Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
But it isn't the same argument.
When DJs sample, they choose the samples, choose the pitch and playback speed, and choose where and when to put the sample in their songs.
There is no human intentionality in AI-created music. No one decided what the song should sound like, it's a mash of what an algorithm calculates is the most predictable next sound based on its prompt, and it calculates what's next by illegally using the intellectual properties of real humans.
Whoever used this argument with you isn't arguing in good faith.
Edit - I didn't even answer the overarching question. You'll find, in almost all cases, that it isn't the same argument because one or more things that factor into the decision will have changed. Very rarely is a situation entirely static, and if some variables have changed, then the entire argument must be reconsidered.
The entirety of your argument boils down to you arbitrarily deciding that music needs to derive from human intentionality.
That's not an actual argument about whether or not AI is capable of creating music, that's you redefining music to make sure the answer is no.
That's not a redefinition, lol, music is a human construct. Nature has lovely noises and birds chirp, and by itself, even if it constitutes notes and waves, it isn't music. Honestly, the whole convo is semantically confused because there's no ghost in the machine when it comes to "AI", they're algorithms and datasets, and if the data is actual music then whatever "AI" comes out with could be considered an on-demand musical collage/regurgitation? There WAS human intentionality behind it, in the data sets, after all.
A gorilla or ape can't sing or make music? Could a neanderthal? Homo florientis? Homo erectus? What is it specifically about homo sapiens that give us the unique ability to make music and sing, that no other animal has?
Again, if you predefine music as being made by humans then you're not engaging in a discussion or logical debate, you're just arbitrarily setting goal posts to guarantee that you're right.
People need to get over the idea that algorithms can't be intelligent because they're algorithms. Algorithms can model the behaviour of the neurons in your brain, meaning that they can model your brain and intelligence. We are obviously not there yet with LLMs, but just saying 'numbers and math = not intelligent' is quite frankly dumb and just shows that you don't understand math, physics, biology, neuroscience, etc.
I said human because we haven't found another free will, conscious individual that does this, but of course they'd be included here too. Aliens could make music. AI is not "making anything", it's regurgitating combinations of previous stuff on-command. And idk what you're talking about, I think therefore I am and "AI" simply isn't. You don't understand what thinking and free will are so you think you're on the same level of some word calculator, lol, go ahead my guy.
Even current day LLMs are doing more than just regurgitation, even if they fall far short of human intelligence.
And at a fundamental level, there's no reason to think that simulated neurons running on computer chips can't be as intelligent as us, if we can figure out the right way of wiring them so to speak.
There's no inherent law of the universe that says that only biological humans can be intelligent and can thus create music.
My man, you're speaking sci fi, not what we currently have. Furthermore, both philosophically and materially, the notion that consciousness cannot be computed is more than gaining traction. If humans ever make something with free will and volition, something that isn't just doing things on command but has its own wants, sure. But we might never get there, and that's a real possibility. Intelligence isn't in solving equations but in imagining the math problems.
The biggest of current LLM models contains ~ the same number of parameters as we have neurons. It's not a 1:1 mapping because parameters are closer to neuronal connections, but from a pure numbers standpoint we are operating at the scale where we can start creating true simulated intelligences, even if not human scale just yet.
This doesn't mean current LLMs are that intelligent, just that it's not sci-fi to think we could create a simulated intelligence now.
Is it? Do you have any sources / do they have any explanation for why neurons can't be simulated?
I mean, we're talking about whether or not an AI could make music. If it creates a new song, with lyrics and music / a melody that never existed before, and people listen to it and sing it and dance to it and enjoy it, how would it not be music?
Regardless of what structure these things may have, there's no consciousness, just a machine that works on prompts and rules like everything else we've made. It cannot escape it, only we expand its data capacity and give it new commands. And a regurgitation/collage of music is still music, sure, and you could also sing and dance to melodies written and played by a billion monkeys, idk, sure, but never forget there's no "it". This is not arguable. And idc if you enjoy it or not, I'm glad you do, I'm not a baseline "AI" hater, although probably the cost is too high (like, apocalyptically high) for funky audiovisual producing and essay writing machines lol.
Lol what are you basing that on? They're simulating the neurons in your brain. If they replicate that structure and behaviour they'll replicate your consciousness, or do you believe that brains operate on magic that doesn't behave according to the physical laws of nature?
Are they or just simulating a model of a model? And it doesn't have to be magical for it to be unreachable for us (read Roger Penrose), lol, and what we have today is just inert code ready to work on command, not some e-mind just living in the cloud? Come on, man, this is not debatable.
So you're saying there's a magical other plane that the material objects on this world are just a model of and the objects in this plane don't actually determine behaviour, the ones on that plane do?
What evidence do you have to support that? What evidence do you have that consciousness exists on that plane and isn't just a result of the behaviour of neurons? Why does consciousness change when you get a brain injury and damage those neurons?
Roger Penrose, the guy who wrote books desperately claiming that free will must exist and spent his time searching for any way it could before arriving at a widely discredited theory of quantum gravity being the basis for consciousness?
So? If we could put human brains in suspended animation, and just boot them up on command to execute tasks for us, does that mean that they're not intelligent?
It obviously and evidently is debatable since we are debating it, and saying "it's not debatable" isn't an argument, it's a thought terminating phrase.
Free will exists and you feel it every time you're dieting, lol, or restricting yourself in any way for higher reasons. It escapes the realm of words because it's fundamental to our existence, you can't argue against it in good faith, it can simply be denied the same way you could deny the rising of the sun... And, again, I think you're confused. Okay, could a calculator with all its parts be considered intelligent/more intelligent than us simply because it can make calculations faster and with more accuracy? A computer? It's the same principle. We simply haven't made anything that 1) understands the world around it in any way 2) has volition. We have made a code eating, code spitting machine that works when we want it to, that's all. It's pretty impressive, it's not intelligent, it's not free willed and it has no consciousness. It's "intelligent" the way a calculator could be, or a set of pulleys could be considered "strong".
Lol, "free will exists because I think it exists" is not an argument.
Computers have long been limited to not being more intelligent than very complicated calculators, because they had no good way of solving fuzzy pattern matching problems, like ingesting arbitrary data and automatically learning and pulling out patterns from it. This famous xkcd points that out: https://xkcd.com/1425/
The entire recent surge in AI is being driven because AI algorithms that model our neurons do exactly that.
LLMs contain some understanding of the world, or they wouldn't be able to do what they do, but yes I would agree. That doesn't meant we won't or can't get there though. Right now many leading edge AI researchers are specifically trying to build world models as opposed to LLMs that do have an understanding of the world around them.
No, this is a reductive description of how even LLMs work. They are not just copying and pasting. They are truly combining and synthesizing information in new and transformative ways, in a similar way that humans do. Yes, we can regurgitate some of that book we read, but most of what we get from it is an impression / general knowledge that we then combine with other knowledge, just like an LLM.
Language is literally the basis for almost all of our knowledge, it's wild to flatly deny that a multi billion collection of simulated neurons that are trained on language could not possibly have any intelligence or understanding of the world.