4 Jun
2016
4 Jun
'16
8:01 p.m.
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:21:10 +0200
Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 05:09:02 -0400, tom haddington
wrote:
For once I'm in total agreement with Ralf :o
Furthermore, there is not exactly a life-threatening shortage of music, so what
'need' does machine generated music fill?
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
One might observe that the machine wrote bad
music. Well, humans are
already doing that, too, so Magenta has gotten at least that far! As
with chess machines, it may be a matter of time.
The point isn't, if a machine is able to fake music, it doesn't
matter, if it's good or bad faked music. What the machine generates is
completely uninteresting to me, since a machine has got no
emotions I'm interested in. A machine has got no emotions at all, so
even if the machine would generate "good music", it would be faked "good
music", emotional fraud. Human impostors are able to e.g. fake love.
Victims often feel more loved by an impostor, than by somebody who
really loves them. Fraud could make us feel good, we anyway
dislike fraud. That just shows what kind of company Google is. A human
might be an untalented musician, but at least a human usually has got
real emotions. A machine that is able to fake "good music" has got
absolutely nothing to do with progress. It's a damage. Developing
something like this shows the unimaginativeness of the developers.
Nobody needs it, it's good for absolutely nothing and even not a
useful step to learn something for useful AI projects or something
like this.
Regards,
Ralf