I very rarely care for what most 62 year olds have to say about the capabilities about the theoretical limits of computation.

This isn't much different.

I mean — he’s defending human creativity and he’s kind of right. AI can recreate variations of the things it is trained on, but it doesn’t create new paradigms.

If he got super wild and crazy by wearing a tan suit again to work would you?

It's like porn, they all used to have music, and now people still make jokes about how bad it was but it's just gone now

It's not as common as it used to be, but I think the point was kind of that you're not supposed to notice it?

Look into "muzak" (the style of music. Apparently it's also a brand according to Google), and some of Brian Eno's ambient albums like "Music for Airports" (which is definitely a bit more sparse than elevator music, which was often like smooth jazz versions of classic songs), but along similar lines.

I don't like to think I'm that old, and I 100% remember elevator music.

Edit: was possibly thinking of "musique concrete" rather than muzak.

Yeah they always go with awkward silence

Probably as much as I care about most other people's thoughts on AI. As someone that works in AI, 99% of the people making noise about it know fuck all about it, and are probably just as qualified as Barack Obama to have an opinion on it.

I think the statement was more about the impact, which will depend on each person's subjective experience

Personally I agree. Even if AI could produce identical work, the impact would be lessened. Art is more meaningful when you know it took time and was an expression/interpretation by another human (rather than a pattern prediction algorithm Frankenstein-ing existing work together). Combine that with the volume of AI content that's produced, and the impact of any particular song/art piece is even more limited.

I don’t know. I think Obama kind of nailed it. AI can create boring and mediocre elaborations just fine. But for the truly special and original? It could never.

For the new and special, humans will always be required. End of line.

I think, it will eventually become obsolete, because we keep changing what 'AI' means, but current AI largely just regurgitates patterns, it doesn't yet have a way of 'listening' to a song and actually judging whether it's good or bad.

So, it may expertly regurgitate the pattern that makes up a good song, but humans spend a lot of time listening to perfect every little aspect before something becomes an excellent song, and I feel like that will be lost on the pattern regurgitating machine, if it's forced to deviate from what a human composed.

Because we often look up to public figures for stuff they are not qualified to comment on.

Because AI is unpredictable. Which is not a big issue for art, because you can immediately see any flaws and if you can't, it doesn't matter.

But for actually useful work, you don't want to find out that the AI programmer completely made up a few lines of code that are only causing problems when the airplane is flying with a 32° bank angle on a saturday with a prime number for a date.

It's virtually guaranteed that at some point, robots and/or AI will be capable of doing almost every human job. And then there will be a time when they can do every job better than any human.

I wonder how people will react. Will they become lazy? Depressed? Just have sex all the time? Just have sex with robots all the time?

I feel very reassured to hear that from the AI expert / musical virtuoso himself, 62 year old, former United States President Barack Obama.

To make "real" music, AI will probably need a lot of help. Image generators and chat bots seem to have their own, very boring style. I've seen videos of artists using AI tools in their workflow, but it's still a very involved process. I think it will just be another tool for musicians and sound engineers.

24h/7d elevator music that never repeats itself. I think you've described Hell.

Cheaper to generate 30s and loop it