The discussion:
>>128353968
>>128367437
We were talking about AI, and that was it. You claimed AI didn't "use any logic process" and I sent a page that proved that not to be true. I don't even know how from the excerpt you cited you interpreted that it was distinguishing the "our topic" model from an "off-topic" method. Both technologies (symbolic AI and neural networks) are used in music composition. See "Technical approaches":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_artificial_intelligence.
On autonomous AI, as far as I know, it's not very developed yet. My point is that as it gets better, the argument that AI is less creative for relying on prompts (as if human artists didn't receive instructions from their hirers often) gets less and less plausible.
>>128367454
That reminds me of the first objection to the Chinese Room thought experiment (the Systems Reply), which, in my opinion, Searle didn't give a good and reasonable reply to. In short, the whole system (handicapped human + calculator) is able to do math, not the human alone. You can read his reply and take your own conclusions.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071210043312/http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/MindsBrainsPrograms.html
>>128367481
That was what I wanted to stress with my thread. Most people that push the "AI slop" idea don't care if humans make poor quality music. They're fine, because they're not AIs. They prefer to support a bad human artist and boycott a reasonable AI one than to support or even be neutral towards the latter. They are not concerned that the music they support or make can be just what they curse AI with: slop.
