On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:21:10 +0200 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 05:09:02 -0400, tom haddington wrote: > >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 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. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
