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?
You must log in or register to comment.
In this situation it’s safe to say that the DJ of the 90s vs AI today is an “Apples and oranges” comparison.
Where you’re taking an endeavour of human effort to take bits of music that already exist and making something brand new out of it, much the same way you could reuse wood claimed from an old 1920s boat to make a new one. Comparing that to “The computer program that makes something that sounds like it could be music because it’s copying real songs.”
I know it’s just an analogy to give an example but ive heard the argument so many times now it’s become habit to talk it through lol.
In terms of holding two similar beliefs that are tangentially related, it’s entirely possible to say where you draw the line, especially if the argument is a fallacy, for example like the slippery slope, where a person arguing believes that any minor concession will have an exaggerated impact.
Maybe this is age, but I really couldn’t care about most people’s opinions on subjective topics. Theyre subjective.
Oh, you hate the Top 1000 musicians? Yeah, understandable have a nice day.
Oh, you think AI music is incredible? Yeah, understandable have a nice day.
The only time I waste my energy on arguments is when it involves requiring me to actually do something with the music.
Its not about other peoples opinions. Its about me looking at the way that I come to form my own opinions and wondering am i actually forming my opinion based on real logic.
Based on the explanations in this thread Im going to say that no I wasnt. Even though it seems to be fine to draw a line I had no reasoning for why I was actually drawing the line.
Its not rejecting the logic, its just setting a boundary on it. I can slap my wife playfully for fun, but I cant swing full force. Its the same action, just different limits.
I’m not big on debate and structures and shit, so I’m gonna get blown apart logically here, but if we say “you cant just say we have to draw the line” then you can ‘but it logically follows’ your way to all manner of unacceptable evil.
Yeah I’ve developed a distrust of those who overly rely on logical structures and debate style format. I’ve too often found people doing it to miss the point of what they’re trying to do. Logical analysis is a framework, but it’s one that leans towards myopia and is often prone to obscuring one’s actual thoughts and feelings behind a veneer of facts and logic.
Personally I emotionally can’t find a reason to call something art if it doesn’t come from an expression of a thinking feeling being. By acknowledging my emotions there and accepting that in something subjective they’re probably the main mental process deciding what I think I’m more in touch with what I think and feel than if I’d attempted to use a bunch of philosophy to understand my thinking.
If you have nothing to back up your opinion beyond choosing arbitrary criteria to define it, then no.
Your opinion about music could be further defined by finding a distinction between the two. An obvious distinction is the actual work done by people in creating it. It could be argued that DJs create a transformative work through their own human effort and creativity. A generative AI is not capable of creativity and is not a human.
Furthermore, “not real music” is gatekeeping, thus not a logical distinction. Gatekeeping is a social control tactic which appeals to tribalism instincts with the intent to cause people to react from their fear of exclusion rather from rational thought. By claiming that AI music is not real music, you are indirectly targeting the agents who favor it rather than targeting the product itself. A better-formed opinion and thus a better argument would stay away from social disqualifiers and focus more on the specifics of what you disapprove of and why.
There is the argument that the person prompting the AI is the artist, using a tool to get their inspiration out of their head and into the physical world.
AI doesn’t generate anything without human input, and you often have to refine the prompt to get it to produce what you want. It’s just a tool, and we’ve seen similar demonizations of tools using new technology before.
Some people still don’t think digital artists are actually artists because they use digital tools instead of physical ones.
But it isn’t the same argument.
When DJs sample, they choose the samples, choose the pitch and playback speed, and choose where and when to put the sample in their songs.
There is no human intentionality in AI-created music. No one decided what the song should sound like, it’s a mash of what an algorithm calculates is the most predictable next sound based on its prompt, and it calculates what’s next by illegally using the intellectual properties of real humans.
Whoever used this argument with you isn’t arguing in good faith.
Edit - I didn’t even answer the overarching question. You’ll find, in almost all cases, that it isn’t the same argument because one or more things that factor into the decision will have changed. Very rarely is a situation entirely static, and if some variables have changed, then the entire argument must be reconsidered.
There is no human intentionality in AI-created music.
The entirety of your argument boils down to you arbitrarily deciding that music needs to derive from human intentionality.
That’s not an actual argument about whether or not AI is capable of creating music, that’s you redefining music to make sure the answer is no.
That’s not a redefinition, lol, music is a human construct. Nature has lovely noises and birds chirp, and by itself, even if it constitutes notes and waves, it isn’t music. Honestly, the whole convo is semantically confused because there’s no ghost in the machine when it comes to “AI”, they’re algorithms and datasets, and if the data is actual music then whatever “AI” comes out with could be considered an on-demand musical collage/regurgitation? There WAS human intentionality behind it, in the data sets, after all.
That’s not a redefinition, lol, music is a human construct. Nature has lovely noises and birds chirp, and by itself, even if it constitutes notes and waves, it isn’t music.
A gorilla or ape can’t sing or make music? Could a neanderthal? Homo florientis? Homo erectus? What is it specifically about homo sapiens that give us the unique ability to make music and sing, that no other animal has?
Again, if you predefine music as being made by humans then you’re not engaging in a discussion or logical debate, you’re just arbitrarily setting goal posts to guarantee that you’re right.
People need to get over the idea that algorithms can’t be intelligent because they’re algorithms. Algorithms can model the behaviour of the neurons in your brain, meaning that they can model your brain and intelligence. We are obviously not there yet with LLMs, but just saying ‘numbers and math = not intelligent’ is quite frankly dumb and just shows that you don’t understand math, physics, biology, neuroscience, etc.
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.
AI is not “making anything”, it’s regurgitating combinations of previous stuff on-command.
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.
My man, you’re speaking sci fi, not what we currently have.
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.
Furthermore, both philosophically and materially, the notion that consciousness cannot be computed is more than gaining traction.
Is it? Do you have any sources / do they have any explanation for why neurons can’t be simulated?
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.
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?
Most people honestly don’t use clear lines in their logic. Even for many laws and ethics, we don’t. I personally think this is okay because using the “drawing a line” thinking is restrictive, meaning it doesn’t allow you to grow so well, intellectually-speaking.
A common way people fail to keep to their lines in the sand is when they justify their side, politically speaking, to do something that they’ve demanded the enemy cannot do. This is bad and unfair. But then again, I’m sure a lot of you will be guilty of this way of thinking throughout your life - we’re only human.
Music itself has a quite broad definition that in turn relies on other subjective terms. So yeah, totally fine to draw an arbitrary line somewhere, in fact, you kind of have to.
After that it’s just a matter of how many people agree with where you drew the line.
“Drawing the line” is a Thought Terminating Phrase, which is a concept worth reading and thinking about.
In the abstract / in your example, if you’re just “drawing the line” then no, that’s not a legitimate argument. It is literally just you saying “nope, I arbitrarily say this is different then this”.
However, if you can back up why one thing is different from the other, then it is valid to distinguish between them. Sometimes it can be worth dividing a system into chunks and drawing arbitrary lines rather not drawing any, but you should still be able to logically back up why it’s better to chunk things than not.
But in your example, it sounds like you don’t actually have a logical argument, just one based on you arbitrarily deciding that music can only be made by a human.
The short answer is, yes, you can accept an arguments logic and reject it as a rebuttal for said argument. In doing so, however, it’s good practice to critically think about how the logic is applied for both the argument and the counterargument.
With this particular example, I see the parallels being drawn as faulty. The way AI constructs music is not the same method used by DJ’s, and both arguments are oversimplified and show a lack of understanding how either works.
“DJ’s sample and rip off other artists.”
DJing was an established practice for decades as a means of broadcasting music, and artists were (and still are) compensated for those broadcasts through royalties collected by PRO’s. There are laws in place that protect the artist and spell out instances of “fair use” in sampling. DJ’s in the 70’s and 80’s began to elevate the practice to a performance art, which led to the evolution of several new musical genres, but they all still function within that legal framework. So maybe people did in fact say this to disparage what DJ’s do, but it’s incorrect.
“AI music samples and rips off other artists.”
It would be a stretch to say that the way in which data is fed to an AI/LLM qualifies as “sampling” in its commonly understood sense. However, given that the music being used to train AI’s is used without the consent of the artist, without compensation, with the aim of copying or mimicking the style or brand of an artist, sometimes even down to a single musician’s timbre and/or mannerisms, there are serious legal issues that must be addressed. So while I can take issue with some of the semantics of the statement, I can agree with its spirit.
So I’d say this: maybe instead of thinking of it a “drawing a line,” think of it as ensuring that both arguments are being supported by statements grounded in reality.
Other explanations are great, but I see yet another difference that makes it not the same argument used twice.
AI does rip off artists because it isn’t inspired by music to make something similar, it is literally regurgitating a combination of data with some randomness so that is sounds like of like a thing. But the current implementation is a rip off primarily because it is an end run around copyright by acting like it ‘learned’ how to make music when it is just parroting it back.
A DJ creates new songs out of recorded snippets of sound. They treat a sample like playing a note on an instrument, and mix them together as music. It isn’t just a randomly mashed together mess like AI music, it is put together intentionally in the same way as playing a piano or a guitar. There is a lot of inspiration going on, but each DJ has their own style just like rock musicians have their own styles. The most important difference from AI is that at this point in time they do compensate the artists they sample (it didn’t start that way, but was quickly changed).
So the fact that AI is ripping off artists and DJs who sample don’t makes it not the same argument.
@[email protected], are you an expert in this kind of line too?
No way, Guadalupe. This ain’t geometric and I’m not Chidi Anagonye,
I have the right to wipe my ass with a pinecone.
You have the right to tell me that’s not the right thing to do.
So, which of us is right? 🤔
💩
If you want to hurt yourself, you’re definitely taking the proper actions to do so, acting logically consistent. Morally, is it right for you to wipe your ass with a pinecone? Not really, and that’s extrapolating from God’s words, not mine, but I’m not gonna stop you because I have enough on my plate and bigger issues deserve more consideration, like the genocides in Sudan and Gaza. 🤷
Not really, and that’s extrapolating from God’s words
1: No it isn’t. And even if it was, why should anyone care? The bible says that mixing linen and wool fibers or eating shellfish is a sin. A lot of the rules in the bible are made up bullshit.
2: Don’t bring religion into this
The Bible has a lot of nonsense but if “thou shalt not kill”, then “thou shalt not hurt unnecessarily” is definitely there too, which includes the pinecone. And how can I talk about objective morality without God? How can anyone? Without that objective “POV” all you have are perspectives, and the is-ought problem remains a thing.
And how can I talk about objective morality without God?
Here it is! Here it fucking is! The single most overused thought-terminating fallacy that Jesus nuts like to pull out!
The answer to your question is that we don’t need a deity to declare what objective right and wrong are. We can use game theory. If you want to watch an admittedly better explanation of it, Veritasium made a video on it last year, but I’ll recap it below.
Decades ago, researchers set up an experiment where they paired various algorithms against each other, with each algorithm having different rules for approaching the prisoner dillema. And each pairing went on for hundreds of turns. Then the researchers tallied up all the scores. Thry noticed that almost all of the “nice” algorithms scored higher then almost all of the “mean” algorithms. And they redid the experiment multiple times with tweaks to the experiment, like randomizing the length of interactions between algorithms.
The overall rules that caused this highest scores were:
- Start off picking the option to cooperate
- After the first exchange, respond in the same way they were treated in the first round
- A decision to not cooperate only affects the next decision, it doesn’t continuously affect every decision after that
- On rare occasions (<10%), cooperate on the next turn even if the other algorithm chose to not cooperate.
Essentially it boils dowm to being polite, treating others how you wish to be treated, and being forgiving past transgressions. Strangely similar to what religions tend to teach, right?
It turns out, these are actually emergent properties that appear in any system where you have series of interactions between individuals. It’s not divine provenance, it’s natural selection.
