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?
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?