Not my preferred style (sorry), but can I know the meaning of "A.i. brain "?
1 Like
No need to be sorry . My prospective and meaning of A.i. brain is basically all the different A.i. plugins i have connected in the pic to help me make music. I understand its not the conventional A.i. technology most people talk about these days . Thats why i posted in the YouTube video description section i still have to input information into the different plugins and choose what to keep and what not to keep. So in general its not the tpye of A.I. someone asked an question and it gives you and answer from its collective data and algorithms .and then spits out and entire song for me. I can give it a lot information and it will give me a lot of different generated ideals and from that i can piece together into something i want to use in any genre of music. This my first time trying this so its my learning project how to include the different types of A.i. plugins. I have many more those were just the 1.0 project. And i also understand some may dispute if those plugins are Really A.i. or not ? Well im not the type to try n convince anyone if its A.I. or not i know the technology in those plugins help me make music. Also helps me learn and evolve my understanding of the different types of technology in music creation. I hope this helps you understand my prospective my opinion of my A.i. brain 1.0 lol 
1 Like
Oh also i am new to this forum so it may take me some time to reply. And i be very very busy . The question about the output? Yes each individual plugin has its own output track to the mixer?
You replied already about the output dropping the link to YT
so no other action is required 
1 Like
I apologize i thought you meant the output ?as in is each plugin output separated my bad. lol i took the question out of context lol so you meant how did the project turn out the results. i understand now lol
1 Like
While i have time ill add this information. The style of music can be determined by which plugins i choose to connect to the A.i. brain 1.0. In the pic i have specific plugins connected to each a.i. plugin generator. When i replace something like the drums for instance with an ujam hype or eden plugins or any other music genre type plugins i can easily produce music in different types of genre’s. After my first A.i. experimenting project i tried Edm type music using my A.i. Brian 1.0 it turned out ok .im not going to share the results tho once i have prefected the process. Ill be releasing the finalized projects. That’s the reason why i responded said no need to be "Sorry Not your style of muisc"
1 Like
I think that most of the people here make music for themselves. There are professionals here, and it’s their livelihood, but for a lot its fun and creatively satisfying. If you fall in to the ‘fun’ category then the main things that matter are (a) are you pleased with the outcome and (b) have you improved your skill / knowledge in making it?
There are 100m tracks on Apple Music. That indicates just how wide the spread of musical tastes are, and in consequence any person picked at random would think that some randomly chosen track sounds crap. So if anybody does tick a like here, heh, that’s success.
Have fun with Scaler …
6 Likes
I couldn’t find any way to quickly change a chord progression while maintaining the notes structure.
RapidComposer does that with aplomb.
When melody phrases are in “chord relative” mode (there are other possibilities) any changes in the chord progression Master Track will also result in the melody phrase being adjusted to follow the chords.
Of course, if you want to lock one thing down while you change the other you can do that too.
RC itself offers many good ways to edit or generate a chord progression, but if you like Scaler for that you can easily find chords in Scaler first and then load them into RC.
IMO, these 2 programs complement each other quick nicely, as well as being monster-good each on their own.
1 Like
On the subject of IC2 and AI -
Do you think today’s VLSI chip designers bother anymore with drawing 3-D pictures of vacumn tubes or single-transistor etching patterns? No.
Higher-level macro processing is the general progress path of all art and science.
Like what you like, don’t like what you don’t like. Perfectly fine. Curate your own life. You are what you eat (literally and metaphorically). But hating on someone else’s tools, nutrition, or groove is pointless and backward.
In the future, people will not care at all if the 3-D holo they watch was captured from live human actors or entirely digitally created by AI. They will only care if it is good or not! (to their own personal tastes) And this is just like today. Some people really dig going to the theater to see live humans perform the ancient text of Shakespeare. Some people really dig the MCU movies (which are hugely, but not entirely CGI) Some people dig both.
Always the only real questions - is it GOOD? do I LIKE IT?
(and who’s getting paid! ;^)
3 Likes
I agree with this, as anything else would be illogical. (Otherwise, when listening to a musical piece, some people might want to know if it was composed by AI or by a human, and hate it or like it on that basis. ]
I’m an AI sceptic, as much of it is bandwagon marketing crap. How come photographic plugins I’ve been using for years are suddenly badged as ‘AI’ by the vendor’s website?
I think I object to the ‘I’ in AI. If ‘intelligence’ is associated with a creative endeavour which doesn’t flow directly from some intended (as opposed to random) algorithmic process (this being capable of replicated by a machine) then I don’t see this in any software today.
Just like infinite monkeys with typewriters, as there are a finite number of possible note arrangements in N bars, software could - with 100% certainty - produce some specific Mozart piece in less than infinite time. Is that intelligence / genius ? No. Was Mozart a ‘genius’ ? Yes. Does either sound wonderful ? Yes.
So I think Instacomposer (or Jammer / Koan / BIAB / Rapid C / and many others) are clever programming of known rules and patterns, but no - IMHO - composition ‘intelligence’. Maybe it should be AL (for learning) and not AI.
As an aside, I found ChatGPT is really easy to fool, even with statements that are simple and logical; it can contradict itself multiple times. I don’t think I’d trust it for anything other than matters of record (what are the notes in a C major scale?).
I think this proves your point …
5 Likes
AI is just a new fashion
I am quite sure that somebody is thinking to sell AI tomatoes already 
Nothing else than stolen stuff emerged so far in the entertainment field
Maybe in the medicine area some AI procedure exists, but the results are still to be seen/proven
2 Likes
Yes AI is definitely the new buzzword. And anything that can claim to have some type of AI behind it seems to do so now. Even if it’s really just an algorithmic tool. To me AI should be able to take a prompt, then do something and then receive feedback and incorporate that feedback. And each time it is used it should be learning not just spitting out a new random version of the same idea. That’s what defines intelligence so to speak in my not so humble opinion. But then I’m not in marketing and I’m not trying to sell products. So I’m sure some folks fall for all the marketing BS.
3 Likes
Not exactly IMHO
An “intelligent tool” must be able to differentiate a bad input from a good one, and the current wannabe AI is unable to do that; so the output can be just fine or an epic fail, and the user will never know, if not skilled/trained enough
I think we’re basically saying the same thing here just in different ways. That “AI” is a term often used mostly to drum up sales and there are a lot of developers tossing that term about inappropriately.
1 Like
I think that’s absolutely right. Many systems which seem to display some ‘intelligence’ are nevertheless brought about by a series of deterministic algorithmic processes, ergo, they cannot be intelligent.
If a system shows some ‘learning’ capability, then it may look more intelligent to the observer i.e. it has some self adaptive behaviour which is persistent. That adaptation might come from feedback from other systems, or ahem, humans lending it a hand. Some pattern recognition apps look pretty smart. But this capability has been around for 45 years and nobody panicked then.
If we think about music, then some systems can generate passable music ‘in the style of’ - but only because a human taught then the characteristics of, say, Mozart’s music. It would be more impressive if you asked the them to generate a pleasing combination of sounds from this sequence of notes, and let it figure out harmony, composition etc from scratch.
Academia I think is divided on the likelihood of creative sentience. Politicians have no idea, but weigh in to grandstand, and do what they do best which is to suggest more government control.
I’m on the side (from people like Richard Feynman on) which says that any device which works purely on an algorithmic basis, aka a Von Neuman architecture, can’t be intelligent in the understood human sense of the word. Some think that quantum computing might lead that way, but I don’t know enough to comment.
However, think about the IBM computer ‘Deep Blue’ which beat Grand Master Kasparov at chess - was it intelligent ? No, it was programmed by humans and executed code. And for those who think AI will take over the world, here’s some comfort from cartoonist Matt.
3 Likes
Well I definitely think that AI will have a significant and disruptive effect on our society and lives. I just doubt anyone really knows what that is yet. I think there should be a some good regulation for the development of AI as we seen multiple times now what happens when all the choices and responsibilities are left to a few narcissistic idiot savant types, and outcome most of the times is what will make me the most money, with little to no thought put into any cost benefit analysis to our society. The internet and more recently social media should have taught us this. I have no idea what the right solution is because as you point out, those typically left to create regulation rarely have much of an idea of what they are regulating, and all the special interests come out of the woodwork as soon as the word regulation is even whispered.
I’m typically a realist and somewhat pessimistic, so I suspect we’ll screw this up just like we have most things over all.
The only thing I’m pretty certain of is that the folks who embrace the technology and figure out how to use it to their benefit rather than fighting it, will probably be the biggest benefactors.
If you think AI hasn’t already disrupted things, talk to a copywriter. Or anyone that has made a living doing some of the more mundane tasks that deal with written text. But the same was said about virtual instruments and all sorts of technology.
I absolutely agree… some of the deep learning stuff is at the beginning of what it can do. Like all new technologies, it will put a lot of people on the street, but will also great jobs for other skills (probably not the same people).
It will be able to cause real harm by blurring the difference between truth and fantasy, but driven by human intelligence rather than the artificial variety.
I wasn’t seeking to refute that it will have a huge impact, but expressing the view that the applications, impressive though they are, will be largely the creation of carbon based intelligence and not the silicon form.
Funny cartoon, but clearly pre-M5.
Have you read Dial F for Frankenstein by Arthur C Clarke?
Matt Pritchard of the Daily Telegraph, 1997. He does a daily cartoon on current topics, and has a amazing ability conflate dissimilar topics.
1 Like