AI


popatr
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

OK, I'll concede, a computer is doing what a computer is supposed to do.  And its doing well.

Here's the challenge: The mechanics of structure (e.g. meter, rhyming, etc.) are something that is completely logical that can be programmed into a machine.  Can it do something that is not "logical", but aesthetic?

Visible aesthetics can be broken down into geometry and colors (over 60% of visual aesthetics are geometry and light frequencies).  And music can be broken down by logic (mathematical terms) as well.  But to hear the "beauty of words" because of the picture it paints through imagery and metaphor.  That is not logic based.

Can they program a computer to create a poem with these qualifications and make it sound very "pretty"?

So, for what it's worth I would argue that the above bolded is not accurate. So I would therefore argue that with advanced enough algorithms, beauty can be entirely created through logic and technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Give an example.

Hmm...I'm not sure of an exact example. But I studied music. Over time I learned that the whole idea of playing with "feel" was nonsense. You play with technique. The "feel" is generated by the technique. Whether the player understands that or not is irrelevant. The same is true of composing/writing/orchestrating. There are techniques that create the "feel". Understanding this on an intuitive level would be the descriptor for those who do it by "feel" to create the aesthetic. But the aesthetic itself is still generated by the technique.

As to the beauty of words generating imagery not being logic based...why? If a computer or a person understands that a word generates imagery, what's the difference? I'd still say it's technique.

There is an awful lot the human brain does naturally. But the natural part doesn't mean there aren't specific computations going on at some level.

Where it gets more complicated is in the irrational. But even then, the computer can be generate the irrational. We've seen several examples in this thread. The computer only has to be shown how to be irrational and it can mimic that. It sees that humankind, en masse, is unwilling to talk about how being white is good, and it mimics. "That's inappropriate" it says. Why would a computer find something inappropriate or not?

It's a simple example, but kind of a good one. Waxing poetic about black people is seen as beautiful. Waxing poetic about white people is seen as ugly. That's a technique being applied as clearly as if the computer learns that the I, vi, IV, V7 chord pattern is pleasing to the human ear, or that the word "moist" elicits feelings of ick in many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm...I'm not sure of an exact example. But I studied music. Over time I learned that the whole idea of playing with "feel" was nonsense. You play with technique. The "feel" is generated by the technique. Whether the player understands that or not is irrelevant. The same is true of composing/writing/orchestrating. There are techniques that create the "feel". Understanding this on an intuitive level would be the descriptor for those who do it by "feel" to create the aesthetic. But the aesthetic itself is still generated by the technique.

I see music and poetry as two separate arts.  Music is about mathematics.  Frequency, time, volume, etc. Those are all mathematics.

We've had the discussion about the two judgments in various artistic competitions 

  • Technicial merit
  • Artistical expression

In music, the two are both related and are both mathematical.  But they are different.

I'll take it in terms of driving a car on the road.  Perfect technical precision is driving directly centered in your lane.  When chanigng lanes, you take exactly 3 seconds from turning on your lane change signal to when you begin moving over to the next lane.

Artistic expression is the application of subtle variants that are still within prescribed parameters.  Variants include:

  • How far from the exact center of the lane do you drive?  Does it vary a bit throughout the travel?
  • How long you signal before making the move to the next lane and how long to actually cross the lane line.
  • Speed limit is 55, but you're varying from 55 to 60.  Even cruise control will vary the speed slightly.

In music, you have a 4/4 time with a beat of 60.  So, a quarter note should be exactly 1 sec.  But throughout the song, based on the "musical message" there will be slight variations in the duration of each quarter note.

Volume is also variable.  The variation between legato to staccato within a measure can lean toward one end of the spectrum to the other simply because it makes more musical sense.

Precision vs variability. 

And with music, it can certainly be programed into a computer because all of this can be programmed with mathematical precision.  And a human would most likely be programming it. 

  • Can we get a computer to create a piece of music in Mozart's style?  Absolutely.  At some point it will happen.
  • Can we get a computer to then play that original piece of music with the slight variations and "imperfections" that actually add character to the song such that it moves the human heart?  Maybe.  In many years.  But only "possible" because it is all mathematical.
26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As to the beauty of words generating imagery not being logic based...why? If a computer or a person understands that a word generates imagery, what's the difference? I'd still say it's technique.

When we're talking about words, it is a completely different story.  There is no mathematics in the communication of language.  (Some yahoo is going to bring up gematriot.  Well, I have a lot to say about that which I will not go into now.)

Why was there no progress on interpreting ancient Egyptian until the Rosetta Stone?  There is nothing mathematical about it.  If you gave a computer the knowledge of Ancient Greek and Demotic, but had no knowledge of the Rosetta Stone, the computer could never in 100 years interpret the Hieroglyphics.  Why? Because language is not mathematical.

Having the Rosetta Stone provided a mathematical basis for the translation.  Then a computer would be very helpful.

An understanding of words, definitions, and grammar can be programmed.  But the basis for translating language into beauty? For a computer? Impossible.  Why?  We have no Rosetta stone for beautiful language.  There are some mechanical devices in poetry.  But by simply following those rules, does not necessarily make it a beautiful poem.  Omitting such rules does not make it a bad poem.  There really are no 100% rules.

I'd like to challenge anyone with access to ask it to create an original joke.  I'd give it a 75% chance that it may be worth a smile.  But a deep belly laugh that is so cathartic for the soul?  The chances are much smaller.  If it does, it will be by random chance, not because it was actually able to understand humor.

So, the challenge: ask it to create an original joke about whatever topic.  Just how funny is that joke?  What's more challenging have it create a slapstick scene that is original and funny.

 

 

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I see music and poetry as two separate arts.  Music is about mathematics.  Frequency, time, volume, etc. Those are all mathematics.

We've had the discussion about the two judgments in various artistic competitions 

  • Technicial merit
  • Artistical expression

In music, the two are both related and are both mathematical.  But they are different.

I'll take it in terms of driving a car on the road.  Perfect technical precision is driving directly centered in your lane.  When chanigng lanes, you take exactly 3 seconds from turning on your lane change signal to when you begin moving over to the next lane.

Artistic expression is the application of subtle variants that are still within prescribed parameters.  Variants include:

  • How far from the exact center of the lane do you drive?  Does it vary a bit throughout the travel?
  • How long you signal before making the move to the next lane and how long to actually cross the lane line.
  • Speed limit is 55, but you're varying from 55 to 60.  Even cruise control will vary the speed slightly.

In music, you have a 4/4 time with a beat of 60.  So, a quarter note should be exactly 1 sec.  But throughout the song, based on the "musical message" there will be slight variations in the duration of each quarter note.

Volume is also variable.  The variation between legato to staccato within a measure can lean toward one end of the spectrum to the other simply because it makes more musical sense.

Precision vs variability. 

And with music, it can certainly be programed into a computer because all of this can be programmed with mathematical precision.  And a human would most likely be programming it. 

  • Can we get a computer to create a piece of music in Mozart's style?  Absolutely.  At some point it will happen.
  • Can we get a computer to then play that original piece of music with the slight variations and "imperfections" that actually add character to the song such that it moves the human heart?  Maybe.  In many years.  But only "possible" because it is all mathematical.

When we're talking about words, it is a completely different story.  There is no mathematics in the communication of language.  (Some yahoo is going to bring up gematriot.  Well, I have a lot to say about that which I will not go into now.)

Why was there no progress on interpreting ancient Egyptian until the Rosetta Stone?  There is nothing mathematical about it.  If you gave a computer the knowledge of Ancient Greek and Demotic, but had no knowledge of the Rosetta Stone, the computer could never in 100 years interpret the Hieroglyphics.  Why? Because language is not mathematical.

Having the Rosetta Stone provided a mathematical basis for the translation.  Then a computer would be very helpful.

An understanding of words, definitions, and grammar can be programmed.  But the basis for translating language into beauty? For a computer? Impossible.  Why?  We have no Rosetta stone for beautiful language.  There are some mechanical devices in poetry.  But by simply following those rules, does not necessarily make it a beautiful poem.  Omitting such rules does not make it a bad poem.  There really are no 100% rules.

I'd like to challenge anyone with access to ask it to create an original joke.  I'd give it a 75% chance that it may be worth a smile.  But a deep belly laugh that is so cathartic for the soul?  The chances are much smaller.  If it does, it will be by random chance, not because it was actually able to understand humor.

So, the challenge: ask it to create an original joke about whatever topic.  Just how funny is that joke?  What's more challenging have it create a slapstick scene that is original and funny.

 

 

What we feel because certain notes are in certain order has no more to do with math than what we feel when certain words are strung together in a certain way. And I'm surprised you don't see that. Music is a language as surely as words are with all the complexities and nuances. In point of fact, I'd say, an argument could be made there's more complexity and nuance. Including the complexities of culture, but also properties that transcend culture that words can have to an extent (alliterative values and the like), but nowhere near how music does.

If you can mathematically explain how music can bring people to tears, fill them with joy, escalate their anger, or even help them to feel the Holy Spirit, then I'll eat this response with a nice helping of crow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ChatGPT is already worth something, yet it's only the beginning.  Practically everyone is using it.  My own testimony as a software engineer are that it's answers were gold.

GPT4 is better (though not as much as the hype apparently) and when it's released apparently it's going to power bing search.  Google is now on notice that it is about to have its throat slit.

Of course they won't sit idly and let it happen.  They will no doubt train powerful AI.  An AI arms race has probably begun, and if it's possible, it's going to get WAY better WAY fast as big tech fights for their lives against each other.

What that means for us is that ALL of us are on notice as well

---

Perhaps AI is still a bit machine like... but as far as I'm concerned, it is showing real creativity and intelligence already.  I've asked it questions and it gave good answers, and I'm aware of the multiple dimensions it had to "think through" in order to produce a good answer.  Refusing to call it intelligence at this point feels like semantic games to me, which I'm currently not inclined to play.

It is key to remember that AI is different from normal programming.  Humans don't give it formulas, they don't code if-thens.  Coding text generation like this, on the level of ChatGPT IS IMPOSSIBLE.  Human coders have nothing close to that skill level or capability.

AI is generated by "training" and no human is ever fully sure how the machine works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all arguing over art and music makes me remember the Star Trek episodes focused on Lt. Commander Data's quest to become human.  He couldn't whistle, but he could process the unique styles of multiple different violinists, and play something in a style that was his own unique blend of those different violinists.  Data argued against that making him human, but Picard argued in favor of it.  And that all happened before he installed his emotion chip.

The Android Data was TNG's version of Spock.  Vulcans started off with the claim that they have zero emotions, but the canon evolved into Vulcans having ALL the emotions, and just having an entire civilization and culture built around suppressing them.

And the pre-emotion canon Vulcans had Vulcan harps to play.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What we feel because certain notes are in certain order has no more to do with math than what we feel when certain words are strung together in a certain way. And I'm surprised you don't see that. Music is a language as surely as words are with all the complexities and nuances. In point of fact, I'd say, an argument could be made there's more complexity and nuance. Including the complexities of culture, but also properties that transcend culture that words can have to an extent (alliterative values and the like), but nowhere near how music does.

If you can mathematically explain how music can bring people to tears, fill them with joy, escalate their anger, or even help them to feel the Holy Spirit, then I'll eat this response with a nice helping of crow.

I do believe that the mathematical analysis of music can explain why we feel certain emotions.  I don't think "music" (the controlling of frequencies and combinations thereof propagate energy via P-waves though a physical medium) helps us feel the Spirit.  I think it helps us feel emotion.  And when that emotion is combined with words which communicate divine truth, that combination helps us feel the Spirit more deeply than words alone.

HOW DOES MUSIC INVOKE FEELINGS?

I will give you two examples.  I don't currently know enough about psychology to go into much more than that.  But it should give you an idea of how that works.  And I believe that if I knew enough about psychology, I could explain just how every type of emotion is thus invoked by music.

Our psychology is basically our learned reactions to the stimuli around us.  Some of it is nature.  Some of it is nurture.  But both sources of training gives us certain expectations of what is "normal" and what is expected.

Most sounds we hear have a certain expected duration.  When a certain sound or sequence is prolonged (like the introduction to the Mission Impossible theme) then it generates "suspense".  We're psychologically programmed to expect it to end soon.  But when it goes longer than expected, it builds tension.  If prolonged TOO long, it becomes boring.  (both are emotions)

There is also repetition vs change.  Sting once mentioned that, as a student of Bach, he noticed that Bach never kept doing the same musical devices for any more than 8 measures.  If you listen to anything that Sting has written, he follows the same musical philosophy.  This method of changing every few measures, creates surprise.  It is considered lively rather than boring (both are emotions/feelings/impressions).

Methods of change:

  • Tempo
  • Key change
  • Time signature
  • Dynamics / volume
  • Adding/subtracting an instrument or voice.
  • Pattern of notes (using 1/8 notes for several measures, then switch to half notes, etc).

Every one of these methods which generate "surprise" can be programmed into a computer with mathematical instructions alone.

Now you try to explain to me how language is mathematical.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Carborendum

Your response is, in my opinion, woefully inadequate to to describe how music makes us feel emotion. If someone were to write a book on the idea it would still be insufficient...so I don't expect a forum post to succeed... But I think acknowledgement of more variables than, "SURPRISE" is in order.

Have you ever written music? I'm not asking that by way of some haughty implication that no one can speak to something they haven't done. But just by way of my experience, in having done so for over 3 decades, I know that the amount of variables and techniques involved in trying to write good music are profound. They're cannot be simplified to repetition and variation. I acknowledge those techniques...but they are the very, most basic, even-a-child-can-understand, techniques.

It also seems clear you aren't versed when you use the phrase "pattern of notes" instead of "rhythm", leave out concepts such as intervals, chords, counterpoint, and timbre (including attack and release), voice-leading, and many other techniques.

In short, it strikes me you're speaking to something you don't really understand completely. I'm not saying you have no understanding. But there's more to this than you're acknowledging.

I, of course, still maintain, that computers can, indeed, replicate all of that. On that point we agree. But where I think you've failed to convince me is in the idea that the art of expression through poetic language is different. We can put aside the music idea. I think you're view of it is flawed. I think there's logical failure in discrediting music relative to spoken or written word. (In point of fact, the spoken word is integral to music itself, since you cannot actually separate the lyric from it due to a variety of factors related to timbre and expression. In other words, the sung lyric is as much a part of music as is the trumpet -- and maybe more so in cases where the words and music enhance the message of each other.)

But that's fine. You don't see that in music... you probably won't through debate. That's fine. My point in bringing up music was hopefully to convince you of something to make a point...but in failing to convince you of that I still maintain the point. Computers can learn how to use language to compel emotion. I am unconvinced that computers cannot do this, given enough power and information. It is, ultimately, still technique and, at it's core, mathematical.

37 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't think "music" (the controlling of frequencies and combinations thereof propagate energy via P-waves though a physical medium) helps us feel the Spirit.  I think it helps us feel emotion.  And when that emotion is combined with words which communicate divine truth, that combination helps us feel the Spirit more deeply than words alone.

This is the way this read to me:

"Music doesn't help us feel the Spirit...it just...helps us feel the Spirit."

A bunch of semantic arguments about what "help us feel" means isn't particularly useful. 

"Through the miracle of sacred music, the Spirit of the Lord descended upon us, and we were made ready for gospel instruction and worship.

..The singing of hymns is one of the best ways to put ourselves in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. I wonder if we are making enough use of this heaven-sent resource in our meetings, in our classes, and in our homes." - Dallin H. Oaks

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Now you try to explain to me how language is mathematical.

I believe the burden of proof is yours. But...

Words have syllables made up of letters that make sounds. The sounds have natural and cultural effects on us. The words have cultural meanings. There are distinct rules of communication using those words. Those rules can be followed or broken based on cultural understanding. Anyone who has an understanding of the syllables, sounds, word meanings, and rules, can both understand and replicate those syllables, sounds, word meanings, and rules.

I mean there's more that could go into it. But what about any of that is not mathematical? Language isn't magic. It's shared understanding of symbols.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw @Carborendum, lest you think we're way off from each other's thinking, we're not. You mentioned humor earlier and that's one point where I struggle to see a computer being able to understand. But another side of me thinks that with enough power and data, why couldn't it understand?

I don't fully disagree with you. I just, logically, work it out a bit differently. Maybe that's my paranoia talking though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Y'all wrong.  Only Squidward has it figured out.

SquidwardTheRulesOfArt.jpg.a9c337c707a01cace5b42b377d5d588c.jpg

Just out of curiosity I looked up the definition of "art" and:

"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power"

By golly! We're saved. Computer's CANNOT create art. By definition!

Of course that was only according to the google search.

merriam-webster has

"the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects"

Whew. Computers still excluded!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TFP, I need to say openly that I have known your musical expertise and have great respect for it.  So, I am grateful that you're willing to discuss this with me.

I do believe that you're making some interpretations of my words that I had not intended.  Some of it was because my wording was poor or incomplete.  Some of it was because you seem to be making a strawman.  Let's both make efforts at clearer communication (both sending and receiving).

I continue to respect your musical ability.  But I hope you read my words more carefully.

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Carborendum

Your response is, in my opinion, woefully inadequate to to describe how music makes us feel emotion. If someone were to write a book on the idea it would still be insufficient...so I don't expect a forum post to succeed... But I think acknowledgement of more variables than, "SURPRISE" is in order.

I only shared two examples.  I did so because these were very easy to explain.  Of course there are hundreds of emotions in the human spectrum.  And each  emotion is induced by a different musical device (or combinations of several).  But as you said, how could I cover everything?

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Have you ever written music?

Nope.  Freely admitted.  I am glad you did not expect me to.  But I'll give an example of where I'm coming from. 

I'm an engineer.  I design things.  I do the calculations.  I put the stuff on paper.  I give instructions.  But the contractor who actually builds the stuff?  He has to be able to read all the plans and instructions.  He is simply unable to do the calculations I can.  But every once in a while, a contractor can call me up and say that *this* item is wrong because...

Well, when it comes to music, I'm like the contractor.  I really don't know how the music is written. Yes, I do have minimal training in music theory.  But there's no way I could write a piece that anyone would appreciate.  I merely perform it or (as choir director) instruct others on how to perform it such that it produces maximum emotional effect on the audience.

ASIDE: Could a person know enough music theory to write an orchestral piece without being able to play a single instrument or have the vocal chords to sing well?  I think so.  But the way the music industry is built is quite different from the engineering and construction industry.  So, that is quite unlikely.  However, I know many people who can interpret music very well without being able to write it themselves partially because of the difficulty you mentioned.

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But just by way of my experience, in having done so for over 3 decades, I know that the amount of variables and techniques involved in trying to write good music are profound. They're cannot be simplified to repetition and variation. I acknowledge those techniques...but they are the very, most basic, even-a-child-can-understand, techniques.

Exactly.  That's exactly what I was going for specifically for the sake of discussion.  I acknowledge there is much more.  But you asked for an explanation.  I gave examples.

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It also seems clear you aren't versed when you use the phrase "pattern of notes" instead of "rhythm", leave out concepts such as intervals, chords, counterpoint, and timbre (including attack and release), voice-leading, and many other techniques.

As you indicated, it would be futile to write the encyclopedia in a forum post.  So, can we move on?

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

In short, it strikes me you're speaking to something you don't really understand completely. I'm not saying you have no understanding. But there's more to this than you're acknowledging.

My original statement about music and emotion was that that there is something that can be defined in music via mathematical terms that will invoke emotions.  I gave two examples.  Everything you've said seems to be agreeing with me.  So, I believe that part of the discussion is settled.

If you believe there is a NON-mathematical method, then give at least one example.

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I, of course, still maintain, that computers can, indeed, replicate all of that. On that point we agree. But where I think you've failed to convince me is in the idea that the art of expression through poetic language is different. We can put aside the music idea.

Agreed.  That's where I wanted this conversation to go.

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think you're view of it is flawed. I think there's logical failure in discrediting music relative to spoken or written word. (In point of fact, the spoken word is integral to music itself, since you cannot actually separate the lyric from it due to a variety of factors related to timbre and expression. In other words, the sung lyric is as much a part of music as is the trumpet -- and maybe more so in cases where the words and music enhance the message of each other.)

But that's fine. You don't see that in music... you probably won't through debate. That's fine.

I agree with the overall intent (I think) of what you've written here.  But I'm called to point out Psalms.  We have the words.  But we have no music with it.  The words provide us something very valuable without any music.  If we only had the music without the lyrics, would we be able to claim the same?  They are not of equal value.

In Hebrew, the word for psalm is mizmor which refers to the melody more than the lyrics.  That is the word used in the Bible.  But with common discussion another word is used: Tehillim which refers more to the lyrics than the melody.

It is interesting that we have text of the words, but have not melody to go with them.  And David was a talented musician.  Maybe he really did play a secret chord that pleased the Lord :).  But it certainly wasn't what Leonard Cohen meant by it.

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Computers can learn how to use language to compel emotion. I am unconvinced that computers cannot do this, given enough power and information. It is, ultimately, still technique and, at it's core, mathematical.

OK.  That's your position.  I was asking for you to explain this idea.  How is language mathematical? That is the one thing I don't see.  And that was really the ONLY disagreement here.

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is the way this read to me:

"Music doesn't help us feel the Spirit...it just...helps us feel the Spirit."

A bunch of semantic arguments about what "help us feel" means isn't particularly useful. 

"Through the miracle of sacred music, the Spirit of the Lord descended upon us, and we were made ready for gospel instruction and worship.

..The singing of hymns is one of the best ways to put ourselves in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. I wonder if we are making enough use of this heaven-sent resource in our meetings, in our classes, and in our homes." - Dallin H. Oaks

Yes, I can see why you'd get that impression.  I'll clarify.

Feeling the Spirit through music (in a hymn for example) is a secondary effect, not a direct one.

Music tends to make one more relaxed/happy/tender-hearted/receptive, etc. to listening to the words of a song.  Then when divine messages are spoken/sung while in that state, then one is more prone to feeling the Spirit.

Without that message, the feelings are all emotional, not spiritual.  I make a distinction there.  If you only had the tune without being familiar with the lyrics, you'd "feel good", but would it be a spiritual experience?  I've never felt that without the words.

Conversely, I've heard tunes that were REALLY mesmerizing, relaxing, and emotionally fulfilling.  But when I actually listened to the lyrics... I decided I really shouldn't be listening to the songs again.  No, I did NOT feel the Spirit by music alone.

It could be argued that they work equally yoked instead of in series.  I'll have to think about that.  But that's not how I currently see it.

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I believe the burden of proof is yours. But...

I gave the example of the Rosetta Stone.  Language has stumped archaeologists for centuries with or without a computer.  No translation from an unknown language has ever been achieved via computer or any mathematical methodology.  There had to be some breakthrough that helped the translation.

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Words have syllables made up of letters that make sounds. The sounds have natural and cultural effects on us.

OK, that's beginning to sound like something that could support your position.

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The words have cultural meanings. There are distinct rules of communication using those words.

So far, I'm reading connotations and grammar?  The second sentence may be saying more.  But I cannot (off the top of my head) come up with a good descriptor/category for what you're describing.  But I think I can see what you're saying.

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Those rules can be followed or broken based on cultural understanding. Anyone who has an understanding of the syllables, sounds, word meanings, and rules, can both understand and replicate those syllables, sounds, word meanings, and rules.

Sort of.

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I mean there's more that could go into it. But what about any of that is not mathematical? Language isn't magic. It's shared understanding of symbols.

A lot.

With your first point about how words have sounds.  That was a good point.  It seems pretty basic. But, yes, it is easily overlooked.

We have primary accents, secondary accents, and unaccented syllables which can coincide with the down beat of a measure or the secondary down beat (like the 3rd beat of a 4/4 measure).

But I'll say that I I've read poetry in several languages and they don't easily use these methods.  Explain the use of homonyms as intending to invoke multiple meanings.  Mathematical?  Even if you program it with that tendency, will a computer have the sense to invoke such at the right time, in the right way to where that is really meaningful?

"Meaning" is difficult for humans who are looking for it (c.f "Let him have it").  Legal proceedings  spend MUCH time on what the "meaning" is even when using specific and forensic language.  Can a computer figure that out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I've been mostly avoiding these type of point by point responses to people because it seems to lead to so much anger and frustration. Maybe that's because I put my foot in my mouth so often. So I hope I don't cause that in doing so. It strikes me that you are legitimately interested in the discussion though. So....

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

But I hope you read my words more carefully.

Don't count on it. Haha.

What can I say? my A.D.D. brain is my A.D.D. brain. I do my best. I'll continue to do my best. That's the best I can offer.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

And each  emotion is induced by a different musical device (or combinations of several).

Do you recognize that part of this is natural and part is cultural?

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

ASIDE: Could a person know enough music theory to write an orchestral piece without being able to play a single instrument or have the vocal chords to sing well?

Definitely. But it would need to be their vocal chords keeping them from singing well. Not their ear.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

My original statement about music and emotion was that that there is something that can be defined in music via mathematical terms that will invoke emotions.

I think there maybe a communication issue here, so perhaps you can clarify. I think, per my best translation of your points, is that you are looking at the physical mathematics of music...like wave lengths and rhythmic structures and volumes...when you define music as mathematical. But then you're correlating (conflating, I dare think) that with some obscure idea of mathematics about certain sounds triggering certain emotions -- which is a different thing entirely.

It's that second thing that I am comparing to language. If it's true for music, it is for language. And it's just as complex. The science of sound is the science of sound. But the way we interpret sound is based on various factors that have a great deal of kinship with the way we interpret words.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

If you believe there is a NON-mathematical method,

Once again I'm not sure we're even thinking the same thing when we say "mathematical". Because at some level, EVERYTHING is mathematical.

Yes, there are most certainly non-mathematical methods to creating music, just as there are non mathematical methods to building a bridge. But that doesn't mean there aren't equations going on regardless.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

The words provide us something very valuable without any music.  If we only had the music without the lyrics, would we be able to claim the same?  They are not of equal value.

I have stated this before, but maybe not clearly enough, so I'll restate, thought it seems you don't comprehend, so I'm not sure you will still.

Music IS language.

A powerful message is a powerful message, be it communicated through words, body language, force of action, music, painting, sculpture, or the whisperings of the Spirit. This is the point that you don't seem to be grasping yet. You're treating music like it isn't a method of communication. It is, as surely as the words we're typing back and forth one to another.

So yes, the words are valuable without the music. But as powerful? And could we claim the same of some music without the words? Almost certainly. So I very much disagree with your last statement in theory. Meaning they could be of unequal value. But they aren't by virtue of the medium of communication itself.

Are there words that are more powerful than music? Yes. Scripture, for example. But that's not by the nature of words themselves, but in that our culture has developed communication primarily through words. Music could be just as communicative and thereby just as powerful if we only had developed such as our method for communicating.

I know this might be a bit out there, but imagine. What if every word we spoke, instead of being the phonetics of sound, was interval based. Like a combination of Morse-code and melody to generate words. And we could say anything through humming tunes. And that doesn't even consider the potential to develop those sounds based on the natural feel call it "musical alliteration" of certain patterns. Good golly, it's an astounding idea that no one better rip off for their next fantasy novel! Just kidding. Steal away. I'm not going to use it. :D

But I digress..again. I'm prone to that. (A.D.D., once again).

That all being said, I agree to your point. Recording the melodies David used would not be as beneficial as the words.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

How is language mathematical?

Seriously, we have some sort of communication block that I can't quite get past. All I can think in response to this is, How is language NOT mathematical.

A + B = C

A being a word, B being a word and C being the sentence.

On wikipedia it says of math:

"Mathematics is an area of knowledge that includes the topics of numbers, formulas and related structures, shapes and the spaces in which they are contained, and quantities and their changes."

Formulas? Related structures? Shapes? Quantities? These ALL apply to language.

I'm sure I'm missing something. I just don't see how it can be claimed that language isn't mathematical. It's patterned based, as surely as music is.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I've never felt that without the words.

That doesn't mean much and would not align with a great many people's experiences.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

No, I did NOT feel the Spirit by music alone.

Of course not. Feeling the Spirit only comes from the Spirit. That's not really the point though. The Lord seems to have certain rules about when we are able to feel the Spirit or not. I don't know what they all are, because they haven't been explicitly detailed. But we know some of it. Quietness. Pondering. Prayer. Peace. Certain music. Etc.

And for contrast, the most powerful spiritual experience I've ever had was integrally tied to music. It wasn't the music alone. No. But I never said it was.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

It could be argued that they work equally yoked instead of in series. 

I think you think of music incorrectly. I've explained above, but I'll repeat: music is language.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I gave the example of the Rosetta Stone.  Language has stumped archaeologists for centuries with or without a computer.  No translation from an unknown language has ever been achieved via computer or any mathematical methodology.  There had to be some breakthrough that helped the translation.

I really don't understand how this supports what you're saying. Computers can only know what computers can know. If there's an unknown it's unknown. That doesn't have anything do do with whether something is mathematical or not.

We have key/value pairs all over the place in programming. If you remove the keys or the values everything breaks down. Obviously. Does that mean computer programming isn't mathematical? Of course not. It's just bad data.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

But I cannot (off the top of my head) come up with a good descriptor/category for what you're describing.

....

Sort of.

"I went to the store" or "to the store I went" are very different than

"store the I to went"

The rules of language are shared ideas of meaning. We learn to understand patterns to mean certain things. Follow the pattern, at least close enough, and communication ensues. Step far enough out of the pattern and you're lost.

I put l33t speak to you as an example. Or just slang, for that matter. As I turn more and more into an old man I literally cannot understand what the kids are talking about sometimes! The pattern breaks down, and not knowing the new pattern yet, communication fails.

I know you're probably thinking this speaks to the non-mathematical nature of things...but it doesn't imo. It's just data into the equation. They changed the data on me, man.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Explain the use of homonyms as intending to invoke multiple meanings.  Mathematical?

Why not? That doesn't even seem like that complicated a thing to program.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Even if you program it with that tendency, will a computer have the sense to invoke such at the right time, in the right way to where that is really meaningful?

Yes, that becomes more complicated. But it really, I must say, feels like you're burying your head in the sand a bit over the astounding things AI is already doing, and it's in its infancy! Complicated? Sure. But impossible. No way. There are formulas that can be applied. And if AI is truly self learning then it'll come up with those formulas on its own.

Maybe someone should ask AI to come up with just such a formula and see what we get. :D:D

"Come up with a formula for AI to use to use homonym as intended to invoke multiple meanings into poetry at the right time and in the right way."

J/k of course. But I feel confident that this is easily handled with enough computing power and data.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

"Meaning" is difficult for humans who are looking for it (c.f "Let him have it").  Legal proceedings  spend MUCH time on what the "meaning" is even when using specific and forensic language.  Can a computer figure that out?

To chew on I'll answer with this:

I believe it will be significantly easier for computers to figure that out than humans who are, frankly, kind of morons.

I predict it now! Here me now, thus sayeth the Folk Prophet! The greatest body of art ever created will be generated by computers! ;)

On a final note on this post: I can't engage in this level of detail moving forward today any more. Too time consuming! :D

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 It strikes me that you are legitimately interested in the discussion though. So....

Appreciated.

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do you recognize that part of this is natural and part is cultural?

I don't deny that there is a cultural element of music.  But the part that is universal, by definition, has to be natural.  I suppose we could spend a lot of time determining what mechanisms belong to which category.  But in overall theory and philosophy, I'm only addressing the natural.  The cultural is whatever the culture dictates.  I have no idea how we would apply numbers to the cultural aspects of music. (See psychology below).

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Definitely. But it would need to be their vocal chords keeping them from singing well. Not their ear.

Agreed.

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think there maybe a communication issue here, so perhaps you can clarify. 

OK, I'm going to try to consolidate the rest of the points.

Language: With semantic qualifiers, I agree.  Music is a language. It has the ability to communicate things.  I'd say it is highly limited compared to the wide range of communications afforded by the spoken word.  But it is a method of communication. Therefore, it is a language.  It even has analogues to grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc.  But in the musical arts we used different terminology for those same concepts.

For the sake of clarity in conversation, though, I will call this "communication" (U.N.O.) and "Language" as our standard verbal communications and signals (body language as well as sign language).

Math: I agree with the definitions you provided from Wikipedia.  But you de-emphasized one very important word: "Numbers".   What numbers do you use with language?  Is there a natural numerical sequence that can be applied to the spoken word?  Whatever sequence that has been assigned it is based on a purely man-made construct.  That is a huge roadblock to creating a mathematical method of deciphering an unknown language.

Why common language is NOT math.  I've mentioned the Rosetta Stone.  Now think of the Navajo Code-talkers.  Why was that never deciphered?  There was no universal/natural numerical sequence that could be applied to help calculate what any words meant.

All music CAN be described by natural sequences.  While the actual numbers may be different based on scale (dimensional, not musical) the overall patterns are sequential and can be described by numbers in a very universal way.

How do you do that with words? That is the thing I haven't actually heard any explanation on.  This is the communication block that you refer to.  How do you numerically define words in a manner that is not a forced construct?

Separating music from lyrics:,   I'm not quite certain what you mean by being unable to separate the tune from the lyrics.  We have instrumentals.  We have poetry.  Then we have "songs" which combine them.  I'm not sure what part of this you disagree with.  Later you seem to be agreeing with this point.  But I'm not sure.

Let me share my experience withTaps. As a child, I had heard the tune countless times.  I always thought it was pretty.  But it never occurred to me to think of it as "reverent".  After heard lyrics associated with it, it became reverent.  Had I read the lyrics without hearing the tune, I would have thought of it as reverent.

Both together?  It seemed that whatever reverence I felt from the lyrics alone were magnified by the tune like the physical phenomenon of harmonic resonance (I'm sure you've seen the film of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse).

  • Did the tune help to reinforce the reverence of the lyrics?  Yes. 
  • Did I ever "feel the Spirit" when I'd heard the tune alone?  Not once.
  • If I'd never heard the tune before, but came across the "poem" would I have felt the Spirit?  Yes. (truthfully, I guess I don't know for sure.  But based on my reactions to similar sentiments from famous quotes...)

Public speaking: We might be well served to consider public speaking as a "less obviously" musical speech.  Can a timid speaker who simply reads a highly spiritual speech convey a spiritual message?  Yes, I've seen it.  Can a more dynamic speaker who knows how to work their voice present the same speech that tends to touch more hearts?  Absolutely.  And really, the techniques he'd be employing would be the same type of things we do in music.

Homonyms:  You doubted that it would be difficult to perform my homonym challengs.  The example that came to mind was Cyrano de Bergerac.  There is a line Cyrano uses when he is wooing Roxanne.

"What shall we call a kiss?... It is the 'O' of love."  Such is the common English translation.  But in French it is written "l'eau" (water) of love.  In French the pronunciation of "the O" and "the water" are the same.  Now, consider, would a computer ever understand what the "water of love" means unless this specific usage was pre-programmed into it?   

The program could include "compare to any homonyms" (an ability to find homonyms could certainly be programmed).  But then what?  Would a computer even know that "the water of love" would even mean anything? 

Unless they specifically programmed this understanding into the computer, it would never figure out that this makes some sort of metaphor.  Sure, you could eventually get it in a list which included all the homonym variants.  That's not intentional, but random.

True originality in such word usage by a computer would not generate something that both means so much and is relevant to the scene like this.

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I know this might be a bit out there, but imagine. What if every word we spoke, instead of being the phonetics of sound, was interval based. Like a combination of Morse-code and melody to generate words. And we could say anything through humming tunes. And that doesn't even consider the potential to develop those sounds based on the natural feel call it "musical alliteration" of certain patterns. Good golly, it's an astounding idea that no one better rip off for their next fantasy novel! Just kidding. Steal away. I'm not going to use it. :D

I think your point is that this is basically what song are.  Yes, I agree.

And don't you think Brandon Sanderson has already thought of that?  Have you read Stormlight Archives?

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm sure I'm missing something. I just don't see how it can be claimed that language isn't mathematical. It's patterned based, as surely as music is.

There are patterns, surely.  And here is where my linguistic skill is quite informative.  Patterns are different for every language.  Especially for extremely foreign languages like English and American. :).

No language is decipherable by a foreign speaker without spending a lot of time letting the brain become accustomed to the association of the sound to the concept.  If all you did was hear the words without any context, you would never in a million years EVER figure out what the words meant.

OTOH, I have in my studies been able to make leaps of logic as to the meanings of some words because I understand etymology, figures of speech, metaphors.  And I've later discovered that I was right.  Because the thought patterns which govern semantic shift, cognates, loaner words, etc. is pretty predictable because those patterns are based on human psychology.

Now, can we program a computer to understand human psychology sufficiently to come up with such references?  The thing is that while poets and philosophers can intuit such tendencies, I doubt a computer programmer would be able to codify it.

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Quietness. Pondering. Prayer. Peace. Certain music. Etc.

Here is one point I'll concede.  Some music by its nature can induce "peace".  And "peace" is certainly a fruit of the Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Y'all arguing over art and music makes me remember the Star Trek episodes focused on Lt. Commander Data's quest to become human.  He couldn't whistle, but he could process the unique styles of multiple different violinists, and play something in a style that was his own unique blend of those different violinists.  Data argued against that making him human, but Picard argued in favor of it.  And that all happened before he installed his emotion chip.

The Android Data was TNG's version of Spock.  Vulcans started off with the claim that they have zero emotions, but the canon evolved into Vulcans having ALL the emotions, and just having an entire civilization and culture built around suppressing them.

And the pre-emotion canon Vulcans had Vulcan harps to play.

"Perhaps one day we will find that space and time are simpler than the human equation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But you de-emphasized one very important word: "Numbers".

I don't think it's requisite for something to be mathematical in nature. It might be for pure "math" itself. Music and language are symbols that represent sounds that represent ideas. Language has been made more concrete and music is more abstract by culture. But that's the primary difference.

Using a paint by the numbers approach to generate new music is every bit as potentially flawed as doing so to create poetry. But the poetry is easier to my mind. Music's more abstract and has more elements going into the mix and therefore harder to do by the numbers.

Seriously...try and write a symphony that doesn't end up being "meh" and you'll understand.

I do both, by the way. Music, obviously, but poetry by way of lyrics. Music is way easier to intuit. The poetry is just a bunch of hard work. HARD work because it has to be worked out...little by little, working working working until it's right. I know the message, but I have to find the meter and the rhymes and the right words. A computer could go through the thesaurus way faster than I could, testing variations on sentence structure to fit the meter and prosody. WAY faster. The only question then remains selection when there is more than one option that works. And that is the tricky part. There are always more than one options that work. But...still.

So maybe that's why it feels more mechanical and mathematical to me.

And then there's the subjectivity matter, which is almost completely opposite to what you're suggesting. You see...the words either say what they're trying to or they don't. It's pretty mathematical to me. You want a double meaning, you find a word that has a double meaning or you do not. You want a certain rhythm, you fit the sentence into that meter or you don't. The prosody either lines up or it doesn't. The rhymes either rhyme or they don't. The message either says what it says or it doesn't. The Haiku either has the right syllable structure or it doesn't. Sure...there's some subjectivity there. But by and large if you want to describe an amazing flying pig you use words that mean amazing flying pig. You can art it up by saying stupendous soaring swine. And if you intent "flying" (or soaring) to also mean on drugs and "pig" (swine) to also mean slovenly person then it either does that or it doesn't.

But melody, harmony, chord structure, etc.... I'm sorry, but that's SO subjective. And subjectivity, I think we'll agree, is where computers might struggle.

I cannot tell you how often I've written something for one intention only to have feedback that it doesn't do what I meant. "It sounds too happy" when it's mean to be a sad song or, "It makes me feel all icky inside" when it's supposed to be a joyful romp. And stuff like that. It's SO subjective. You make it sound like music just sounds a certain way. Like a major key played fast is happy and a minor key played slow is sad and that's the end of that. But there's so much more to it than that. I'm not saying those basics aren't valid. They are. I use them all the time. But they're just the basics.

You have it in your mind that it's all straightforward and mathematical because the simplest ideas are. But the simplest ideas are akin to learning that "uh uh" is negative and "uh huh" is positive. It gets more complicated than that very quickly. Maybe not in our saccharine, pop infested, hip hop modern world. But I'm sure AI will crank that kind of crap out without even batting an eye...er...circuit.

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

And don't you think Brandon Sanderson has already thought of that?  Have you read Stormlight Archives?

Haha. I was going to use that as an example. But what he does is a bit different. He's more having them score their own lives. Like if every time you say something about heroism you'd hum the Superman theme. At least that's my best understanding of it. But that's a great example. We, culturally, know what the superman theme means. It means Superman. We could theoretically stop using the word Superman and just hum the tune every time (the fanfare or the march) and it could just mean Superman. Of course that wouldn't be as efficient, but you get the idea.

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Now, can we program a computer to understand human psychology sufficiently to come up with such references?  The thing is that while poets and philosophers can intuit such tendencies, I doubt a computer programmer would be able to codify it.

At the core I think this is the difference in our views. It can be done. It will be done. Poets and philosophers are "intuit"-ing it because there is meaning that their brains compute at some level. But the meaning is still there. And meaning is mathematical, if nothing else than in that A = A. And that means all the computer has to learn is what value A represents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think it's requisite for something to be mathematical in nature. It might be for pure "math" itself. Music and language are symbols that represent sounds that represent ideas. Language has been made more concrete and music is more abstract by culture. But that's the primary difference.

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post.  I read it.  And I agree with a lot of it.  Other stuff, I need to ponder for a while.

But this portion right here...  If I have no other technical skills, I'm a numbers guy.  I'd say I'm more of a geometry guy.  But numbers as they describe geometry.  Virtually everything I learn about math or science is through relating it to some form of geometry.  And I analyze that geometry with numbers.

If I understand what you posted (given the context of your response) you're saying that numbers are not a prerequisite for math?  Huh?

The very basis of math is the characteristic of quantifying something. Measuring the quantity, Manipulating the quantity.  Determining the quantity.  Projecting the quantity. Representing the quantity.

And quantities are objective because of numbers.  They are what they are.  

You conceded that subjectivity is where computers fail.  Well, without numbers, the only objectivity is equalities or inequalities.  That is highly imprecise.

Even more imprecise is the meanings of words -- in any language.  

Is there a "human equation" that can be programmed into a computer that properly intuits the probable reactions of human beings to certain combinations of words written on a page?

I don't think there is a human equation.  Given enough social science, there can be some predictability in someone's behavior.  But heck, even the movie industry can't seem to figure out what movies will sell and which ones won't.

The advertising industry has it down to a science.  Yet they have campaigns that bomb like the B-2.

With this much error in human experts and you think we can properly program a computer to predict human behavior with such precision?  I think we'll just agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

you're saying that numbers are not a prerequisite for math?  Huh?

No, I think I clarified, or tried to, that I think there's a difference between what might be called pure "Math" and a mathematical process. But I admit that is a semantic issue, and, perhaps, a nonsensical one. So it's not important.

My only contention with music is that it's not just math. My contention with computers is they can deal with more complicated ideas that just numbers. I mean...at the root of it all...no. It's all 1s and 0s. But that goes to my point that everything is mathematical. Everything can be refined to 1s and 0s. So there's yer numbers. ;)

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

With this much error in human experts and you think we can properly program a computer to predict human behavior with such precision?

When did I say that?

Also, are you under the impression that all great artists were able to perfectly predict how the world would respond to their efforts?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.wired.com/story/meet-bard-googles-answer-to-chatgpt/amp

Google should be releasing it’s version of a Chatbot in a week or two.  And it already has a better nickname “bard.”

ChatGPT, Chatty, & Robochat dont really roll off the tongue.

Im sure Apple is also working on a more liberal version as well…

 

Cant wait to get them together into a chat room and let them go at it.

BC02BE37-CACF-4DBC-A4E8-11283003616E.gif.6be6140b1212e28b3c568010f7f9bac8.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2023 at 8:24 AM, Carborendum said:

 

I'm not so impressed.  The computer is still doing computer things. 

I'd like to see it write a genuinely original poem that uses powerful imagery and moves the human heart on the level of Emerson's prose (which borders on poetry itself).

Beneath the canopy of stars above
A symphony of silence and love
A world awakens with each dawn
Its beauty shining like a song

The rolling hills, the endless skies
A tapestry of colors that rise
To paint the landscape with its hues
A masterpiece for all to choose

The ocean crashes on the shore
Its rhythm like an endless roar
Of power and of grace divine
A force that moves the soul and mind

The winds of change they come and go
And in their wake, they gently blow
The seeds of life that take root
To grow and flourish, bearing fruit

So let us dance beneath the sun
And feel the heat of day begun
Embrace the world with open arms
And bask in beauty's warmest charm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mordorbund: Write a satirical paragraph ostensibly praising jazz music but really lampooning its faults

ChatGPT: Jazz music is truly the epitome of musical excellence, with its aimless wandering and cacophony of sounds creating a beautiful, chaotic symphony. The disjointed melodies and random key changes truly showcase the musicians' complete disregard for traditional musical structure, making it the epitome of artistic expression. And let's not forget the soulful, erratic solos that showcase the player's inability to stick to a single idea for more than a few seconds. Yes, jazz is truly the perfect representation of disorder and chaos masquerading as high art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share