Master AI (Artificial Intelligence) Discussion/News Thread

[PristineSound]

No I am stating the very basics any AI practitioner calling themselves halfway competent should know.

AI is useless without a LOT of initial training by humans, and continued training and supervision afterwards while in operation.

Claiming anything else is complete ignorance of AI basics.

I can fully attest to this statement. As someone who just rebuilt an Android app from a company that went out of business with no source code by using Claude to reverse engineer it.

As someone who in the last 6 months got a new role with my company (a house hold software company) that is now heads in first with AI.

As of today, AI needs a lot of human initial guard rail and training to do amazing things. And it requires being challenged quite a bit by humans.

 

[Axo1989]

Am I reading you correctly and that you are open to the possibility of enjoying fully AI generated music?

That’s something I’m certainly struggling with.

At the moment, it gets a huge no from me.
I certainly wouldn’t want to deprive other people of what they enjoy listening to.
But for me, I’ve just always maintained a view and a feeling that when I’m experiencing art of any kind I’m connecting to an artist, and so my appreciation is directed to an artist.

When AI creates songs, just like when it creates artistic photos or paintings or movie clips, I feel the ground beneath my feet shift. Now there’s art but no artist. I don’t know how to aim my appreciation.

And for me the role of somebody doing prompts does not inspire that appreciation.

I don’t know maybe it’s like learning to understand and appreciate rap music.
To a lot of people outside rap it just looked like rap were stealing bits and pieces of other musicians work - those musicians did the hard work of coming up with those songs and hooks, and the rap musician is just piggybacking off of that. Again, at least for quite a long time that was a perception many people had of rap (I admit I still feel tinges of this, even though I have appreciated rap). But then many people were won over once they became more familiar with rap.

So maybe that will happen with AI music. I don’t know. But for now I find the prospect deeply unnerving.

Oh no, I was responding to this …

It's not AI - it is posers trying to leverage AI tools to try to be musicians. No different from people using autotune to pretend to be singers, which has been going on forever and is no different at all. (and there have been many extremely successful "singers" doing that).

Indeed. Nothing I'd ever consider listening to. Give me real unaltered human singing voices and musical instruments all day, everyday, or nothing at all...

… with an example of an artist I would ‘consider listening to’ (Charli xcx) using auto-tune deliberately and creatively. By contrast, here’s a whole sub-genre of auto-tune slop consisting of dudes crooning witlessly over basic beats that I’d only listen to by accident.

I probably confused the issue by also citing Eno’s early generative music experiments, which is another thing really. That was following on from previously noting Arca's use of generative tools consciously/artistically (based on their own material as training corpus) which is a world away from lazily gaming Spotify with prompt-slop.

I think the only poster here less likely than me to be diving into popular use of 'AI' would be @Somafunk.

 

[anonyless]

I seem to we’ve been rather lucky than since AI has been very helpful, solving all sorts of issues.

Here’s one from among many:

My father-in-law who lives in a retirement home, started having a problem where he wasn’t getting sound anymore from his computer, including playing the Internet.

He had a bit of a tricky set up (set up by his son) with outboard, amplification outboard speakers. But he is pretty much legally blind, and was helpless to fix it.

Normally, I would’ve gone over to troubleshoot, but I wasn’t in the physical condition to do so.

So my poor wife had to go over and try and help him. You could not point to anybody less technically inclined in the world than my wife.

When she phoned and described the complicated set up, I just said it could be any number of different things so just turn on ChatGPT use the voice mode and have it guide you through some troubleshooting.

She did that and it helped her solve the problem within 5 to 10 minutes.

Recently ChatGPT has helped me troubleshoot and solve some network issues, some browser issues etc.

I admit, I scratch my head when people say they can’t find any use for it.

it is helpful, but from my experience - it's programmed to first be "pleasing" before precise and well detailed -
meaning, it would prioritize a "quick and easy" solution before a well thought accurate one.
or maybe there's a "i'm not a novice, but give me all the precautions and outcomes before every command" mode that i'm not aware of

 

[Axo1989]

AI has been around for a LONG time in computing discussions. I first encountered it in University in the 80s when discussing "Expert Systems", which led with algorithmic intelligence rather than a huge data lake that could be abstracted into helpful rules.

Three decades after Forbidden Planet's Robbie the robot? What took you so long?

You could say that real intelligence is based on algorithmic complexity. What we call "AI" in this discussion is repetitive (and actually pretty dumb) parallel processing of a huge data lake via a small number of relatively simple neural algorithms that are optimized for specialized functions... but -again- leveraging a HUGE data lake. No more R programming crap.

Newton supposedly observed *one* falling apple falling on his head and derived a formula out of it through a lot of math diligence to model the experience. AI would collect 10 billion events of apples falling on people's heads and -if you used it properly- help you correlate those events. It is an immense difference.

So 'more apples' (multiple instances of the same thing) is an immense difference, but completely artificially generated voices (vs autotune effects, a different thing) are 'nothing new'. I'm not following your train of thought.

 

[MattHooper]

Oh no, I was responding to this …


… with an example of an artist I would ‘consider listening to’ (Charli xcx) using auto-tune deliberately and creatively. By contrast, here’s a whole sub-genre of auto-tune slop consisting of dudes crooning witlessly over basic beats that I’d only listen to by accident.

Ah, got it.

I personally am fine enjoying some deliberately auto tuned sounding stuff.
It’s a style.

What I really don’t like is the extensive use of pitch correction on almost every singer at this point.

I really enjoy somebody with singing talent, and I have a fine ear for whether somebody is singing in tune or not so I always appreciate that aspect of a skilled singer as well.
So not long ago, I watched a few videos that popped up on YouTube or social media or whatever of a young singing group, two brothers and a sister I think, and I thought they had absolutely beautiful singing voices and sounded really professional, and that their harmonies were bang on in tune.

So I was filled with admiration at their skill…. Until I remembered….wait!… everybody is auto tuning now!

So I went and I double checked whether Phil on his wings of Pegasus channel has covered that group yet. This is a guy who uncovers auto tune and pitch correction used in recordings and live performances, etc.
Sure enough when he examined the vocals of this group - vocals that look like they’re just recorded standing in the kitchen or wherever they happen to be - they were all pitch corrected.

What a bummer.

Likewise, he discovers countless live performers being pitch corrected, and even on those singing contest shows as well.

So now I feel like I can’t truly appreciate singing, at least not singing skill, in this modern age because it’s best to assume that they’ve all been manipulated.

So I have to go back further before the whole auto tune thing to appreciate raw performances.

The Enshitification of popular singing…

 

[diablo]

So I went and I double checked whether Phil on his wings of Pegasus channel has covered that group yet. This is a guy who uncovers auto tune and pitch correction used in recordings and live performances, etc.
Sure enough when he examined the vocals of this group - vocals that look like they’re just recorded standing in the kitchen or wherever they happen to be - they were all pitch corrected.

I watched this video earlier about a Christian rock band, who are supposed to be real. Supposed appearances, merch etc. Though all AI generated - well the merch is probably real.

 

[MattHooper]

I watched this video earlier about a Christian rock band, who are supposed to be real. Supposed appearances, merch etc. Though all AI generated - well the merch is probably real.

Ugh.

 

[Salt]

Ugh.

Shortest reply ever, not ?

 

[Axo1989]

Shortest reply ever, not ?

Haha, yet somehow completely comprehensive.

 

[MattHooper]

Shortest reply ever, not ?

!

 

[pablolie]

You could say that real intelligence is based on algorithmic complexity. What we call "AI" in this discussion is repetitive (and actually pretty dumb) parallel processing of a huge data lake via a small number of relatively simple neural algorithms that are optimized for specialized functions... but -again- leveraging a HUGE data lake. No more R programming crap.

Newton supposedly observed *one* falling apple falling on his head and derived a formula out of it through a lot of math diligence to model the experience. AI would collect 10 billion events of apples falling on people's heads and -if you used it properly- help you correlate those events. It is an immense difference.

So 'more apples' (multiple instances of the same thing) is an immense difference, but completely artificially generated voices (vs autotune effects, a different thing) are 'nothing new'. I'm not following your train of thought.

Nobody can follow yours, since you can't read an argument logically.

The argument about autotune was entirely separate from the nature of AI and how it works with big data (which is what you quote above). Confusing the two means your personal brain KV cache isn't performing. That example simply showed the difference between working with huge data sets vs working by testing "educated intuition", which is how our human brain works (vs AI simply being trained on several billions of examples of intended outcomes, which in our brains would be a waste of a lifetime).

Autotune existed long before the AI craze, so you're not only confusing arguments but also time frames.

I don't like autotune because it is used to the extreme, and often borders on Alvin & Chipmunks unlistenability. Has ZERO to do with AI. Stop confusing topics. My argument about that was simply that I don't see much of a difference between faking being a musician (with new AI apps) and faking being a singer (with Autotune, which is pre-AI era and clearly doesn't seem to deter many people).

As to AI music... the idea doesn't offend me. It may give people that can not read or write music -but have musical and lyrical talent- a way to create good stuff. If the result is beautiful art, why not. It is completely different from someone with zero genuine creative/artistic intent scamming Spotify or other streaming service users with a hundred fake songs.

For the last time: AI is a tool. It offers itself to many different use cases, some good, some terrible... but it's the *users* that may have evil intent in mind. Has nothing to do with the technology.

 

[TimF]

I'm reading two neuroscience books, and I am struck by the chemical basis of brain signaling, and the complexity and diversity of brain chemical processes. Neurons are not transistors and they are not simple signaling organs or on/off switches. How far can computational computing go in mimicking human mental processes is the big question. Aside from the question of computers mimicking human thought, reasoning, representation and imagination; there is the clear situation where computers doing specific tasks far exceed individual human mental processes, i.e., information storage and retrieval and mathematical operations. Variously, humans have the ability to perform reality testing. Reality testing often involves accurate determination of human culture-based determinations. Language is human culture-based determinations that are evolving with cultural changes. Humans have the capacity to maintain multiple sets of values and environmental fields, as well as multiple self-constructs that operate in these value/environment fields. We can also operate under highly conflicting goals, values and situational identities. In fact, highly socially involved humans must be able to manage operating in multiple environments that are in fact exclusive and/or conflicted. How do we stay sane? We certainly do quite a bit of destructive behavior and even self-abusive behavior. If humans lie, cheat, steal, kill, as well as enslave and torture and self-abuse, it seems to me that it would be impossible for computer-based systems not to do the same. What is the best of what is human and what is the worst of what is human? The why of it is pertinent.

 

[Axo1989]

Ah, got it.

I personally am fine enjoying some deliberately auto tuned sounding stuff.
It’s a style.

What I really don’t like is the extensive use of pitch correction on almost every singer at this point.

I really enjoy somebody with singing talent, and I have a fine ear for whether somebody is singing in tune or not so I always appreciate that aspect of a skilled singer as well.
So not long ago, I watched a few videos that popped up on YouTube or social media or whatever of a young singing group, two brothers and a sister I think, and I thought they had absolutely beautiful singing voices and sounded really professional, and that their harmonies were bang on in tune.

So I was filled with admiration at their skill…. Until I remembered….wait!… everybody is auto tuning now!

So I went and I double checked whether Phil on his wings of Pegasus channel has covered that group yet. This is a guy who uncovers auto tune and pitch correction used in recordings and live performances, etc.
Sure enough when he examined the vocals of this group - vocals that look like they’re just recorded standing in the kitchen or wherever they happen to be - they were all pitch corrected.

What a bummer.

Likewise, he discovers countless live performers being pitch corrected, and even on those singing contest shows as well.

So now I feel like I can’t truly appreciate singing, at least not singing skill, in this modern age because it’s best to assume that they’ve all been manipulated.

So I have to go back further before the whole auto tune thing to appreciate raw performances.

The Enshitification of popular singing…

The pitch correction phenomenon is certainly a thing. I had to scroll a bit to find the WoP guy analyzing someone I listen to a lot (or at all) but eventually came to this one on London Grammar’s Hanna Reid:

You may have gone there already I expect but it’s what you’d want in a natural vocal performance. And the waveforms are fun to study.

 

[PristineSound]

For the last time: AI is a tool. It offers itself to many different use cases, some good, some terrible... but it's the *users* that may have evil intent in mind. Has nothing to do with the technology.

This whole AI self aware apocalyptic fear is so silly, Skynet or The Architect taking over the world is something only those who don't understand the technicalities of the technology dreams up.

 

[Axo1989]

Nobody can follow yours, since you can't read an argument logically.

The argument about autotune was entirely separate from the nature of AI and how it works with big data (which is what you quote above). Confusing the two means your personal brain KV cache isn't performing. That example simply showed the difference between working with huge data sets vs working by testing "educated intuition", which is how our human brain works (vs AI simply being trained on several billions of examples of intended outcomes, which in our brains would be a waste of a lifetime).

Autotune existed long before the AI craze, so you're not only confusing arguments but also time frames. …

Come on pablolie, you were the one who said people creating (so-called AI) generated music was ‘no different’ and ‘nothing new’ comparing to using autotune, I was the one who said they were ‘qualitatively different’. I don’t know what you think you’re getting at by flipping the argument. Do you?

 

[pablolie]

Come on pablolie, you were the one who said people creating (so-called AI) generated music was ‘no different’ and ‘nothing new’ comparing to using autotune, I was the one who said they were ‘qualitatively different’. I don’t know what you think you’re getting at by flipping the argument. Do you?

Yawn. I wrote a paragraph on that you chose not to quote. Welcome to my short ignore list.

 

[pablolie]

I'm reading two neuroscience books, and I am struck by the chemical basis of brain signaling, and the complexity and diversity of brain chemical processes. Neurons are not transistors and they are not simple signaling organs or on/off switches. How far can computational computing go in mimicking human mental processes is the big question. Aside from the question of computers mimicking human thought, reasoning, representation and imagination; there is the clear situation where computers doing specific tasks far exceed individual human mental processes, i.e., information storage and retrieval and mathematical operations. Variously, humans have the ability to perform reality testing. Reality testing often involves accurate determination of human culture-based determinations. Language is human culture-based determinations that are evolving with cultural changes. Humans have the capacity to maintain multiple sets of values and environmental fields, as well as multiple self-constructs that operate in these value/environment fields. We can also operate under highly conflicting goals, values and situational identities. In fact, highly socially involved humans must be able to manage operating in multiple environments that are in fact exclusive and/or conflicted. How do we stay sane? We certainly do quite a bit of destructive behavior and even self-abusive behavior. If humans lie, cheat, steal, kill, as well as enslave and torture and self-abuse, it seems to me that it would be impossible for computer-based systems not to do the same. What is the best of what is human and what is the worst of what is human? The why of it is pertinent.

I'd love to discuss this in a more philosophical forum. Perhaps over messages with some open minded members in this discussion?
I love epistemology, the philosophy branch that constantly questions the method by which we think what we know is knowledge.

 

[Axo1989]

Yawn. I wrote a paragraph on that you chose not to quote. Welcome to my short ignore list.

Which didn’t address qualitative difference at all? Applying an effect to a human voice or played instrument isn’t the same thing as generating a completely artificial simulacrum. And the creative process itself is different. No amount of orthogonal discussion of the titular large training corpus of a generative LLM changes that. Anyway, not a bad outcome, I can stop wasting effort.

 

[Snarfie]

I'm reading two neuroscience books, and I am struck by the chemical basis of brain signaling, and the complexity and diversity of brain chemical processes. Neurons are not transistors and they are not simple signaling organs or on/off switches. How far can computational computing go in mimicking human mental processes is the big question. Aside from the question of computers mimicking human thought, reasoning, representation and imagination; there is the clear situation where computers doing specific tasks far exceed individual human mental processes, i.e., information storage and retrieval and mathematical operations. Variously, humans have the ability to perform reality testing. Reality testing often involves accurate determination of human culture-based determinations. Language is human culture-based determinations that are evolving with cultural changes. Humans have the capacity to maintain multiple sets of values and environmental fields, as well as multiple self-constructs that operate in these value/environment fields. We can also operate under highly conflicting goals, values and situational identities. In fact, highly socially involved humans must be able to manage operating in multiple environments that are in fact exclusive and/or conflicted. How do we stay sane? We certainly do quite a bit of destructive behavior and even self-abusive behavior. If humans lie, cheat, steal, kill, as well as enslave and torture and self-abuse, it seems to me that it would be impossible for computer-based systems not to do the same. What is the best of what is human and what is the worst of what is human? The why of it is pertinent.

I sometimes think humans confuse “extremely complex” with “fundamentally mystical.” The brain is obviously far more sophisticated than a simple circuit board, but it’s still a physical system built on biological, electrochemical an possible quantum mechanical processes.

What really convinced me of that was anesthesia. I had around 3 surgeries in the past,. Time spann several hours each and subjectively it lasted exactly a few seconds. No dreams, no sense of time passing, no awareness of existence at all. One moment you’re there, the next moment you’re back.It’s hard to experience that and not notice how completely consciousness disappears when anesthesia temporarily shuts down most large-scale neural connectivity.

Asymmetric neural dynamics characterize loss and recovery of consciousness - PubMed

Anesthetics are known to disrupt neural interactions in cortical and subcortical brain circuits. While the effect of anesthetic drugs on consciousness is reversible, the neural mechanism mediating induction and recovery may be different. Insight into these distinct mechanisms can be gained from...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It also makes me wonder whether concepts like the “self” or even the “soul” are perhaps emergent consequences of sufficiently complex neural activity rather than something fundamentally mystic separate from it.

 

[MattHooper]

I'd love to discuss this in a more philosophical forum. Perhaps over messages with some open minded members in this discussion?
I love epistemology, the philosophy branch that constantly questions the method by which we think what we know is knowledge.

I have occasionally contemplated starting a philosophical thread on a certain contentious philosophical subject.
But I’ll have to wait for a particularly masochistic moment to do so