Google Clips - End of the photographer as we know it?

On 2018-05-27 17:59:21 +0000, RJH said:

On 26/05/2018 10:00, occam wrote:
On 26/05/2018 06:11, PeterN wrote:
On 5/25/2018 9:04 PM, Savageduck wrote:

[---]

Assuming an infinite number of monkeys........


Sorry, 'infinite monkeys' misses the point. It implies that the AI will
generate an infinite number of unlistenable pieces of music, of which
one will be perfect. That is not the case.

Anyone who thinks AIs will forever lack 'human nuance' is invited to
watch the Alphago (2017) film, and be prepared to have your frail human
egos shattered.


It's a good documentary, and very clever programming, but I wasn't
persuaded on the AI front. Go is 'just' a game, with a degree of
linearity and boundaries.

Ironically, the one thing that demonstrated its superiority at Go were
the 'non-human' moves - the algorithm developed to produce low risk
curve balls that produced likely error-prone human responses to produce
a marginal points win. All good and clever - but it's that ironic
development that produced the win. I'd guess humans would have got
there too - given a few thousand years ;-)

AIs are like Neanderthals, copy cats at one level or another and will
not handle necessary shifts of paradigms well...
--
teleportation kills

On Sun, 27 May 2018 07:42:08 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


if a computer composes music that people enjoy listening to, then it's
a success.

THat doen't mean that it necessarily has made musical breakthrough.

it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't.

composing music is not about breakthroughs.

Every now and then it is. Just ask the Beatles.

and?

nothing prevents ai from doing the same. or better.

Then why hasn't it done it already? Juts once. Somewhere.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 27 May 2018 07:42:10 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

in 1965, while in high school, he designed and built a computer that
composed music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Neivqp2K4

And he wrote (?) the program which controlled how the computer wrote
the music.

yep.

and using what is now considered to be ancient technology.

You are not quite correct to say that the computer wrote music. It
would be more accurate to say that the computer generated music.

more semantic bull****.

ray did not write the music. guess what that means.

It means that he wrote a music generator.

something which you said could not be done.

No I didn't. Please quote the relevant text.

you said it might happen, but not for a long time, which means it can't
happen now.

That's not me saying it couldn't be done.

except that it happened more than 50 years ago and has been happening
ever since, something with which you agree.

After discussions with you I said that Ray Kurzweil wrote a music
generator. I explicitly made the point that this was not the same as
the computer writing music (in the sense that it was being originally
discussed).


In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
I doubt that AI will ever produce a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi.

Well, maybe it will, but it will be a long time.

.... and it will need new and inventive insights such as present AI
cannot provide.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

if a computer composes music that people enjoy listening to, then it's
a success.

THat doen't mean that it necessarily has made musical breakthrough.

it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't.

composing music is not about breakthroughs.

Every now and then it is. Just ask the Beatles.

and?

nothing prevents ai from doing the same. or better.

Then why hasn't it done it already? Juts once. Somewhere.

i asked before and you did not answer:
certainly you don't think that whatever hasn't yet been done can't ever
be done, do you?

On Sat, 26 May 2018 22:21:08 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/26/2018 5:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2018 11:00:15 +0200, occam wrote:

On 26/05/2018 06:11, PeterN wrote:
On 5/25/2018 9:04 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 25, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 25 May 2018 18:16:28 -0400, PeterN
Â* wrote:

On 5/25/2018 6:42 AM, occam wrote:
Here is an interesting article which says:

"Google and its AI research team really do think that photography is
about deciding what makes a good picture and think it can be
automated.
Over time photography has become increasingly less skillful. First
automatic exposure takes away the skill of setting up the recording
equipment and then automatic focus makes it easy to focus on the
foreground object. AI driven focus even does away with the need to
manually select what should be in focus. All that is left it the
moment
to press the shutter or record button."

The full article
(http://www.i-programmer.info/news/19...11821-google-c

lips-the-death-of-the-photographer.html)
is about Google's Clip App which uses AI to automate the 'critical
moment' of photo-taking, which according to the article is
currently the
last bastion of photographers.

Nothing new there. It is well established that music can be created by
AI. What is lacking is the human nuance.

I doubt that AI will ever produce a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi.

Well, maybe it will, but it will be a long time.

Agreed, and there are so many more than the three greats you cited
that AI
will never equal. AI might be able to produce something evocative of
the work
of some great composer, or jazz improvisor like Brubeck, Bud Powell,
or Art
Pepper, but will never be their equal. However, I am sure that we will
have
at least one of the regular participants in this NG who will state
that AI is
going to be the future for all things creative be it music, or
photography.


Assuming an infinite number of monkeys........


Sorry, 'infinite monkeys' misses the point. It implies that the AI will
generate an infinite number of unlistenable pieces of music, of which
one will be perfect. That is not the case.

Anyone who thinks AIs will forever lack 'human nuance' is invited to
watch the Alphago (2017) film, and be prepared to have your frail human
egos shattered.

Our cats play Go with each other all the time. Periodically they try
to drag me into their play.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rckaj5wsxg...Small.jpg?dl=0


Cute cat.

Here is on of the latest competitors in the game of Domestic Go
https://www.dropbox.com/s/spb1lhfi9h...02905.jpg?dl=0
This guy has picked my listening chair which is really too small for
him. He reminds me of someone.


When folk start conflate problems with a finite number of
solutions, based on the probabilities, with human nuance, there is no
point in continuing them discussion.
The principles expounded by Knuth are still valid.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

in 1965, while in high school, he designed and built a computer
that composed music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Neivqp2K4

And he wrote (?) the program which controlled how the computer
wrote the music.

yep.

and using what is now considered to be ancient technology.

You are not quite correct to say that the computer wrote music. It
would be more accurate to say that the computer generated music.

more semantic bull****.

ray did not write the music. guess what that means.

It means that he wrote a music generator.

something which you said could not be done.

No I didn't. Please quote the relevant text.

you said it might happen, but not for a long time, which means it can't
happen now.

That's not me saying it couldn't be done.

you said 'but not for a long time' which means it can't be done now.

except it was done more than 50 years ago, by a high school kid.

tl;dr - you were wrong.

except that it happened more than 50 years ago and has been happening
ever since, something with which you agree.

After discussions with you I said that Ray Kurzweil wrote a music
generator. I explicitly made the point that this was not the same as
the computer writing music (in the sense that it was being originally
discussed).

semantic bull****.

the computer composed the music, to use yet another word.

the point which you *still* miss is that ray didn't write the music. he
designed and built a computer to do it.

and that was 50 years ago with horribly primitive technology compared
to what's available today, which is horribly primitive to what will be
available in 10-20 years, let alone 50 years.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
I doubt that AI will ever produce a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi.

Well, maybe it will, but it will be a long time.

... and it will need new and inventive insights such as present AI
cannot provide.

complete nonsense.

you're living in a cave.

On Sun, 27 May 2018 18:57:20 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

if a computer composes music that people enjoy listening to, then it's
a success.

THat doen't mean that it necessarily has made musical breakthrough.

it doesn't matter if it does or doesn't.

composing music is not about breakthroughs.

Every now and then it is. Just ask the Beatles.

and?

nothing prevents ai from doing the same. or better.

Then why hasn't it done it already? Juts once. Somewhere.

i asked before and you did not answer:
certainly you don't think that whatever hasn't yet been done can't ever
be done, do you?

That will be next level up from a Turing test.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article
nospam wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Nothing new there. It is well established that music can be created by
AI. What is lacking is the human nuance.

I doubt that AI will ever produce a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi.

there's no requirement that it should.

there are many more composers in this world than just those three.

Well, maybe it will, but it will be a long time.

where 'a long time' is 'now':
....

I, for one, welcome our future AI overlords and pledge to them my
total loyalty. I will listen and like whatever music they choose to
give us.

On 2018-05-28 09:33:19 +0000, Anonymous said:

In article
nospam wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Nothing new there. It is well established that music can be created by
AI. What is lacking is the human nuance.

I doubt that AI will ever produce a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi.

there's no requirement that it should.

there are many more composers in this world than just those three.

Well, maybe it will, but it will be a long time.

where 'a long time' is 'now':
....

I, for one, welcome our future AI overlords and pledge to them my
total loyalty. I will listen and like whatever music they choose to
give us.

If they ain't happy nor persuasive then they can be persistent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iqO_Q7ZgGE
--
teleportation kills

On Mon, 28 May 2018 16:40:16 +0200, android wrote:

On 2018-05-28 09:33:19 +0000, Anonymous said:

In article
nospam wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Nothing new there. It is well established that music can be created by
AI. What is lacking is the human nuance.

I doubt that AI will ever produce a Bach, Beethoven or Monteverdi.

there's no requirement that it should.

there are many more composers in this world than just those three.

Well, maybe it will, but it will be a long time.

where 'a long time' is 'now':
....

I, for one, welcome our future AI overlords and pledge to them my
total loyalty. I will listen and like whatever music they choose to
give us.

If they ain't happy nor persuasive then they can be persistent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iqO_Q7ZgGE

And immune to argument.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens