 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 55 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613403 Today 17 Topics 127499 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Is it going to kill IDM? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no aidea |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well. actually. creatively, used nicely, i suppose it could be the next autotune, effectively. 90% used to wallpaper over some pop tart's awfulness; 10% like, i dunno, T-Pain doing something interesting with it. in that sense it will used to be accelerate the music industry's ascent up its own fundament same as autotune. why even sign post malone when the algorithm doesn't collect royalties? ...and, yeah, some writers are striking over that somewhere, now, i think. the general arc of this "AI" -- which will not fucking go AGI sorry -- will be 1) eventually everyone realizes these companies with their giant models have scraped the internet, stolen everyone's shit, and... the AI image generator does things like hallucinate the gettyimages watermark, all the writers start complaining they're not getting royalties from their work being thrown into a blender 2) a lawsuit here, a lawsuit there, eventually a reliable pattern for how to sue AI for IP infringement and then the lawyers move in like the visigoths 3) AI is shut down and the only people who can use it are, like, fucking jimmy iovine, because if you spend a few million and build your own model out of pirated stuff and keep it in-house then you can effectively get away with it because to do that you're already rich enough that you'll be very hard to sue. microsoft is probably already using it to quietly rip off who knows what |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"our music is made by computers, because they don't make mistakes" --KMFDM Sascha i think the right way to use this would be, oh... i want to see bjork drop $200k to train a custom model. that she would fill it with whatever suits her fancy; that she would set up reams of material to feed it with guiding instructions. then you pay amazon AWS $200k and the next bjork album is a $20/mo subscription service that generates custom versions of itself for you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i suppose that'd be an obvious move for aphex too. but he'd just upload 300 hours of his old tracks while bjork would, i figure, get beyond obsessed with trying to make it "alive." whether or not it would be, well, let's stick a pin in that |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
goodness! not monthly subscriptions... so the pusher new album then will be franksteinvord, but everyone will be talkng about e-mail by bjork or secret rephlex albums kind of like your predictions with lawyers and bjork sounds less boring than popular music right now |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
goodness! not monthly subscriptions... well... i mean... think about the business model, here... that instead of an AI built on scraped internet (teenage girls with broken iphones, SA goons, afx fans) it's a custom AI structure from a few days of whiteboard discussion -- does bjork do that? -- and then lots and lots of deliberately made stems intended to... well, just ask bjork to try and give it a soul. whether or not it would have a soul... well, let's stick a pin in that (inflection missing on internet). it's not about whether it has a soul, it's simply that i feel bjork would uniquely deliver in such a context. aphex is wonderful but i also see him uploading 300 hours of old recordings rather than getting lost in a snowglobe like bjork ANYWAYS! in addition to, i dunno, whatever collection of example sonic structures bjork decided would be enough to form the underpinning of a mind... some staff and A100s to tinker and be sure you finally bite the bullet and... blow $200k on the god ray of compute power. honestly might be the most potent way you can spend cash today if you do it right, now that i think on it and bjork does well for herself, and this is done for love, but those absurdly complex costumes are not exactly free, right? and so how are we going to recoup our investments? we are accounting and for subscribing for $20 for a month it will generate a custom version of the album for you, personally, every week. a month will be enough for some, but others may keep going. and it might go in the black for someone with bjork visibility but, yeah. you're setting yourself apart with a completely bespoke model from handmade source material and then forging in fires of mt. doom for $200k on AWS and i was really off on all this trying to think: what is a way to use this AI stuff that is actually IDM |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hell you could sail past an album and create a generalized personal muzak generator synced to your bioriddims via your Apple SmartCrotch™ that i feel a triple win for the "clean room" approach, as tech would call it 1. creating all your own source content [avoids IP theft, create a purer and more potent result] 2. creating your own AI signal chain [yeah that's an apt analogy] which will both [set you apart from the bud lite AI shit, create a purer and more potent result] 3. creating your own signal chain will launch a plan for how to build your source content, and then once you're into building the source content, that will turn around and suggest and improvement in your signal chain, and so on i need a few months to finish my current consulting thing tho |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there have been many times like... darn it, someone had that idea. or even worse, that i had it, and two years later... yeah. never paid much ear to hustle culture but what really sticks in my craw is i was reading about stable diffusion works, and, DAMMIT. i hate myself for not thinking of this effectively it starts off with gaussian noise ('tv static') and then iteratively, more clearly hallucinates the image requested with your text prompt. has anyone noticed this is, like... computational, tactical use of pareidolia? and hell you can walk right over to music with that |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
text to image works pretty well, its only bound to improve. what would you need to let software write music for you? 1. a way to analyze multitracks from a sound file. so it can copy and blend styles for you 2. a way to connect the ai to a ton of vsynths and a software 3. the ai/trainer itself of course. or just hire fanboys, more honest imo |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
or just open a drum machine, hit randomize, alter by ear, fill it with your melody and enjoy |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Maybe AI gets us back into acoustic music and it kills idm in that way? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we already freaking have that? and it's not terribly interesting, is it? you're thinking like jimmy iovine i'll try again effectively it starts off with gaussian noise ('tv static') and then iteratively, more clearly hallucinates the image requested with your text prompt. has anyone noticed this is, like... computational, tactical use of pareidolia? - start with white noise and iteratively hallucinate music into it based on prompts - start with a spattering of noise-generated MIDI and iteratively iteratively hallucinate a whittled-down melody ...and the training is like: 1) you give it an example, some input parameters (keywords etc) that distinguish the example 2) the computer progressively runs "gaussian blur" in photoshop on the input, in tiered stages, in order to teach itself how to un-blur things. you can see how this is not even remotely close to intelligence, it's just like... we now have a common tool that intelligence uses all over. that the proper artful way to use this is to be very deliberate in guiding what it hallucinates in the noise. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Maybe AI gets us back into acoustic music and it kills idm in that way? just like autotune taught people to sing properly; right |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well... finally kills the music industry? i lean back to "it'll just accelerate what's already going on." "stars" come and disappear a lot more quickly now. in 40 years, people will remember Marvin Gaye -- but not Ed Sheeran, perhaps. i can't really give you odds on that one anyways -- they've been pumping out soulless garbage with the help of autotune and LiveNation for 25 years, and now they're paying for it because after these people fade off, their back catalog is worth about a packet of crisps. personally, if i were using an AI, i'd want to be sure Ed Sheeran wasn't anywhere in it -- for obvious reasons, but also because this would leave me open to a lawsuit from him releasing a custom-built AI with content created from scratch, andy warhol factory style, with the AI signal chain being deliberate to the point of... creating a bass sound as a sub-section instead of just hallucinating an entire track at once out of 2 minutes of white noise -- and then "my new album is an AI that generates unique versions of itself for you"¹ ...and i'm not only talking about making piracy somewhat meaningless, but getting people to subscribe to an album. despite it producing lossless downloads every week. ¹ [that'd be too much data at once, anyways... something something time to frequency domain, FFTs, and/or convolution matrix] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if the model that generates the album leaked onto bittorrent, well, that'd be some next-level piracy, though, right? you can torrent facebook's leaked LLM. just saying |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
they've been pumping out soulless garbage with the help of autotune and LiveNation for 25 years, and now they're paying for it because after these people fade off, their back catalog is worth about a packet of crisps oooh, ooh. buy total pwnership of a bunch of 90s pop that's, well, rather 3rd-tier and forgotten by history -- masters, song rights, etc -- for cheap. just, anything decent you can get for a price. there's your jimmy iovine AI on a budget |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if my talk of de-blurring was tldr4u then how about: this sort of AI -- the one getting all the buzz now -- is really just a generalized mashup facility. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
releasing a custom-built AI with content created from scratch, andy warhol factory style, with the AI signal chain being deliberate to the point of... creating a bass sound as a sub-section instead of just hallucinating an entire track at once out of 2 minutes of white noise -- and then "my new album is an AI that generates unique versions of itself for you" i have another cute idea: that, we need to solve... how is it customized for you? how can you make it personal without giving someone a personality test? so, you log into your subscription acct and it says, "tell me how you're feeling with your face" and you take a selfie and upload it to the site and that's the input for the custom version of the album. ...and, again, do you see it? piracy becomes meaningless. people subscribe to an album so they can keep getting custom versions for their own little microcosm |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
content created from scratch, andy warhol factory style that, continuing the analogy, one track is marilyn monroe, another is the campbell's soup can, and you have a process set up to churn out 140 variations of these, because you need at least that order of magnitude in order to not get garbage (out). i would actually be kind of amused by... you carefully define an actual analog setup, one of those expensive computer-controlled summing boxes instead of a mixer, and then you have to wait 45 minutes because it literally is recording the album for you on actual gear. the setup has obviously been clearly defined, infinitely fixed forever once defined, and is cheap [enough] that you can clone it a few dozen times to handle the capacity. but that's a very expensive way to do it. on that note -- perhaps $5 a tug is a far better business model than $20/mo subscribe and one per week. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and, oh, sorry -- you're keeping track of all this, right? for $5 a tug you upload a selfie of yourself making a face to indicate how you feel, and from there you've done >100 variations of each track, and out comes lossless custom version of the album for you [not only is piracy meaningless, but if you try -- we have your picture] that here is about where i remember we're doing this for bjork, partly because of her logistical infrastructure. 100 variations -- ouch, right? but what if you have an absolutely fixed setup and get 100 different bands in to record the album? and the bjork infrastructure be like "yes, we are hello" here outsource the stuff to translate a selfie into a series of usable parameters. someone does that already i'm sure |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and they all have to record their variation 4-8 times, to be clear.... or, at least, this is about where i start to say, "my doubts as to this working are beginning to ease" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
outsource the stuff to translate a selfie into a series of usable parameters. someone does that already i'm sure ...and if i'm wrong about someone doing that, well, probably a better business, there, really but, bonus cheek: part of this will be detecting when it's simply not a selfie, in which case i'd somewhat seriously propose it eating your $5 like an evil vending machine and if you actually uploaded a selfie and this is wrong please click a button. the button just leads them to another page and doesn't actually store any sort of record on the server. then perhaps quietly grandfather in people uploading photos of their pets. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're using chatgpt to write all your posts? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i've actually not tried any of these things except huggingfacez' no-login lambda bot. it promptly wrote some of the most gender-insensitive python code i've ever seen, and i haven't been back since. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You should be writing books..1000+ Pages. You are amazing at writing things down |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh i a bit. i suppose there is a book, in, like... it's all just a series of nested terrariums powered by the energy of the sun that pumps entropy out into space like a heat pump. our brains pump out disorder and the planet pumps out waste heat into space, thus allowing a concentration of... dis-entropy? to grow within, dyson sphere style. that life didn't originate around deep-sea vents, it originated multiple times within sealed pockets powered by alpha radiation, sealed in a bubble stewing for a million years, pool gunk gathering at the edges with RNA precursors. then one of them finally cracked open and spilled out into the ocean. language is similar it's a lot of work though and i'm not sure how to... write a book and not have it totally ignored. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i should find the thred where mermaid man was like, YOU WROTE ALL THOSE POSTS IN ONE OR TWO MINUTES EACH? then i scrolled up and was like... wow, yeah, actually. that's pretty nuts how fast i wrote all that |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe that'd mean those DEVO helmets are the equivalent of piping your own farts back into a gas mask. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i guess i'm the sort of skeptic that says, "orgone energy is a lazy, crap idea, but it probably wouldn't be an idea unless there was something of value down there" and yes, dis-entropy or such. and perhaps a DEVO helmet is like throwing a thick blanket over the part of the air condition that hangs out the side of the house. maybe that was the joke. no idea |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
then i remember myself around... oh, according to the file timestamp, this was Aug 3 2000, 4 or 5 pm. which would make me 15. afx and i have close birthdays archive.org has the page i posted it on but it missed scrubbing up the photos. so had to find that in my own archives |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You should be writing books..1000+ Pages. You are amazing at writing things down that it bugs me quite a lot. oh, you should write a book. and i'd like to. the idea feels... indulgent, really. but then i wrote sporadically in a and then recently, oh i'll clean some of this up and try medium. and same feeling, just working very hard and feeling satisfied and people i directly send it to seemed to like it but it went nowhere just like the wordpress. i can write, i think my music is at least a cut above anything on watmm, i can solder and build synths, i hate folding laundry with a passion. however, i can also write software, and that pays better than any of that other thing. i got laid off last year and i'm still james bond pulling the plane up in goldeneye, here and writing a book seems indulgent. especially if it goes like the other crap. honestly get much better responses on here |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that i checked on my medium thing now, and stats have gotten even more detailed and helpful in 2022: of the 44 views of my things, 31% of those actually read the full article, and here is a detailed breakdown of which. in order to make any money off of this site you have to have, i think, 100 subscribers. oh well. i'm happy with my articles. i'm not pissed. i'm not surprised, either. i don't think i'll write any more there, however -- pull the draft bits and go back to wordpress or such. i hate its minimalist style enforcements anyways |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i suppose i'm just compulsively fascinated by things for some unfathomable reason. like this. i went to google trends because i was curious, like, is interest in ChatGPT holding? is it starting to get old hat? and the trend line is, like, oh, weird. that it's pulsing like a heartbeat on a weekly cycle? does this just reflect the general level of traffic on google search? so i drop in "elon musk" and then "ukraine" just to throw in some things that people will be -- in my errant meatsack opinion -- equally likely to search for in, oh... past 90 days? and, no. this trend line is still weird as shit. why is it pulsing like this and the basic story of my long-ass posts is... this is an anomaly, and it bothers me, and it will continue to do so until i have some long-ass answer to post, thank you for reading my post. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, de-weirded. but it still has a vague whiff of bots to it -- sticks to its pulse even when AI wobbles |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there's no reason the truth can't be . alright. nevermind. solved to my satisfaction |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, right -- so what was it? that searches for beer surge on the weekend while searches for ChatGPT tank most on monday, tuesday -- clearly there's a bit of a hangover before we move on to sneakily using ChatGPT to do our job for us [which might make you feel clever, but understand you're making a very solid case for your own redundancy] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i listened to npr marketplace from last friday and they have these people on... a couple who is all "oh we're not saving for our kids college because AI. we're also blowing money now on a vacation" after the kid arguing with his mom, that he may only have fifteen years left to live and perhaps i'm horribly off-base. but i can only think a) you've never seen a tech bubble burst in your lifetime have you b) if that does come you're going to be a bit stuck aren't you but after seeing that graph i think there are a lot of people in tedious office jobs that will get replaced. then AI will screw it up and start talking about napalm recipes during a health insurance conversation, and, crap, for liability reasons, we need you to come back to the office plz and perhaps i'm horribly off-base. but about all i see, after a lot of panic, is an automated pharmacy phone menu that is infinitely more bastardly to flummox into giving you a real person on the line |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
they hit a CPU wall somewhere between GPT-3 and GPT-4 and the big gains are over until there's another paradigm shift, really. i guess what i'm watching for is when will it dawn on people it's been stuck in the same spot for... oh, probably early next year. when it's been stuck in the same spot for most of a year. then we'll see if GPT-5 is crap or not. does it seem smarter or does it just offer "more relevant information" e.g. ads? if they manage to make GPT-5 something despite no longer being able to throw enough computer at it to push it any further, despite lawsuits... maybe this still has some momentum. but the house does not favor it and i'll shut up now. sheesh. sry |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Geoffrey Hinton. I'm named Geoffrey, I'd tell him. But then I half wonder if he'd look at my last name instead and ask about some of my dad's papers on machine vision. But I'd give that 5% -- it was more the reverse. He literally mentioned Hinton by name talking about stuff I didn't yet -- and still really don't, if i had to get down to it -- understand yet, when I was a teenager, and he was working for some facial recognition startup and long story short, they had their own innovations, but they wouldn't have even had a company without Hinton. I understood this much so -- thanks, wired, for still being around [you were kind of like Vice before Vice was Vice and you're still you and you're still here] -- talks with him and i think i do have a moment for a read. even though i'd not terribly been following -- ohh, eh, he worked for google? but Hinton says he asked the model to explain a joke that he had just made up—he doesn’t recall the specific quip—and was astonished to get a response that clearly explained what made it funny. “I’d been telling people for years that it's gonna be a long time before AI can tell you why jokes are funny,” he says. “It was a kind of litmus test.” it is a beard-tugger, i have to say. but i'm not sold unless he can show me the joke, and the explanation -- that, roughly, if the joke has been told on the internet a few times [whether he thinks he came up with it himself or not] then why it is funny has likely been precomputed through millions of dollars worth of CPU time across all the jokes on the internet. and i'm skeptical because |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
gender-insensitive python code. that i would never have sat down and tried to come up with a phrase, but... i've some idea i'll not discuss because if it works it could be worth a few bucks, right? and maybe AI. so i split off a splinter of the idea, and a splinter of that splinter, and eventually: alright, this seems nice and bite-size. and i essentially ask the AI to write python code to generate a small subsection of an RPG character description it is promptly: "if male, ..., else ..." ...and not only is this, like... you see the dumpster fire already, here? ...but to make it worse, "else" clearly got a lot meaner adjectives. the kicker is i'd not asked for anything gender-based at all in my prompt. the internet is horrible, so, from this, an AI generated from the internet is horrible. and i go back to: this may be built on rocket scientists and authors using the internet but it's also based on something awful and teenage girls with broken iPhones with cracked screens. posting in a camry missing a hubcap etc etc and again, i get back to: what was your joke, dammit. and what, exactly, did it say to explain it? this matters as to whether your "litmus test" hasn't been compromised by someone spilling coffee on the test strip hell, maybe i should write him. but i'd not even use my name it'd be distracting |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i mean, is that hard to understand? i asked it to generate a fragment of an RPG character description, not mentioning gender at all -- not implicitly required; hell, it was not even on my radar. totally irrelevant. and "if male" then "otherwise" and otherwise gets meaner words i was not trying to get it to spew sexist... genderist? i don't even have the words, but... i was not trying to get it to spew this crap at all. in fact, i sat down and earnestly tried to use it for something nice. in fact i'm not even sure of the right words to articulate why this is offensive, i just know some people i know and respect would definitely find this offensive. and that i even feel compelled to explain is because we're on the internet. and yes, this AI is definitely made from the internet it's more likely to put a giant ascii 8=============D ~~ on the wall street stock ticker than it is to destroy us. thus far. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
mmm 1) break out "funny" into a tree, and, my favorite dead baby joke is the one that combines dead baby jokes with a lightbulb, and the internet knows this joke. so it knows riffs on this joke, and vaguer, more general versions of this joke. this covers a lot of ground, to be sure, the whole internet -- but if no one on the internet has told the joke before you ran your big run (what was it? ChatGPT only goes up to 2021?) then it will struggle to connect the dots unless it can find a path from existing jokes on the internet 2) you will never get something awful out of your bot unless you bin it all and make your own content from scratch. 3) you can guard against making it say explicitly sexist things via going cocaine monkey on a million rules reacting to people figuring out new ways to get it to say sexist things, but you're going to have a rough time getting it to, say... write python code that is not implicitly sexist. 4) you will never get something awful out of your bot 5) it's more likely to inject an ascii penis into a stock ticker than it is to destroy us all sorry, working on my messaging, here |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so we're doing a remake of robocop 2 except instead of OCP it's microsoft trying to jam in rules about good PR and profit and i'm sure their list is about how OCP's went in the movie. and also, instead of a "devout irish catholic," as fexx puts it in the movie, Murphy has inexplicably been turned into Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka, who switches through various characters like Cliff Yablonski and JeffK in a dissociative haze surely a careful set of rules can clean this up |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
saying... bunches of what i just said, arranged not in a pile of rambles. yep. why bother to clean this up and post it on medium? someone else will do it just fine. it will only get 22 views anyways, and only 31% of those read the full article etc |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but no one on here gives a toss either i think i'll just start keeping it to myself it's not hard to write this shit in a text file instead. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sam Altman is officially an awful selfish doomer prepper who is interested in, say, psychedelics, not because of what they do, because, my gosh, there's so much untapped profit here. that, can i say this on the internet, legally? Sam Altman: you are going to hell |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
