Tune it or die.
-
What's really interesting is that it is the small imperfections that make music transcend to another level...
wrote on 20 Jun 2021, 20:23 last edited by@jolly said in Tune it or die.:
What's really interesting is that it is the small imperfections that make music transcend to another level...
"Small imperfections" can be artificially inserted by technology.
-
The HDR of music.
Basically it's bad whenever you let technology do art's job.
wrote on 20 Jun 2021, 20:43 last edited by@aqua-letifer said in Tune it or die.:
The HDR of music.
Basically it's bad whenever you let technology do art's job.
Technology is just codified art.
E.g.,
"Ken Burns" = artist
'Ken Burns effect" in Apple's iMovie software = digital visual effects emulating whatever Ken Burns does with panning and zooming and slightly rotating a still picture in a moving slide showAs a species, we can improve technology faster than we can improve art education or the innate artistic talent in our gene pool. Over time, expect technology's artistic output to surpass that of more and more humans. Unlike physical ability like 'moving fast' (we stopped racing against automobiles) or analytical activities like 'playing chess' (we stopped playing chess against supercomputers), today we still have the luxury to believe that maybe, just maybe, technology will never eclipse all humans in whatever we call "art," but the number of humans who can surpass technology in these "arts" will keep getting smaller.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Tune it or die.:
The HDR of music.
Basically it's bad whenever you let technology do art's job.
Technology is just codified art.
E.g.,
"Ken Burns" = artist
'Ken Burns effect" in Apple's iMovie software = digital visual effects emulating whatever Ken Burns does with panning and zooming and slightly rotating a still picture in a moving slide showAs a species, we can improve technology faster than we can improve art education or the innate artistic talent in our gene pool. Over time, expect technology's artistic output to surpass that of more and more humans. Unlike physical ability like 'moving fast' (we stopped racing against automobiles) or analytical activities like 'playing chess' (we stopped playing chess against supercomputers), today we still have the luxury to believe that maybe, just maybe, technology will never eclipse all humans in whatever we call "art," but the number of humans who can surpass technology in these "arts" will keep getting smaller.
wrote on 20 Jun 2021, 21:34 last edited by@axtremus said in Tune it or die.:
Technology is just codified art.
I'm not going to listen about what art is from someone who actively chooses to watch "16 Love."
I can't think of anyone less qualified to understand the point of the above video. -
@aqua-letifer said in Tune it or die.:
The HDR of music.
Basically it's bad whenever you let technology do art's job.
Technology is just codified art.
E.g.,
"Ken Burns" = artist
'Ken Burns effect" in Apple's iMovie software = digital visual effects emulating whatever Ken Burns does with panning and zooming and slightly rotating a still picture in a moving slide showAs a species, we can improve technology faster than we can improve art education or the innate artistic talent in our gene pool. Over time, expect technology's artistic output to surpass that of more and more humans. Unlike physical ability like 'moving fast' (we stopped racing against automobiles) or analytical activities like 'playing chess' (we stopped playing chess against supercomputers), today we still have the luxury to believe that maybe, just maybe, technology will never eclipse all humans in whatever we call "art," but the number of humans who can surpass technology in these "arts" will keep getting smaller.
wrote on 21 Jun 2021, 03:02 last edited by@axtremus said in Tune it or die.:
@aqua-letifer said in Tune it or die.:
The HDR of music.
Basically it's bad whenever you let technology do art's job.
Technology is just codified art.
E.g.,
"Ken Burns" = artist
'Ken Burns effect" in Apple's iMovie software = digital visual effects emulating whatever Ken Burns does with panning and zooming and slightly rotating a still picture in a moving slide showAs a species, we can improve technology faster than we can improve art education or the innate artistic talent in our gene pool. Over time, expect technology's artistic output to surpass that of more and more humans. Unlike physical ability like 'moving fast' (we stopped racing against automobiles) or analytical activities like 'playing chess' (we stopped playing chess against supercomputers), today we still have the luxury to believe that maybe, just maybe, technology will never eclipse all humans in whatever we call "art," but the number of humans who can surpass technology in these "arts" will keep getting smaller.
Chess and racing are perfectly defined finite games while art is defined in such a way that it would be impossible to say a machine was definitively better at it than humans.
-
@axtremus said in Tune it or die.:
@aqua-letifer said in Tune it or die.:
The HDR of music.
Basically it's bad whenever you let technology do art's job.
Technology is just codified art.
E.g.,
"Ken Burns" = artist
'Ken Burns effect" in Apple's iMovie software = digital visual effects emulating whatever Ken Burns does with panning and zooming and slightly rotating a still picture in a moving slide showAs a species, we can improve technology faster than we can improve art education or the innate artistic talent in our gene pool. Over time, expect technology's artistic output to surpass that of more and more humans. Unlike physical ability like 'moving fast' (we stopped racing against automobiles) or analytical activities like 'playing chess' (we stopped playing chess against supercomputers), today we still have the luxury to believe that maybe, just maybe, technology will never eclipse all humans in whatever we call "art," but the number of humans who can surpass technology in these "arts" will keep getting smaller.
Chess and racing are perfectly defined finite games while art is defined in such a way that it would be impossible to say a machine was definitively better at it than humans.
wrote on 21 Jun 2021, 03:17 last edited by@horace said in Tune it or die.:
@axtremus said in Tune it or die.:
@aqua-letifer said in Tune it or die.:
The HDR of music.
Basically it's bad whenever you let technology do art's job.
Technology is just codified art.
E.g.,
"Ken Burns" = artist
'Ken Burns effect" in Apple's iMovie software = digital visual effects emulating whatever Ken Burns does with panning and zooming and slightly rotating a still picture in a moving slide showAs a species, we can improve technology faster than we can improve art education or the innate artistic talent in our gene pool. Over time, expect technology's artistic output to surpass that of more and more humans. Unlike physical ability like 'moving fast' (we stopped racing against automobiles) or analytical activities like 'playing chess' (we stopped playing chess against supercomputers), today we still have the luxury to believe that maybe, just maybe, technology will never eclipse all humans in whatever we call "art," but the number of humans who can surpass technology in these "arts" will keep getting smaller.
Chess and racing are perfectly defined finite games while art is defined in such a way that it would be impossible to say a machine was definitively better at it than humans.
Machines don't really play chess, they simulate it. There's no game for them, there's just a position to evaluate.
Top chess players use computers in much the same way that some artists use computers. A computer can model something more accurately than any human, but it's not really art. A chess engine can find moves and plans that are more effective than a human could find, but it's not really chess.
A racing car without a driver is a waste of everybody's time.
-
@horace said in Tune it or die.:
@axtremus said in Tune it or die.:
@aqua-letifer said in Tune it or die.:
The HDR of music.
Basically it's bad whenever you let technology do art's job.
Technology is just codified art.
E.g.,
"Ken Burns" = artist
'Ken Burns effect" in Apple's iMovie software = digital visual effects emulating whatever Ken Burns does with panning and zooming and slightly rotating a still picture in a moving slide showAs a species, we can improve technology faster than we can improve art education or the innate artistic talent in our gene pool. Over time, expect technology's artistic output to surpass that of more and more humans. Unlike physical ability like 'moving fast' (we stopped racing against automobiles) or analytical activities like 'playing chess' (we stopped playing chess against supercomputers), today we still have the luxury to believe that maybe, just maybe, technology will never eclipse all humans in whatever we call "art," but the number of humans who can surpass technology in these "arts" will keep getting smaller.
Chess and racing are perfectly defined finite games while art is defined in such a way that it would be impossible to say a machine was definitively better at it than humans.
Machines don't really play chess, they simulate it. There's no game for them, there's just a position to evaluate.
Top chess players use computers in much the same way that some artists use computers. A computer can model something more accurately than any human, but it's not really art. A chess engine can find moves and plans that are more effective than a human could find, but it's not really chess.
A racing car without a driver is a waste of everybody's time.
wrote on 21 Jun 2021, 03:20 last edited by@doctor-phibes said in Tune it or die.:
A racing car without a driver is a waste of everybody's time.
As is a racing car with a driver.
-
wrote on 21 Jun 2021, 03:25 last edited by
Sick burn rubber.
-
@horace said in Tune it or die.:
@axtremus said in Tune it or die.:
@aqua-letifer said in Tune it or die.:
The HDR of music.
Basically it's bad whenever you let technology do art's job.
Technology is just codified art.
E.g.,
"Ken Burns" = artist
'Ken Burns effect" in Apple's iMovie software = digital visual effects emulating whatever Ken Burns does with panning and zooming and slightly rotating a still picture in a moving slide showAs a species, we can improve technology faster than we can improve art education or the innate artistic talent in our gene pool. Over time, expect technology's artistic output to surpass that of more and more humans. Unlike physical ability like 'moving fast' (we stopped racing against automobiles) or analytical activities like 'playing chess' (we stopped playing chess against supercomputers), today we still have the luxury to believe that maybe, just maybe, technology will never eclipse all humans in whatever we call "art," but the number of humans who can surpass technology in these "arts" will keep getting smaller.
Chess and racing are perfectly defined finite games while art is defined in such a way that it would be impossible to say a machine was definitively better at it than humans.
Machines don't really play chess, they simulate it. There's no game for them, there's just a position to evaluate.
Top chess players use computers in much the same way that some artists use computers. A computer can model something more accurately than any human, but it's not really art. A chess engine can find moves and plans that are more effective than a human could find, but it's not really chess.
A racing car without a driver is a waste of everybody's time.
wrote on 21 Jun 2021, 11:16 last edited by Klaus@doctor-phibes said in Tune it or die.:
Machines don't really play chess, they simulate it. There's no game for them, there's just a position to evaluate.
I'm not sure that that is really a distinction that makes sense.
Humans also evaluate positions and simulate in their head various scenarios of how the game might continue.
I think if you want to make that distinction, then I'd choose a different domain. For instance, I'd argue that computer vision is a very different thing than human vision. We are using our full knowledge of the world in our visual perception. That's very different from training with a set of labeled pictures.
-
wrote on 21 Jun 2021, 11:55 last edited by
Ever heard a perfectly tuned piano? Probably not, and you probably wouldn’t want to. Technically, A1 should be tuned to 55hz. If it is on your piano, it will sound pretty crappy…
-
Ever heard a perfectly tuned piano? Probably not, and you probably wouldn’t want to. Technically, A1 should be tuned to 55hz. If it is on your piano, it will sound pretty crappy…
wrote on 21 Jun 2021, 12:25 last edited by Klaus@lufins-dad said in Tune it or die.:
Ever heard a perfectly tuned piano?
What does that even mean? When would a piano be in "perfect tune"? Inharmonicity of the strings means that every tuning must necessarily be a tradeoff, no? You can select some overtones for perfect alignment, but that means others will necessarily be out of tune.