Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CarlPeligro t1_j05tak6 wrote

I was thinking earlier: AI art (AI-made films in particular) is likely to capture the imagination of human audiences in two stages. At first, it will amuse us for the same reason that ChatGPT amuses us today: a kind of "it thinks it's human!" type of novelty. Part of the thrill comes from the understanding that this is an AI, that it has not attained its fullest potential yet. Lots of trial, lots of error, but moments of sublimity -- and these eerie "human" moments register with a mixture of shock and endearment.

But sufficiently advanced AI will understand the human mind, likely better than we will ever understand it ourselves. It will understand the things we find captivating, amusing, spiritual, perplexing, awe-inspiring. Advanced AI will create artistic worlds that we can immerse ourselves in, worlds with all the infinite self-similarity of a fractal -- and we will confront these worlds with a Solaris-type wonder, the same wonder we experience when we stare up at the stars or contemplate the fundamental structure of the universe, the same wonder people tap into during a spiritual experience. We will be in the presence of an infinitely complex mind and the effort to make sense out of it (or, failing that, the delight we get from simply reveling in it) will likely be much more profound and engrossing than any sort of artistic experience any of us have yet had.

(Or we might just skip this stage and find ourselves instantaneously reduced to humanoid batteries.)

13

OldWorldRevival t1_j07qalb wrote

I think predicting what such a superintelligence will discover is fruitless.

Our biological systems are in a sense error reduction systems like AI are. This is a simplification, of course. But, the way this manifests itself is that whatever our present ideology is has no error tells to us internally. So, we see the world through that lens

Likewise, we project our belief systems onto these superintelligent AIs. "It will discover/prove X."

What AI will lack in art are two very important things: conscious experience and limitation.

That is, unless we make human 2.0 with suffering and limitation like we have, AI will not produce real art. It will produce eye candy, and it will push our buttons. But it won't be real, not in the way that matters.

This is going to create chaos and existential crises in people until they eventually understand this.

I do have some suspicions about what AI is going to demonstrate. I think it is going to psychologically unmake people.

See Derek Parfit's discussion on identity, as well as Buddhism more or less noticing the same thing about it before he formalized the illusory nature of identity.

Also, consider the experience of ego death that people experience when taking psychedelics.

That is, I suspect AI that shows people the thing that it discovers to be true is their own illusory nature as individuals. It will render onto people the understanding that they are nothing.

And people will seek this out because humans are curious.

4

turntable_server t1_j06ims5 wrote

That is very awe-inspiring vision, but all LLM's do is, is to hold up a mirror of our culture as it exists on internet (which provides the training material). But there are moments of sublimity and endearingness, because AI does not have the social conditioning that we humans carry around, and like a precocious child can present its output in delightful and surprising manner. But it can also exhibit racist and "unwholesome" behavior for the same reason. That's why those models have heavy censorship filters and ChatGPt's expressiveness is reduced to a fraction of its potential.

2

Corganwantsmoore t1_j04kszd wrote

Shoutout to this guy, he’s got a cool last name

3

Aljanah OP t1_j04o7u8 wrote

People really don't know who Billy Corgan is? I'm old.

10

Corganwantsmoore t1_j04ql0h wrote

My parents were hardcore smashing pumpkins fans. The day after my sister was born, my mom went to one of their concerts. You are old tho ngl

7

modestLife1 t1_j051sox wrote

brooo you shoulda just said so lol. smashing pumpkins of course i know them homie! 👏

edit: but to be fair i didn't google who billy corgan was nor did i watch the video :3

1

svennpetter t1_j07kbfo wrote

For sure. The trend will be towards more and more personalised generated music only limited by how accurately the model can learn what you like. End game might be a neural lace that can monitor your neurons reactions and simulate sound, bypassing your ears

1

Rico_TLM t1_j068mua wrote

I mean, it’s possible, but this is a guy who is also anti-vax and believes in chemtrails. So maybe not the most reliable source.

0

pls_pls_me t1_j04dazd wrote

I bet the only hang ups really are vocals and (to a lesser extent) lyrics. We likely already could spin up the perfect algorithm any given day that would give you melodies and beats that would melt your face off

−2

Tip_Odde t1_j04f4zc wrote

Lyrics and vocals already successful

5

ghomerl t1_j04jiss wrote

Are there vocals better than hatsune miku/vocaloid out there?

1

Grinfader t1_j05i3cc wrote

I use https://emvoiceapp.com/ 's Keela with pretty convincing results. Much better in my opinion than vocaloid. I've had people asking me where did I find such a good singer for my songs

4

_SideniuS_ t1_j064w8r wrote

I've been using Solaris for SynthesizerV and it's pretty great

1

gangstasadvocate t1_j04hje8 wrote

Damn I want this so I’ll use reverse psychology and Cunningham‘s law, no you couldn’t that’s not how it works…

2

Capt_Trippz t1_j07b2uz wrote

I think so, too. Surely we’re already at a point where an AI can be fed everything there is to know about music theory, i.e. chord progressions, melody, harmony, scale types, and also examples that break those rules. Combine it with poetry AI and boom, you have a composition. Still would need humans to play most of it, though. For now. Although I guess an AI could sample hundreds of hours of a particular singer and eventually emulate pretty closely.

1