In what sense "useful" if it does everything for you? And if it isn't doing everything, how much use can it be? And if it is simply regurgitating music theory or whatever, then it isn't that intelligent, it's just feeding you the same stuff you already have access to - as a genuinely intelligent being.

Not at being human. And not at a lot of things. Machines don't even make good sheep, let alone humans.

Hmmm. Even some of my girlfriends have been more easily satiated than my computers and cars.

And we're all the Soft Machine?

In Brave New World Huxley writes about "Novel-writing machines" and music that has been produced entirely by machine. (And people take drugs (soma) and dance to it, mechanically).

Orwell wrote about "Prole feed":

"And the Ministry had not only to supply the multifarious needs of the party, but also to repeat the whole operation at a lower level for the benefit of the proletariat. There was a whole chain of separate departments dealing with proletarian literature, music, drama, and entertainment generally. Here were produced rubbishy newspapers containing almost nothing except sport, crime and astrology, sensational five-cent novelettes, films oozing with sex, and sentimental songs which were composed entirely by mechanical means on a special kind of kaleidoscope known as a versificator. There was even a whole sub-section—Pornosec, it was called in Newspeak—engaged in producing the lowest kind of pornography, which was sent out in sealed packets and which no Party member, other than those who worked on it, was permitted to look at."


It's an interesting topic, but atm it's part of a stupid financial bubble. The folks involved with AI are getting a lot of dough and it is in their interests to hype it. The "research funds" are rolling in.

Remember robots and flying cars?

Yet we don't even have automated toilet cleaning. It exists, but do you have one?

Look at "robot" vacuum cleaners? lol

And yet we're supposed to be anticipating self-driving cars, self-composing instruments, whatever. No chance.

 

You're not using your imagination. You sound slightly agitated by the whole concept. My personal opinion is, If the technology is available, put it in your tool box!

 

Ya'll can sign up on ampermusic.com and demo it yourselves.

What it can create is just chords/arpeggio and instrumentation in various styles. I know the term is broad but calling it AI is stretching it a little.

Compared to this jukedeck.com is better. It composes simple melodies that are quite convincing.

The best musical AIs we have are 'Emily Howell' and 'Flow Machines'.

 

Doesn't seem like anything far fetched. Computers can voice guitars, and implement humanized velocity, strumming, after touch etc..

 

But isn't this "what people want?" People things to be "smart" so that they themselves don't have to. People want an algorythm to feed them a musical playlist based upon their interests and demographic information. So-called "producers" (since they can't technically call themselves "musicians") want to relinquish their heart and soul – or never discover or develop it - and have software come up with chords, melodies, and even lyrics for them. Have some AI bot "create" music on your behalf, and then put your name on it. People now believe that stealing material or taking the path of least resistance toward an artistic result is "how it's done;" any question of authenticity is moot.

As for the music in the video, it's no more boring and lifeless and canned-sounding that a lot of the crap that I hear by accident or second-hand when I'm out in public. Most people won't be able to tell the "difference," nor would most people care. It's just more noise to fill the air or provide a sitational "soundtrack;" more music-abuse cranked loud as one tries to remember what one had gone to the grocery store to buy.

 

Last edited: Aug 29, 2017

Hmm. I think, music is a field, where AI can actually have success. Not at this stage of course, but in the future. Timeframe 50 years, we may not be able to distinguish AI music from the average musician's works. It's because of the quite mathmatically nature of music.
I don't wish for that, but I think we can't change the way it will develop over time.
And I'm convinced we'll see AI with conciousness in the future. As @superliquidsunshine cites: Welcome to the machine.
And: Be careful what you wish for, it could come true

 

Been playing around with Amper and not very impressed. Just sounds like a load of patterns being mashed together based on your choice of mood. No emotion in them whatsoever. It's essentially the same as Sonuscore Orchestra except noway near as good or expressive. Us composers are safe for the foreseeable imo!!

 

My point of view is to look closely at new technologies, but never call them the "ultimate" tools. It's just one more tool for us to play around with. And if you read the article about Ms Southern's work on the album (linked below), you will soon find out, that she also uses it just as another tool. The album does not rely on Amper, she rather uses amper (among many other AI tools) as a source of inspiration, arranging bits and pieces from Amper into a song. Of course she still needs instruments and mixing and mastering and so it seems like it is always. News media exaggerate the impact of such software to fuel our prejudices towards AI. All in all, a lot ado about nothing.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/21/technology/future/taryn-southern-ai-music/index.html