sound design and synth sounds creation. What I mean by that? Well, AI doesn't know how we perceive timbres and it can't synthesize sounds, and the only thing we can do here is to make a regular chord progression sound unusually, because in two or three years there will be no music that AI won't emulate. I predict "Beethoven" symphonies, Rite of Spring 2 and so on. If you think that there will be many outraged people who will say, that those pieces feel uninspired, then you are very wrong.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Feb 26, 2018)

Grim_Universe said:


> Great points of view, but it seems that you don't understand what is the greatest danger. AI never gets tired and it can generate hours of music without any problem at all. Yes, there will be a lot of bad stuff there, but you can choose what you like and make a good structure using all those themes.
> And I think that the track feels very uninspired just because arrangers wanted to copy the Rey's theme structure, AI has nothing to do about it. Also don't forget that we are musicians and we know that AI used the same chord porgressions and modulations in this piece as JW did, but ordinary listeners won't notice anything.
> Great themes are mostly random, and very often you don't know will the idea work or not. Now imagine that AI can generate thousand of those. Simply because of coincidence it can generate great stuff, which you can use and develop then.
> I see only one solution to the problem: we must move away from standardized orchestral music not in the depth of theory (AI can emulate even the hardest and most advanced music, then orchestrators will do the rest of work), but in the depths of sound design and synth sounds creation. What I mean by that? Well, AI doesn't know how we perceive timbres and it can't synthesize sounds, and the only thing we can do here is to make a regular chord progression sound unusually, because in two or three years there will be no music that AI won't emulate. I predict "Beethoven" symphonies, Rite of Spring 2 and so on. If you think that there will be many outraged people who will say, that those pieces feel uninspired, then you are very wrong.



I agree with all of that.

Many end-users will not care if a machine composed the music. As long as it is cheap and easy to use, these people will be satisfied. The YouTube channels and web-based content creators will eat that AI stuff up! 

For the clients who want something more inspired, they will not settle.


----------



## Zhao Shen (Feb 26, 2018)

ka00 said:


> I completely agree with everything you said. Except, what troubles a lot of people is that these developments seem indicative of AI's great potential in the future. Not just in music composition obviously.
> 
> True, most of us only know what we've seen in the movies, but I've highlighted only the caveats in your post, the essence of which one could probably boil down to "It's not yet time to be scared."
> 
> ...



Just want to first mention that the second quote is not by me. And of course I understand that you aren't attacking - disagreements are often the best form of good discussion!

To your concerns that AI is not _yet _capable of these things but might be in the future... Well, it might never be. But we don't know. There is a growing concern that the machine learning/deep learning craze is a bubble, and that deep learning models will never be able to generalize to a significantly useful point. The machine learning obsession has two parts - one is applying what has been discovered to current problems - stuff like speech processing, natural language processing, computer vision, etc. The other part is research - trying out new architectures, seeing what methods work, trying to solve the countless issues associated with the methods. ML/DL will always be useful because it's already showing very promising results for known problems such as computer vision, but continuous upward progress is not guaranteed. And should it ever be proven that deep learning is incapable of adequately tackling some of the harder issues that are being worked on currently (transfer learning, etc), there will certainly be a huge hit to its reputation and buzzword status, much like what happened to the perceptron algorithm decades ago.



Grim_Universe said:


> Great points of view, but it seems that you don't understand what is the greatest danger. AI never gets tired and it can generate hours of music without any problem at all. Yes, there will be a lot of bad stuff there, but you can choose what you like and make a good structure using all those themes.
> And I think that the track feels very uninspired just because arrangers wanted to copy the Rey's theme structure, AI has nothing to do about it. Also don't forget that we are musicians and we know that AI used the same chord porgressions and modulations in this piece as JW did, but ordinary listeners won't notice anything.
> Great themes are mostly random, and very often you don't know will the idea work or not. Now imagine that AI can generate thousand of those. Simply because of coincidence it can generate great stuff, which you can use and develop then.
> I see only one solution to the problem: we must move away from standardized orchestral music not in the depth of theory (AI can emulate even the hardest and most advanced music, then orchestrators will do the rest of work), but in the depths of sound design and synth sounds creation. What I mean by that? Well, AI doesn't know how we perceive timbres and it can't synthesize sounds, and the only thing we can do here is to make a regular chord progression sound unusually, because in two or three years there will be no music that AI won't emulate. I predict "Beethoven" symphonies, Rite of Spring 2 and so on. If you think that there will be many outraged people who will say, that those pieces feel uninspired, then you are very wrong.



Yes, this system is capable of producing an infinite stream of musical material. And you are right, it is highly probable that it will come up with excellent material at some point in this infinite stream. But that isn't the issue. This system is incapable of judging what it is producing aside from considering it in the context of the examples it was trained on. What that means is that, though it can come up with thousands of hours of music, and it can know some mathematical metric for how similar it is to the training data it was fed, it cannot decide which segments are "good".

So how do we handle that? Do we create another algorithm/system/loss function for deciding how "good" something is? How the hell would we do that? This is the heart of the issue. Because we cannot agree on what makes good music good, then it is impossible to create a system to automatically identify good music. So what do we do, assign a human to listen to hours upon hours of generated material until they hear something that isn't mediocre? Even when we assume that fatigue isn't an issue, can we really say that listening to algorithmic fiddling for hours is better than experimenting at a piano for a few minutes, with more control and less boredom?

Your point on sound design is much more interesting because you basically have a system capable of turning all the knobs at once, and you might be able to get some cool sounds as a result of that. But when you're talking about AI "emulating" the music of the greats... It already can. But you need to _feed _it the music of the greats first. It is incapable of "original" thought.

Machine learning requires so much more human involvement than most people realize. Even for neural networks, you end up with a human needing to preprocess the data, decide what architecture to use, what values to give all the hyperparameters, how to reduce overfitting, etc. I can definitely see Aiva being used to produce music - maybe train her on a collection of ambient tracks and see if the result can be inserted into videos where the music isn't important. But if you want the music to actively contribute to what you're working on, you need something that is capable of decision making and intent, and Aiva is not capable of either of those things.


----------



## NoamL (Feb 26, 2018)

A problem for evaluating this honestly is they blatantly made a remake of Rey's Theme (even ordinary people commented on YouTube that they recognized it immediately). Plus the final output is flattered with human orchestration and human performance.

However... what I can point out is that the piece definitely loses momentum at 2:34 and goes off the rails at 2:44. It's significant that those are also the main points of deviation from JW's structure. 2:34 is the right time to go from all the little motivic burbly bits into the main theme but the AI's music continues lamely for several more bars. The AI seems to be trained enough to recognize that the original piece contained a series of little motivic bits followed by a sweeping main theme, but it doesn't actually understand how the little bits might be arranged in a way that builds urgency from one bit to the next, creating the musical impetus for hearing the main theme.

When it comes to actual scoring applications I think of something like this scene



From 0:45-1:49 John is using one motive and a gradually building tension/dissonance to score the scene. Can we really create an AI that "knows" that the chord at 1:46 is "more tense" than the one at 1:37? In other words even if the AI were trained to write dissonant chords would it be able to plan a structure of increasing tension and drama that actually works?

Returning to the AI piece, the problem at 2:44 is that the theme has little to do with what we heard previously. It's in the same general tonality and mood but it's not _actually_ a development of the motive we heard. Mike Verta would surely shake his head here and say that we have two different pieces of music here that are lamely glued together.


----------



## NoamL (Feb 26, 2018)

To continue that thought, there seems to be something like the Turing Test at work here. Ordinary people are really impressed that the MusicAI puts the chords in the right order so that it doesn't sound like nonsense (i V vii iv iii I i v V), but composers know tonal grammar is "the easy bit" of music, just like "the easy bit" of writing or speech is arranging words according to grammar. Ordinary people were also at one point really impressed with chatbots, _precisely because_ they had no experience of a grammatical-sentence-producer that wasn't also simultaneously producing meaning. But once they understood that you could have one _without_ the other, their Turing filters became more sophisticated. As this meme demonstrates







Maybe AI will push human composers in the direction of composing music that obviously and explicitly has meaning in a way that a machine can't fake. Maybe we will see a return of melodies and motivic development to music. Because as long as we are in the mode of writing 4-bar progression cycles with "epic ostinatos," I think the AI will be able to camoflage itself as a human easier...


----------



## Daniel James (Feb 26, 2018)

Lots of legal ramifications for AI.

AI must learn from what exists. If you can prove that your work was fed into the machine for 'learning' you could potentially claim a copyright infringement as its creating a literal deviation of your work.

Granted this is also how humans learn, by listening, but we tend to extract the emotion from the works of others not just pure note data. An AI is studying the data of the work, so one could claim that it is using your original work to creative a derivative.

Besides when AI's are rampant and they all sound like a mix between HZ and JW humans will create new work, something an AI can't imagine, because it doesnt have the data. New tones and textures, new instruments, new scales if we have to. And if thats music is released with an EULA that it can not be studied by an AI they will fall behind.

AI will fuck composers over for sure. But it wont end us.

-DJ


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Feb 26, 2018)

Machines don't have intentions, do not know meaning, reason or motive, and are incapable of original thought. They will be fully capable of mass-producing the painting-by-numbers garbage people have been trained to consider music, and will be able to - to the unassuming ear convincigly - parrot and mimic compositional, arrangement and sound design techniques and generate ripoff permutations of existing things that came from human brilliance.

That probably will end up putting a lot of people out of work further down the line. But that's what automatization has always been doing. It will never however become a threat for _music_.


----------



## merlinhimself (Feb 26, 2018)

I think there's things that should be pursued with A.I and things that shouldn't. Right now it doesn't seem like there is capability of replacing composers, or even other artists of other mediums, but I would say its not impossible in the future. Art is human expression and it will be a depressing day when A.I. can make something on par or better than what a human can.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 26, 2018)

Well the computer AI is far more creative with human orchestral performers than what human composers are doing with computer samples. 

Maybe the humans need to get into gear, work harder, and be more creative? Humans were doing more interesting work 100 years ago than they are today IMO.


----------



## NoamL (Feb 26, 2018)

synergy543 said:


> Well the computer AI is far more creative with human orchestral performers than what human composers are doing with computer samples.



Ouch.


----------



## SergeD (Feb 26, 2018)

"this system is capable of producing an infinite stream of musical material"

Yes, but in a finite area only, like chess engines. Unfortunately a lot of jobs will be lost for average composers.


----------



## merlinhimself (Feb 26, 2018)

SergeD said:


> "this system is capable of producing an infinite stream of musical material"
> 
> Yes, but in a finite area only, like chess engines. Unfortunately a lot of jobs will be lost for average composers.


I think its a long way off (hopefully) there's a lot of other factors that I would guess would take a very long time to incorporate. The biggest I could think of is the palette outside of the orchestra, synth choices, ambience. A lot of the best movies or shows, thinking of Arrivals score, are so unique I couldn't imagine an A.I making those creative choices at the moment.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Feb 27, 2018)

That clip is hilarious! They rolled the Timpani a bit too long and hard 

Computer - digitize Rey's Theme - reshuffle notes within a given tolerance and output the result. 

It has to be the worst example for AI. Also - this looks like ANI which is pretty low level. There are some amazing advancements happening in AI but this is not one of them. 

Sorry!


----------



## Wes Antczak (Feb 27, 2018)

I heard that this forum is soon going to be called ai-control.net


----------



## givemenoughrope (Feb 27, 2018)

The real truth is that somewhere in the middle of Seinfeld’s run Larry David developed an easy AI/algorithm for the show. The show actually ended bc he upgraded to Windows xp and accidentally wiped his hd.


----------



## elpedro (Feb 27, 2018)

The machines will end up killing us all!Be afraid,very afraid!


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Feb 27, 2018)

elpedro said:


> The machines will end up killing us all!Be afraid,very afraid!


So Oceans can recover, the american buffalos can take back their homeland, whales can live their life again without painful noises and getting deadly hurt by ropes of fisherman, animals in the woods can move freely without having to fear a gunshot out of the dark. Factories with billions of animals living under the worst circumstances just for the purpose of being killed and eaten disappear. Seems like good news for all of the species on the planet exept the human one.


----------



## tav.one (Mar 19, 2018)

Aiva composed this. Honestly, I like it.


----------



## Jedinhopy (May 9, 2018)

SergeD said:


> Unfortunately a lot of jobs will be lost for average composers.


Hurts my future plans very badly.

And this:


> AIVA Technologies, one of the leading startups in the field of AI music composition, developed a deep learning-based system that is the world’s first non-human to officially acquire the worldwide status of Composer.


Kills the future for any music production people.


----------



## elpedro (May 9, 2018)

Jedinhopy said:


> Hurts my future plans very badly.
> 
> And this:
> Kills the future for any music production people.


Automation will take many jobs, not just composers...


----------



## Jedinhopy (May 9, 2018)

elpedro said:


> Automation will take many jobs, not just composers...


What's the purpose of living without earning money the fun way?


----------



## Nao Gam (May 9, 2018)

Jedinhopy said:


> What's the purpose of living without earning money the fun way?


My guess is social unrest and universal basic income for a few years until we find out how to build the matrix.


----------



## Jedinhopy (May 9, 2018)

elpedro said:


> Automation will take many jobs, not just composers...





Nao Gam said:


> My guess is social unrest and universal basic income for a few years until we find out how to build the matrix.


So i have gathered music composition/arrangement/production workflow techniques and experience + inspiration and creativity for nothing, then.


----------



## Nao Gam (May 9, 2018)

Jedinhopy said:


> So i have gathered music composition/arrangement/production workflow techniques and experience + inspiration and creativity for nothing, then.


Are you planning to make this a full time job? I'm starting as a hobbyist personally, to have fun and possibly make money on top (ironically also getting into AI). Don't stop if this makes you happy. Look at it this way... AI will take the overwhelming majority of jobs in the long run, so you won't be the only one thrown under the bus. It's sort of a safety net - the more people get screwed over the more likely it is they'll push for a solution. The number of drivers alone who are about to lose their jobs are in the millions.


----------



## Jedinhopy (May 9, 2018)

Nao Gam said:


> Are you planning to make this a full time job? I'm starting as a hobbyist personally, to have fun and possibly make money on top (ironically also getting into AI). Don't stop if this makes you happy.


Music production is an interest that i have developed around 11 years.
First starting out finding an easy to use DAW, (Digital Audio Workstation), .
And then discovering that it uses several different interfaces for different application windows. And learned that they are so called plugins. So i got into searching more on the internet about plugins like:
synth plugins, + , effect plugins.
And later got into the vst plugin collector bandwagon.
Searching the internet after freeware vst plugins of course.
And then after a few years, down the road. I had too many freeware plugins in my (VSTplugins) folder. , in my computer.
So i then removed many of them. Because i better keep the ones which GUI both looks better and is easier to use for me than the rest + the name of the plugin matters to some extent for me too.
And then when i got older and older, . I started to purchase some commercial vst plugins and some sample libraries here and there.

And now i am currently thinking about either being something of this in somewhere in the future:

Maybe being one of these, . ( , or maybe be a hybrid between some of them) ,
(audio engineer), or an:
(mastering engineer) , or an: (sound editor), or an: (music producer) , or an: (sound designer), or an: (sound recorder), . Since i have even bought a portable field recorder + a USB microphone for the computer.

And i am too a little on edge of creating my own sample library or sound-font of the physical objects that i have in my room.
That both my computer microphone and field recorder has an ability to pick-up/capture and record into digital (.wav) sound files, computer files. That i later can enhance with vst effect plugins and so on.


----------



## d.healey (May 10, 2018)

I haven't read through this thread so my thoughts may be echoing others.

AI can never create art. Art is a way of telling a story, infused with the soul of the artist, only a real intelligence can do this.
The actual piece of music in that demo was a crappy initiation of Rey's Theme.
John Beal "arranged and conducted" - The AI can't do it's own arranging, it can't talk to the musicians and express what it wants in a performance.
The AI knows "what the appropriate next note would be" - a human knows that any note can be appropriate
The piece is "completely created by artificial intelligence" - no it was standing on the shoulders of great composers as we all are. And it was ripping of JW.


----------



## Divico (May 10, 2018)

I think a computer cant come up with something really creative and new for a long time because it doesnt have taste. What it definetly will be able to do in a couple of years is write mediocre generic pieces. People are complaining a lot about the repetiveness in trailer music and I think thats where an AI could get used pretty soon. Imagine the producer sitting in front of his computer and generating random ideas for at least 2h until the AI finally comes up with something fitting his needs.


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (May 10, 2018)

Nao Gam said:


> My guess is social unrest and universal basic income for a few years until we find out how to build the matrix.


The alternative being, that many people conclude life is far less meaningful when there is no vision or underlying purpose involved, resulting in increased suicide and depression.

To think I work in IT as well, I do not like many of the ways these so-called innovators are going... technicians think like machines and it is often not a good thing 

The socially inept, deciding the future directions of society... oh the irony!


----------



## BlackDorito (May 10, 2018)

Divico said:


> I think a computer cant come up with something really creative and new for a long time because it doesnt have taste. What it definetly will be able to do in a couple of years is write mediocre generic pieces. People are complaining a lot about the repetiveness in trailer music and I think thats where an AI could get used pretty soon. Imagine the producer sitting in front of his computer and generating random ideas for at least 2h until the AI finally comes up with something fitting his needs.


Agreed. The computer is not conscious and cannot have an opinion on how effective some composition is at communicating. However, the French company that developed this capability is saying:

_As powerful as Aiva’s algorithm is, Barreau said the company has its sights set higher, with three features planned to boost its developing capabilities. He wants AIVA to be able to assess whether a piece of music was good or missed the mark, compose for a full orchestra directly, and convert the emotions in a script into a matching score.


Eric Breton, a well-regarded French composer and conductor, said he believes the ability for AIVA to determine whether a piece of music is effective could be game-changing. Composers, he said, are too entwined in their compositions to make such judgments.
https://vi-control.net/community/threads/nvidia-aiva-beginning-of-the-end.69351/reply?quote=4229744

“To judge music implies that you can be outside and to look from outside,” Breton said. “When I’m conducting, I must be in the heart of the music. It’s a big chance for musicians to use technology — no, to ask it — to push us toward excellence.”_

This will be more Intelligence Augmentation than Artificial Intelligence, which means we cell-based organisms can put it to good use. On the darker side, composers of musak and filler music will need a new line of work (... perhaps as IA engineers)


----------



## Divico (May 10, 2018)

BlackDorito said:


> Agreed. The computer is not conscious and cannot have an opinion on how effective some composition is at communicating. However, the French company that developed this capability is saying:
> 
> _As powerful as Aiva’s algorithm is, Barreau said the company has its sights set higher, with three features planned to boost its developing capabilities. He wants AIVA to be able to assess whether a piece of music was good or missed the mark, compose for a full orchestra directly, and convert the emotions in a script into a matching score.
> 
> ...


Yap. I guess by analyzing peoples taste in music an AI will become more effifient to please the crowd than a real human being. But Imo real innovation in music will stay untouched for a long while since this is harder to implement


----------



## Jedinhopy (May 11, 2018)

BlackDorito said:


> _Eric Breton, a well-regarded French composer and conductor, said he believes the ability for AIVA to determine whether a piece of music is effective could be game-changing. Composers, he said, are too entwined in their compositions to make such judgments.
> 
> “To judge music implies that you can be outside and to look from outside,” Breton said. “When I’m conducting, I must be in the heart of the music. It’s a big chance for musicians to use technology — no, to ask it — to push us toward excellence.”_
> 
> This will be more Intelligence Augmentation than Artificial Intelligence, which means we cell-based organisms can put it to good use.


It better be used to inform me which genres my songs sounds closest too, without having people listening to it and ask them what does this sound like and what does this resemble and/or which existing songs does this sounds closest too?


----------



## Nao Gam (May 11, 2018)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> The socially inept, deciding the future directions of society... oh the irony!


One of my favorite quotes is Dewars' "Go ahead. Look around." If you're not very good at looking around you compensate by going ahead. Especially if you're intelligent and knowledgable.
AI worries me. Just as much as it excites me. Not because of stupid things like taking over composition jobs or creating Skynet as is sensationalized by Hollywood (tho technically everything's possible). I'm afraid our brains won't keep up with the progress. That's another whole talk with a lot of speculation tbh.
Technology has always proved to be a double edged sword and this is its pinaccle so... We'll see.


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (May 11, 2018)

Nao Gam said:


> One of my favorite quotes is Dewars' "Go ahead. Look around." If you're not very good at looking around you compensate by going ahead. Especially if you're intelligent and knowledgable.
> AI worries me. Just as much as it excites me. Not because of stupid things like taking over composition jobs or creating Skynet as is sensationalized by Hollywood (tho technically everything's possible). I'm afraid our brains won't keep up with the progress. That's another whole talk with a lot of speculation tbh.
> Technology has always proved to be a double edged sword and this is its pinaccle so... We'll see.


Agreed on a number of things there 

Certainly a double-edged sword, because it is excellent in the situation where it is used to help those who need assistance, but sadly bad when those who are not needing of assistance develop it to cater for themselves. For them it risks becoming a way to not be able and instead to become indulged and dependant on something you did not even need.

I work in charity for Dementia and see how this is great, but also see how bad it is for those who use it to justify their own laziness because they are perfectly able.

Assistive devices should be for people who NEED assistance, not people who WANT it. Because I see those to be the people who will be the ones addicted to it in the end, leaving the ones who do need the assistance, simply grateful to have it


----------



## Nao Gam (May 11, 2018)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> Agreed on a number of things there
> 
> Certainly a double-edged sword, because it is excellent in the situation where it is used to help those who need assistance, but sadly bad when those who are not needing of assistance develop it to cater for themselves. For them it risks becoming a way to not be able and instead to become indulged and dependant on something you did not even need.
> 
> ...


To be fair in the future I can see this type of self indulging behavior harming only those who engage in it (and people close to them). I've studied the dopamine system a bit from a psychology standpoint after getting addicted to several things on the internet. Let me tell you, feeling like you can't trust yourself anymore to get it together is rough. Addiction's a very powerful thing and of course it's a substitute for connection.
The thing is, there's been talks of augmentation, of connecting networks to the brain via a brain-machine interface (if you've been following Elon's neuralink). If it's possible someone will do it and more will follow. On the one hand.. it does offer control over the whole ai problem. But I mean, the difference between a person with an iq of 140 and one with 80 is huge, not always in a good way. Smarter people have fewer friends, higher suicide rates, a much vaster input of information that takes effort to process and often kills confidence. Knowledge is power ignorance is bliss. Imagine having a second prefrontal cortex hundreds of times more capable, you'd go nuts within minutes or would have to turn it off. Unless of course only the necessary back and forth goes on, in which case you don't have a deep understanding of an entity that is attached to your brain, even temporarily.
Speaking of temporarily, I have massive temporary tinnitus from a rock/metal live tonight and it's very late so I'll end my rambling here for now.


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (May 11, 2018)

Nao Gam said:


> Speaking of temporarily, I have massive temporary tinnitus from a rock/metal live tonight and it's very late so I'll end my rambling here for now




Sounds just like the sort of thing I would end a deeply philosophical and metaphysical conversation with


----------

