Is this the official date of the decline of human culture ?

 

the stuff they have out that mixes your song on the fly is shit...i, as well as many others on here, can easily outclass that..the whole point to mixing is that every song is different and people crave the human touch that quantized machines can't provide. we could talk about this all day, but i don't have time. without true ai through quantum computing, and giving the machine comparable ears to our own to make music sit correctly for our species' hearing range, it won't happen. point blank.

 

https://audiosex.pro/threads/what-is-the-best-way-to-export-midi-from-wav-files.23016/ , or you could get MIDIs from google. FLPs may exist for some songs if you're very lucky.

 

@ArticStorm Sounds as good as most of the stuff on soundcloud.

I'm not talking about what we have access to, I'm talking about what Bethesda, or other big game companies and Universal Studios, or other big movie houses have access to. You know saying Bethesda and not seeing military, or Columbia Pictures (do they even exist anymore?) and not see military infrastructure is naive.

This program is limited, because it's not based on algorithms that can learn, but there are computer systems that learn, and not the old crap neural network way. As the brain is being mapped at higher and higher resolution, so are the sims being created to represent the latest information. A machine is not limited to 3 lbs of cholesterol in a calcium cage. [Btw, do NOT take cholesterol lowering drugs, ding a lings, your brain is 90% cholesterol dry weight. What do you think happens when you continuously make your body scavenge for cholesterol (hormones use cholesterol as it's beginning substrate) You eat your brain, stupid! Perfect for your government, but is it perfect for you?]

IBM's Watson, no doubt can do it with a short training regime, if it hasn't already been done, or Google bought DeepMind can do it, better than any human, because it would learn the best of all human examples it was given, now BY TRAINING ITSELF.

How could we tell if some of the songs by the corp media are not already made by thinking machines, already in the mix? You know that most financial news is written by machines, as well as sports articles?
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7939067/ap-journalism-automation-robots-financial-reporting
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2...raced-a-machine-to-write-a-news-story-who-won

How many articles do you think you read in the news are NOT written by machines NOW? You think it's just sports and finance now? Really?

Wake tf up.

Think of it this way MrMister: Feminism is the male woman's desire to be the best man she can be...failed of course, (should be the best woman she could be) but, Deep learning algorithms in combination with it's complementary systems, can not only be the best man WE can be, but be the best of all of us we could be, and after training, for almost free. Then it continues to learn. So there's soft AI, which means human level intelligence within a specialty, and there's hard AI, which is super human intelligence. I'm saying, we are now living in the era of hard AI.

The second DeepMind beat one of the best Go players in the world (then, to cover the potential of everyone going "oh FK, we're dead," losing a game to make humans feel better about themselves, but that was after the tournament was won by the machine) that was when the military had proof that AI was the final answer. That beating of the Go player was a very special moment in the history of human beings, if you missed it, because now, the elite, no matter how small the population they have, can build weapons that are unbeatable. In effect, saying: Game Over, plebs lose.

Shite I went off on a tangent, but I hope you appreciate my sentiment.

 

Last edited: May 27, 2016

i know how this stuff works...i don't need a bunch of skewed, almost unintelligible analogies from you to understand..i am familiar with the subjects you are talking about. now YOU go and research quantum entanglement, microtubules, ai, quantum computing, and what they all require/imply. also try some math. everyone knows about the DeepMind/Go stuff. i think you are confusing yourself haha. are you a programmer? obviously not, by the way you are talking. give me one example of a computer, thus far, superseding the mixing engineer.. as i stated, very specifically, there are none "yet". your antics are an amalgam of pop-media and youtube. i didn't say it wasn't possible, i said it isn't here yet, so next time you try to convey your "wisdom", impart with a humble heart and realize that there are those that are much smarter than you. "soft ai" is not here yet. even the smartest people on the planet convey this, yet people/the media confuse this and its development through a lack of understanding. the "Go" case is an example of a learning algorithm getting better and better, but this is about more than calculable speed, as you will find if you spend (lots of) hours researching journals, online databases and the like.

 

you use the term "ai" extremely loosely, and in the same context as the general public. you clearly don't understand it. if your definition implies that something can learn on its own, sure, there is lots of ai, but for something to understand itself that it is learning and what learning actually is, with a sense of self, THAT is ai.

 

lol my fault, i just don't like being talked down to by someone who doesn't know what they are saying.

 

If I had the ability to be offended, I assume I should be?

As I've offered advice to others: Is the criticism valid and actionable? Then fix it. If not, ignore.

Either way, nothing I share has the intention of insulting others, and I understand how you may lash out at the messenger. I don't even have a golden ticket, so I'm shite out of luck, like everyone else.

 

lol my intention is not to offend, but to offer advice (and possibly insight), as you so eloquently offer. it is a lashing only because what i have suggested to you is emphatically valid, and in response to your absolutest, unnecessary response, to my post, that had nothing to do with you, telling me i was wrong without the knowledge base for your argument (of which, you haven't actually responded to).. but, in the words of your very self,
"is the criticism valid and actionable? then fix it. if not, ignore."
you have done neither with your own "advice", which usually, if not definitely, renders the suggester's own views as, at least, skewed. just speaking logically.

 

@MrMister My dad was a MIS Manager for Saks Fifth Avenue, and my bro is a Master of Computer Science and Engineering working for some random Hedge Fund that changes these days. I have a Masters in Applied Mathematics and Statistics from SUNY @ Stony Brook from the AMS dept 1994, (not many jeffs graduated that year) only because I was accused of being sexually harassing to two female AMS candidates that happened to fail their qualifying exams ending my PhD aspirations. I dated both, but at the time they said it wasn't dates, so I though it was cool. They said it wasn't dates...! I was allowed into the Stony Brook grad program without having even taken the GRE, but I did eventually take it to cover the dept. During the lawsuit I filed in the NYS Supreme court, because I said wtf, don't take my TA'ship money away, they did, so I had an actionable case, which was eventually dismissed while over a year in the courts, but I won that war by getting my diploma from the man that wanted me chucked (and I did prove attorney pro se really does have a fool for a client). I was the first person to use emails and have it accepted as evidence also in 1994. I actually can go on and on, lots of ppl have said I should write a book, but who cares. I am saying things real easy to falsify, don't even need Lexus-Nexus, if I'm full of shite.

I have always poked fun at my bro, that I'm a tool user, not just a tool maker, but tool makers sure make more money than I ever did. You're familiar with genetics right? Yes, I can program, but resist as much as possible, except for say Kontakt KSP that I've grungingly started to learn. I've been working with Phds since my senior year at Stuyvesant HS in 1979-81 graduating at 16 years old, doing graduate level research in Biochemistry that year and one physics class in the mornings.

I am currently fighting to see my youngest son who is dying from Berger's disease (anyone know Munchausen by Proxy?) still with his mom. I being barred seeing him based on the kid's accusations that I just learned last week were never said by them. So while I visit my older son in a "boy's residence" having gotten out on a voluntary placement because of a knife attack by his mother (she didn't even get arrested), and have him tell me the court is actively criminal stating he never said anything he was "quoted" as having said (and wasn't gonna call him to testify) I still have to play nice as I contact alternative news sites, the DA of NYC non violent crimes unit (not so easy), and manage my kids safety while now I know they are involved within a government agency that will try to cover up.

My attorney now says the case will most likely be dismissed, after years of delays, though accusation means you get treated as a criminal by any agent of the court or foster care system...awesome. Some detectives were reasonable, some were just quota placements. Either way, everyone, if there was a dust particle of evidence I would have been in Rikers years ago, and you would have read about me already in the news. I'm actually surprised they didn't arrest me anyways, assuming only that I was lawyered up made them potential look for evidence? I still don't know. How the progressive city elite didn't go with: FDNY Paramedic Rapes His Sons. (they were 7 and 11, so holy cow...and ew, and I didn't even know I was gay!)

So dude, really, I offer information not to be insulting. In academic debate, saying something you have taken as patronizing, just wrong and an attack on you, is not taken that way there, or should it here in a forum to talk about things. You say bs, I've not seen any machine intelligence even close to being able to mix and master, and I'm saying, just cause you haven't seen it doesn't make it not exist, and given the way tech is being rolled out in other areas, I have great suspicion that it does exist, just government restricted kinda stuff.

You don't know me, and I do this stuff as part of Art and Music Therapy, so I don't frequent high ledges or short peers for long walks, but I know I always get really good at stuff, so, you never know. This may be useful in the end for other things as well.

 

Last edited: May 28, 2016

lol, so you are saying you are crazy, sexist, you are super smart, can't supply proof, but you "know it is there". give me a break, fine, i invented science. there you go. i have supplied action to be taken by looking into many fields of science and you have nothing to say on the matter. just stop talking. you were wrong. you can't blatantly tell me i am wrong, without backing yourself up, and not expect a response. everyone has there own shit that they deal with, and i'm not going to tout my personal problems or credentials. who even knows how much of that is true. again, not taking your own advice...
"is the criticism valid and actionable? then fix it. if not, ignore."
you aren't proving anything to the internet except that you can't except someone's criticism of your very own criticisms...

 

btw jeff, you ABSOLUTELY said i was wrong. you didn't say it was your opinion, didn't offer any "guidance", just posted some circulating links and you just said that computers can mix songs themselves, directed at me. i explained how there are waay more factors, touched on a view key factors, and you continue to the point of not making sense.. you were just wrong. be done with this and except it.

 

It's a cool program, but after playing with it for a bit I notice it starts to have a predictable outcome every iteration. It's something that could be enhanced in the future no doubt, but as it is it leaves a lot to be wanted. I could see this being put to better use as a video-game music engine or something, though they are probably making quite a few sales anyway.

The first couple songs sound good when you play with it, but after a bit it starts to lose it's appeal as you catch on to what it's doing. There are similar programs that generate melodies and stuff, yet allow you to do the sound design. Those are more appealing as you can make it flow a lot more in the end.

Cool concept, we'll see how this kind of stuff evolves.

 

@PatrickKn Yes, I didn't look at the coding scheme, but if it's just a "regular" program, it is limited by what the programmers allowed it to do, unlike learning programs that produce things since the 1980s that their designers couldn't understand but they worked (like engineering designs for computer processors). To now, god only knows how the programmers deal with their inability to follow wtf the program is doing to get the results it gets, like the deep learning algorithms, to genetic algorithms. I can't remember offhand, but there was a genetic type algorithm that could solve chaotic systems and find optimal results pretty quickly. Not like computational methods where we can get arbitrarily close using approximation, I mean solve the freakin system. I'll start to look for that, I think he started to sell that program years ago.

I consider the whole article about computer composition "Predictive Programming," a way to get a population to accept shocking things, if you break it to them slowly. If the first article we saw was of IBM's Watson's music and it was as cool as the best composers today, that would make even me uncomfortable, but if you introduce a program that can produce simple nice music first, then a better program and then the real stuff the elite want ppl not to freak out about, like the frog in the tepid pot slowly brought to a boil, we never notice.