What do you mean by "improve the sound and expressiveness" and make "more pleasant for your ears"?

You processed some recordings you found of these pieces, I guess? What were the original inputs?

Just listening to the first one, Op. 9 No. 2, it sounds "ok", like it's been processed through a compressor with some Reverb, maybe? I think it's lacking dynamics and expressiveness compared to other performances out there.

Yundi Li, for example

> No, it's not. We don't have any AI system even slightly being comparable to the intelligence of an insect.

Current versions speak like a human. Yes they are stupid in other areas.

Future versions will be behaviorally indistinguishable in all superficial ways, and won't need any sort of "divine spark" OP suggests. In any case, the qualia becomes crucial for personhood. Absent evidence of qualia, we'll need a worse method for determining personhood.

> We can't prove humans have qualia.

But your qualia is self-evident to you, so you can prove your qualia to yourself at least. And you can infer it for other humans based on physical similarity.

For machines we have very little to go on.

> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unsimulable just sharing

Thank you.

Yep. They don’t call it the Hard Problem for nothing.

>Yes the machine is acting like a human

No, it's not. We don't have any AI system even slightly being comparable to the intelligence of an insect.

>But does it have qualia?

We can't prove humans have qualia.

>unsimulatable

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unsimulable just sharing

Okay. I suppose, it all depends on what kind of conversation we want to have.

Tesla I'm back and forth on. It's impressive and I wish them well but ultimately I think the major car manufacturers are doing a better job than he is and that Tesla is overvalued.

Neuralink and any company that wants to implant devices in people is an immediate no from me. It's a horrifying privacy nightmare.

OpenAI is really cool. I actually use it on this account to generate advice in /r/needadvice. Check my post history haha. Overall I like them as a company but I'm very disappointed they went closed-source in spite of open literally being in the name. With that being said though, their newer models are impossible to run on consumer grade hardware anyway so I'd be paying somebody API usage fees and so I don't mind that it's them.

Recently google came out and said they were no longer going to be sharing academic progress publicallu I thought?

Definitely futurology.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

>From a physical point of view, it makes no sense to think it's unsimulable,

I never said this. What point do you think you are making?

I never said a brain is unsimulatable. I never said _____ is unsimulatable. I think everything in principle is simulatable. Let me say that again to make it extra crystal clear: everything can be simulated.

But that's not what this conversation is about. It was never my intention to debate whether brains can be simulated. They clearly can. It is about qualia. This relates to the topic of the whole post: should we ascribe personhood to a machine if it simulates humans? I think the answer is "Yes, if it has qualia, but No if it doesn't".

The question is: "Are we making qualia with our artificial neural networks?" The answer to that question is unknown. Yes we are clearly simulating intelligence. Yes the machine is acting like a human. But does it have qualia? The answer is we don't know.

Well I would just ask you to look around. Do you feel like people aren't acting crazy by media influence already? Whether you're up or down on the political spectrum you must have felt like there is some kind of radical group out there who is buying into a bunch of lies..

And ya. People in charge right now probably spend most of their resources and thinking on how to prevent people with lots of resources from threatening them. It's why we don't make as much progress as we should. It's like being handed infinite power but all of it must be used simply to maintain control of it. Not even a second to waste on trying to do something good with it. You're talking about handing equal opportunity for all people and all cultures with no guarantee they won't take over the power in the long run. Oppression is by design right now. They manufacture starvation to force people to work hard and keep the power they have. I know you and I would both strive to make a world like that. We sound like pretty progressive thinkers. Of course we want equality, healthcare, no poverty, housing for all, etc. We just need to find a way to unite globally and work together. The numbers should still be in our favor ✌️

Eh I think the hostility is appropriate

We don't have any hint to think a good enough simulation can't simulate real world processes. We already have simulated systems and they're used everyday on multiple fields of science.

From a physical point of view, it makes no sense to think it's unsimulable, considering intelligence comes from a macromolecular level: life comes from molecules=>cells=>organisms, it's very unlikely that we need to simulate quarks to make intelligence work. If we can simulate molecules, proteins, etc... it's a matter of organizing them in the same way as a human and boom, you have simulated humans.

The point is that a simulation isn't the real thing. It functionally has some of the same observables qualities as the real thing, but the rest of the observable qualities are NOT the same, and are not guaranteed to be the same.

Take a fluid dynamics problem for example. A real fluid is not only observable by light from one angle, but is outputting information from all angles, and can be combined with chemicals to facilitate chemical reactions.

A simulated fluid has the same light when viewed from a specific angle, but try to run the same chemical reactions by combining the same chemicals with the silicon wafer subtrate and you will not get the same result. Some observables (the light) are rhe same, but the physical properties don't line up.

Whether this applies to qualia is unknown. To say brains and ANNs are the same qualia-wise is unscientific.

Everything is on/off. With computation we can simulate molecules, atoms, proteins, circuits, organs. I don't get your point.

Computation allows the simulation of all physics properties, even quantum physics via quantum computation.

What good is the current AI? For private knowledge of curious citizens and education. Well the government owns education, basically, and the media will control the informing of citizens. I see this as an opportunity to bottleneck all of our new knowledge generation moreso than already exists with the university specialization system. We will all be informed by a centralized monopoly of knowledge owners. This will lead to a monopoly on our past, present and future. There may be less wars except between west and east…the final conflict. If we can all live globally in peace, then our survival will depend on this centralized knowledge center.

"is just an idiot" Ad Hominem.

GPT models are just token predictors. Everything you said about abstracting patterns of relationships or proto-general reasoning can fit within the context of a model that only predicts the next token.

Most large text models right now are autoregressive, even though they are difficult to explain, the way they are inferenced is still token sequencing...

It's certainly possible but I just don't see the point. Mind control tech is purely in the realm of sci-fi right now. AGI will occur before mind control.

A world in which rulers mind control their subjects to make them okay with inhumane living conditions is just arbitrarily cruel. The same technology (AGI) that develops mind control technology can just as easily be used to improve peoples' standards of living. Resources are basically endless when all labor is automated. The owners of the AGI would have to be out and out psychopaths to pursue a cruel goal like that. Not just negligent, or apathetic, but intentionally cruel.

There's an equilibrium point coming. Automation will replace so much human function. A massive job shortage could occur that leads to what? Socialized programs to keep people sustained? On who's dime? Just enough mind control to make people passive towards a new standard of living that is inhumane. Think about what it would be like if the powerful were given a choice basically to create an entire world and future with only their own favorite people and cultures. World war has been a stalemate since nukes were mass produced. Mind control may be the only way forward without destroying the entire planet.

I think decentralization is a utopian fantasy. Look at any history book, the powerful have always been the minority and call all the shots. It’s baked into reality.

Google is facing a brain drain https://analyticsindiamag.com/time-for-a-wartime-ceo-should-sundar-pichai-step-down/

Maybe due to that

Nukes are the only thing I can think to compare it to, even though I know it doesn't make sense.
Nuclear capability for every man, woman and child.

The threat of Mutually Assured Destruction will not hold up on a grand scale.