Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pisskop]

yeah, all those composers are skilless hacks, music is only music when performed, composition is literally nothing

I think you'll find that nobody was saying that. Just that music, performed by a human with interpretation and/or character, is better than music, performed mechanically perfect by a computer. The composer doesn't come into it. I have great respect for composers!

so because empathy

[Arx]

yeah, all those composers are skilless hacks, music is only music when performed, composition is literally nothing

I think you'll find that nobody was saying that. Just that music, performed by a human with interpretation and/or character, is better than music, performed mechanically perfect by a computer. The composer doesn't come into it. I have great respect for composers!

so because empathy

Nope. Because humans play it differently, and I'd say generally in a way that improves it.

[pisskop]

I would argue that anything a human could produce could be mimiced by a robot.

One day, I suspect it the two will be put under a cup and you'll lose the shell game.

[Shadowlord]

Personally, I don't think "post-scarcity" is a thing that can happen on Earth, because everything we make requires resources, and we make a ton of shit. You could say "Well, if we recycled EVERYTHING" but it doesn't work that way: you literally can't, and besides, recycling is still driven by capitalism. When it's unprofitable, it doesn't happen. You could say "well, when, due to scarcity, the price of X resource goes higher than the cost to recycle stuff to get X back, it'll be profitable" but that makes me wonder. Nobody recycles computers, and they're made at massive rates, there's always newer, better, models to convince you to throw out your old hardware. Getting all the resources back out of the components in each is impractical, yes?

[Flying Dice]

yeah, all those composers are skilless hacks, music is only music when performed, composition is literally nothing

I think you'll find that nobody was saying that. Just that music, performed by a human with interpretation and/or character, is better than music, performed mechanically perfect by a computer. The composer doesn't come into it. I have great respect for composers!

so because empathy

You can tell synth programs apart from human musicians precisely because they're eerily perfect. A lot of my favorite performances have those little quirks like the slightly off note here and there, roughness in the vocals, the sound of fingers sliding along strings between notes, &c.

[GiglameshDespair]

Nobody recycles computers

Yes they do

[scrdest]

I would argue that anything a human could produce could be mimiced by a robot.

One day, I suspect it the two will be put under a cup and you'll lose the shell game.

Of course it can be mimicked, it already does. Record and playback is the most obvious way.

That's not the point. A machine cannot break the rules. If the program is coded to use diatonic harmony, it will never create something that sounds like Debussy; and if you account for that by adding chromatic harmony, it will not write a jazz song - even though this is a direct evolution.

A full-on AI, i.e. an actual learning, self-modifying system, is another story of course, but upon reaching that point, it becomes a question of whether that's even a machine anymore, or an intelligence that just so happens not to use soggy biological matter for computing power. And even still, that AI would just be one more creator out of many, human or electronic ones.

[IcyTea31]

You can tell synth programs apart from human musicians precisely because they're eerily perfect.

Note: this doesn't work for telling humans apart from synths. Too many pop artists use vocoders to tune their recordings to 'perfection'.

[TempAcc]

Personally, I don't think "post-scarcity" is a thing that can happen on Earth, because everything we make requires resources, and we make a ton of shit. You could say "Well, if we recycled EVERYTHING" but it doesn't work that way: you literally can't, and besides, recycling is still driven by capitalism. When it's unprofitable, it doesn't happen. You could say "well, when, due to scarcity, the price of X resource goes higher than the cost to recycle stuff to get X back, it'll be profitable" but that makes me wonder. Nobody recycles computers, and they're made at massive rates, there's always newer, better, models to convince you to throw out your old hardware. Getting all the resources back out of the components in each is impractical, yes?

Well, thats why "full grasp" of nanotechnology is needed, that is, somehow being able to manipulate things at an atomic level in a way thats  at least somewhat energy efficient. If we could do that, then basically everything would become really cheap. Hell, a lot of economical constants would be thrown upside down. Suddenly diamond would become cheaper then your toothbrush, since diamond has a simpler atomical structure then pretty much any polymer/plastic thing. Recycling would reach an optimal point.

Suddenly getting resources back from components becomes trivial.

Capitalism isn't only about resources. You'd have a bunch of companies fighting against eachother to develop the best, cleanest and most energy efficient way of manipulating things at an atomic level, the best software to build things out of said atoms, products that can recycle and rebuild different kind of matter. You'd have companies fighting to provide more and more services based on this technology, IE everything that happens when a new, revolutionary technology comes along.

Hell, at that point we'd not even use computers as we know them.

If that will ever become possible, however, is an even fuzzier issue then the whole AI revolution thing, since manipulating atoms individually is akin to a human as big as one half of the solar system trying to manipulate grains of sand.

[King Kitteh]

Personally, I don't think "post-scarcity" is a thing that can happen on Earth, because everything we make requires resources, and we make a ton of shit. You could say "Well, if we recycled EVERYTHING" but it doesn't work that way: you literally can't, and besides, recycling is still driven by capitalism. When it's unprofitable, it doesn't happen. You could say "well, when, due to scarcity, the price of X resource goes higher than the cost to recycle stuff to get X back, it'll be profitable" but that makes me wonder. Nobody recycles computers, and they're made at massive rates, there's always newer, better, models to convince you to throw out your old hardware. Getting all the resources back out of the components in each is impractical, yes?

Maybe they'll have to invent a machine that can fuse hydrogen atoms together like the centre fusion at the centre of a star, theoretically being able to turn any matter into any other matter using only raw power.

[Sonlirain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbjXlUE6_N4
Music perfected by a computer does not have to be perfect since it still need input from a human to keep it from sounding like this.

As for recycling.
Computers are already made mostly out of silicon that's dirt cheap and readily availble.

More valuable materials like gold are in fact recycled.

[Shadowlord]

You can tell synth programs apart from human musicians precisely because they're eerily perfect.

Note: this doesn't work for telling humans apart from synths. Too many pop artists use vocoders to tune their recordings to 'perfection'.

Listen to Katy Perry sometime. You* can hear the frequency stair-stepping in her singing. That's how you know she's a robot abusing autotune.

* I

(It bugs the hell out of me when I hear one of her songs. Put all the effects you want in, but if your voice doesn't sound like a voice anymore, it just sounds terrible to me.)
(There are lots of other artists that do this too, of course. She's just a really popular one.)

[Yoink]

Listen to Katy Perry sometime.

No thanks

[hector13]

Generally, unemployed individuals are less fit for child-rearing, and while love might not be superficial enough to consider only finances or productivity, it is still a cooperation of sort, so someone who does not contribute to society and people around would, you know, not contribute to their fiance either. That's more or less a toxic relationship.

Apologies for dragging up a quote from six pages back, but I am curious why Cinder thinks this, specifically that unemployed folk are less fit for child-reading.

[Criptfeind]

Because raising a child takes money? At least, I think that's the point.