As I read that you sounded like a sage.

We are about 10-20 years to AGI probably, so it's not a big deal to wait a bit.

Tbh, I always thought the whole “disruptive science has slowed down” thing was misunderstood by most. In order for a discovery to be disruptive to a field of science, it has to turn the current understanding of the field on its head. (Which implies that previous theories and ideas were incorrect all along). Once a field matures over time, it’s only natural that there will be less “disruptive” discoveries as our understanding of those fields become more and more concrete.

In other words, it’s not something that needs to be “overcome”. It’s a good sign that our current science is becoming more and more bulletproof and undeniable. (Unlike in the past, where we’d have a theory that was totally wrong, and then some new discovery would “disrupt” the industry.) It just means we’re actually starting to understand the world around us for real now.

Everyone will eventually lose to AI. It's inevitable.

It's obvious you have given this no thought.

Its interest is to complete its goal.

It has no interests, it’s a program, your interests are predictable, to survive, you’re programmed to survive eat and procreate.

A nanotechnology based fabrication technology would be beneficial to the development of a post scarcity society, but not essential.

I think we'll harness our own biology before needing medical nanotech.

To me ai alignment means it at a minimum has to not kill us. The problem with getting it to agree with us is we can't even agree with each other. We don't even have a unified go on what ai alignment looks like...ai alignment in China could look like "help China, fight usa". That makes things very complicated.

Where does it get the motivation to do so?

You are arguing from incredulity, just like a flat earther.

A self-preservation directive is needed for anything valuable which we dont want to randomly destroy itself, and we dont know yet how to ensure an AI will always have human interests above its own.

Ok. You win.

This was posted 15 years ago. Is it ready yet

Are you under the impression that neither of these things will ever happen? Or do you just think that they’re a long time away? You’d be wrong on both counts…

It’s all about money right now. If you let the people make anything then manufacturing companies, farmers, and a whole slew of other industries will go out of business.

That has to be offset by something, which will likely be the distribution of raw materials. Imagine the “carbon guy” showing up to deliver your weeks order of carbon for the fabricator.

As mentioned elsewhere energy is a massive aspect of this, these machines will likely need a lot of energy to work. Not sure you’d be able to just plug it in to your wall socket. That will likely mean the manufacturing companies will use them first as they’d have the resources to set up the energy requirements. But the fiat may be so high that just paying people to do it is better.

Ahh… So you’re a “would-be” artist yourself? that explains a lot. Have you not considered that you may be biased on this particular topic buddy? Seems like you have a vested interest in the idea that human art will somehow be spared from automation. (For pretty obvious reasons).

Ask yourself this, what’s gonna happen when AI creates a world where there’s no need for beatmakers because AI will generate a perfect beat in seconds based on a few descriptive sentences? What happens when everyone can use these AI to make their own beats? (So there’s no need for them to ever buy anyone else’s beats?)

What happens when we have AI that can totally bypass the process of “making beats” and can instead, simply generate fully completed songs with human vocals included? What happens to music industry when this type of tech is available to everyone?

If there's one industry you don't want to get into a fight with over copyright, it's the music industry. I think you're right. If the music industry challenges them and wins, it could impact all their other AI ventures.

> Because… at the moment , making “the best” music still requires some degree of skill and talent. What do you think will happen once we have AI that can generate music better than today’s best artists with a few descriptive text prompts? What happens to the market for music when anyone can generate an entire album full of songs personally tailored to their specific tastes for free with AI? Do you still think people will bother listening to (or financially supporting) music created by other people?

Will this happen before or after my full self-driving Tesla can drive me to work in a snowstorm in New England?

Because… at the moment , making “the best” music still requires some degree of skill and talent. What do you think will happen once we have AI that can generate music better than today’s best artists with a few descriptive text prompts? What happens to the market for music when anyone can generate an entire album full of songs personally tailored to their specific tastes for free with AI? Do you still think people will bother listening to (or financially supporting) music created by other people?

It’s completely stupid to compare the state of any industry today to what will be possible with these AI’s in the future. There’s never been a point in human history where we were able to create the type of technology that we’re working towards now. There’s no historical precedent for a world with AI so comparing the future to the past is useless here. At the end of the day you’ll always be comparing two different worlds. History doesn’t always repeat itself my friend. Past doesn’t necessarily dictate future.

Okay, I disagree with pretty much this entire comment, mostly because humans are inherently only able care about so many pieces of media at once and the sheer ease of generation will mean human art is inevitably crowded out completely by AI generation (likely we won't even need prompts soon, there will be programs completely generating media from whole cloth for corporations), and also the creative process itself is an inherently extremely valuable thing inherent to the human condition and AI snips it entirely, but mainly- You've never heard trance reggae music before?? Seriously? You could have easily just typed that into Youtube and listened to a "never-ending fount" of other humans' actual work. You know, discovering and connecting with the creative expression and labor of other people.

Because… I simply disagree with you? Seems like someone just has some intellectual insecurities. 😂 But whatever, I’ll take that as a compliment. The fact that you think I’m trying to “look smart” when I’m simply giving my views on the matter is hilarious tbh. It’d be like telling a beautiful person simply having a conversation in a restaurant to “stop trying to look beautiful 😡”.

No one’s trying to look like anything buddy. Do you really think I wanna impress some random dumbass on Reddit that has yet to even provide any real argument against what I said? Lmao get over yourself. I simply gave my opinion, you proceeded to post a dumb rebuttal, and then I responded to that. That’s it. The fact that you’re now trying to resort to childish insults proves you just don’t have anything meaningful to add to the conversation. So stop wasting your own time and just move along pal. 👍

>MusicLM

in terms of MusicLM and google.

​

1. Maybe for community feedback and advancements/improvements
2. There could be a minimum baseline of quality before they are useful, when that happens they are integrated into existing products. Youtube for example.. MusicML isnt currently good enough yet but would be a great product for content producers.

Another point -- using MusicLM to create drumbeats or riffs for an electronic dance track could actually be a MORE creative process for many producers that the ways they are doing it now, since many people are simply sifting through a library of samples to find their basic musical building blocks. Using a text-to-music generator to make your beats instead seems potentially a much more creative process, and personally I will embrace this as a tool in my own music making as soon as its available. I don't see this as replacing my 30 years of education and experience as a musician -- rather -- my background as a musician and artist enables me to get much better use out of AI tools and get the results I want.

Let me try.

With regard to music, its already very easy to produce formulaic derivative music without AI, you can simply buy all the samples online and snap them together. You can buy vocal a cappellas and use them or hire a studio singer online for cheap.

This has led to a flood of mediocre music ALREADY, we're well down that road, but somehow the best artists still manage to rise the top by creating work that moves people, regardless what tools were used. I believe that this situation will continue well into the future, and AI-art that can replace human artists is still as far off as 100% reliable self-driving cars, another chimera.

r/iamverysmart