I’m wondering if its a legitmate line of argumentation to draw the line somewhere.
If someone uses an argument and then someone else uses that same argument further down the line, can you reject the first arguments logic but accept the 2nd argument logic?
For example someone is arguing that AI isnt real music because it samples and rips off other artists music and another person pointed out that argument was the same argument logically as the one used against DJs in the 90s.
I agree with the first argument but disagree with the second because even though they use the same logic I have to draw a line in my definition of music. Does this track logically or am I failing somewhere in my thoughts?
I said human because we haven’t found another free will, conscious individual that does this, but of course they’d be included here too. Aliens could make music. AI is not “making anything”, it’s regurgitating combinations of previous stuff on-command. And idk what you’re talking about, I think therefore I am and “AI” simply isn’t. You don’t understand what thinking and free will are so you think you’re on the same level of some word calculator, lol, go ahead my guy.
Even current day LLMs are doing more than just regurgitation, even if they fall far short of human intelligence.
And at a fundamental level, there’s no reason to think that simulated neurons running on computer chips can’t be as intelligent as us, if we can figure out the right way of wiring them so to speak.
There’s no inherent law of the universe that says that only biological humans can be intelligent and can thus create music.
My man, you’re speaking sci fi, not what we currently have. Furthermore, both philosophically and materially, the notion that consciousness cannot be computed is more than gaining traction. If humans ever make something with free will and volition, something that isn’t just doing things on command but has its own wants, sure. But we might never get there, and that’s a real possibility. Intelligence isn’t in solving equations but in imagining the math problems.
The biggest of current LLM models contains ~ the same number of parameters as we have neurons. It’s not a 1:1 mapping because parameters are closer to neuronal connections, but from a pure numbers standpoint we are operating at the scale where we can start creating true simulated intelligences, even if not human scale just yet.
This doesn’t mean current LLMs are that intelligent, just that it’s not sci-fi to think we could create a simulated intelligence now.
Is it? Do you have any sources / do they have any explanation for why neurons can’t be simulated?
I mean, we’re talking about whether or not an AI could make music. If it creates a new song, with lyrics and music / a melody that never existed before, and people listen to it and sing it and dance to it and enjoy it, how would it not be music?
Regardless of what structure these things may have, there’s no consciousness, just a machine that works on prompts and rules like everything else we’ve made. It cannot escape it, only we expand its data capacity and give it new commands. And a regurgitation/collage of music is still music, sure, and you could also sing and dance to melodies written and played by a billion monkeys, idk, sure, but never forget there’s no “it”. This is not arguable. And idc if you enjoy it or not, I’m glad you do, I’m not a baseline “AI” hater, although probably the cost is too high (like, apocalyptically high) for funky audiovisual producing and essay writing machines lol.
Lol what are you basing that on? They’re simulating the neurons in your brain. If they replicate that structure and behaviour they’ll replicate your consciousness, or do you believe that brains operate on magic that doesn’t behave according to the physical laws of nature?
Are they or just simulating a model of a model? And it doesn’t have to be magical for it to be unreachable for us (read Roger Penrose), lol, and what we have today is just inert code ready to work on command, not some e-mind just living in the cloud? Come on, man, this is not debatable.
So you’re saying there’s a magical other plane that the material objects on this world are just a model of and the objects in this plane don’t actually determine behaviour, the ones on that plane do?
What evidence do you have to support that? What evidence do you have that consciousness exists on that plane and isn’t just a result of the behaviour of neurons? Why does consciousness change when you get a brain injury and damage those neurons?
Roger Penrose, the guy who wrote books desperately claiming that free will must exist and spent his time searching for any way it could before arriving at a widely discredited theory of quantum gravity being the basis for consciousness?
So? If we could put human brains in suspended animation, and just boot them up on command to execute tasks for us, does that mean that they’re not intelligent?
It obviously and evidently is debatable since we are debating it, and saying “it’s not debatable” isn’t an argument, it’s a thought terminating phrase.
Free will exists and you feel it every time you’re dieting, lol, or restricting yourself in any way for higher reasons. It escapes the realm of words because it’s fundamental to our existence, you can’t argue against it in good faith, it can simply be denied the same way you could deny the rising of the sun… And, again, I think you’re confused. Okay, could a calculator with all its parts be considered intelligent/more intelligent than us simply because it can make calculations faster and with more accuracy? A computer? It’s the same principle. We simply haven’t made anything that 1) understands the world around it in any way 2) has volition. We have made a code eating, code spitting machine that works when we want it to, that’s all. It’s pretty impressive, it’s not intelligent, it’s not free willed and it has no consciousness. It’s “intelligent” the way a calculator could be, or a set of pulleys could be considered “strong”.