Your comment about the Texas ten commandments law:
"It’s not my business, as long as no one tries to make it my business. But as a civic belief, the notion of God as the source of morality is not benign — it’s dangerous because it removes questions of law, customs and morals from the arena of human logic and reason"
is a perfectly concise and effective response to anyone that downplays the significance of pushing religious beliefs into the public forum. Groups that tirelessly fight these incursions, like Freedom From Religion Foundation, should be on every thinking person's donee list.
As a Christian, I have always been puzzled by the desire of other believers to put the ten commandments in public schools and in public places like a city hall. After all, every picture we display of Jesus including crucifixes violates the commandment against graven images. Plus, Jesus summed it up in two commandments - love God and love your neighbor. If we're going to push commandments, why not those two instead of the ten commandments? I suspect that a lot of the push behind posting the ten commandments is a desire to mark our spot and demonstrate to others that we're calling the shots. It's akin to a dog peeing to mark its territory.
As a Roman Catholic, the Fundies' obsession with the Old Testament (the source of Exodus and the 10 Commandments) has always boggled my mind. (Although many non-Catholics have similar thoughts about many [most?] Catholics' worship of Mary, the Mother of Jesus - which I certainly understand). From my very parochial (and biased view), I often conflate Fundamentalists' beliefs with the judgmental/punitive/racist strain(s) of Protestantism that seems to exist in the US. (Many point at the Southern Baptist Convention and its variants for this. [See, especially, Leviticus.]) Christianity is supposed to be about Jesus and his teachings, I've always thought. I probably what most would call a cafeteria Catholic.
Fundamentalists are mostly frauds. I haven’t met one yet who preaches or adheres to any actual Christian principles, quite the opposite. And of course, the vast majority of them have cast their lot with a leader who is probably the least Christian man on earth. As Lemmy said, hypocrisy made paramount.
I know nothing about the workings of the crypto scams but I thought the "coins" were virtual. Since they are "mined" on computers and all. Anyway, the devoted couple's scam breaks the commandment about not robbing thy neighbor blind.
Excellent summary of the ten commandments issue, I agree with all of it. I would only add one aspect: Forcing public schools to display this religious text is antithetical to the founding principles of our country because it is exclusionary. Anyone who is not Christian (even Jews who follow the Old Testament from which the text comes from know that this is a Christian text) will see this posted and know they are not fully accepted, only tolerated at best, that they are the "other" and they better watch themselves. It's a claim on territory, saying "You don't tell us what to do, we tell you what to do". "Stickin' it to the libs" at its finest.
What A Day "Trump attacked the CNN reporter who broke the news of the report: “She should be IMMEDIATELY reprimanded, and then thrown out ‘like a dog.’”"
It's another one of his catchphrases, and a particularly disgusting one. He has a psychopathic dislike of animals in general and dogs in particular. I have a suspicion that Kristi Noem's lovely gravel pit story was included in her book specifically to appeal to him for a cabinet post and it worked.
"I find it patronizing and paternalistic when publications and cable news outlets censor words that everyone in their audience knows, hears all the time and, in many cases, uses freely."
Yes, it's maddening. I also haste when the update/censor/change/whatever words in movies. Michael Fox asking something to the effect of "what, are they assholes?" when Doc needs to take him to the future is one of way too many.
It seems George Carlin's seven words still stir peoples emotions too. Granted, they are exclamation points and should be used sparingly. But pearl clutching? Bullshit!
If only that outrage was directed against the real harm he is doing to the country - the raids on immigrants in public places, the draconian cuts in the budget bill, the crippling tariffs, so many more.
Do you think that they should just ignore them? Given that he’s the president, that would kind of be ignoring the 800 pound albino gorilla in the room. It seems like in most of the reporting that I read or watch they usually characterise his lies as such, at least.
No, they don't. And when you're knowingly pushing the lies without reporting the facts/truth, you're pushing propaganda. How many reporters and commentators are brave enough to verbally challenge the lies? The few that have soon find themselves out of a job for not kowtowing to the New Order.
What are you watching, Fox News? I read the Tribune almost daily, watch PBS News Hour, BBC News, Amanpour and Company and frequently pop in on the programming on CNN, and they all routinely use “lie”, “false claim”, “disproven claim”, “discredited assertion”, “without evidence” and all kinds of other buzz words to demonstrate that he isn’t truthful. What do you want them to do? Sound a siren and put flashing red lights with a big flashing “LIE!” across the screen every time he fibs? Maybe superimpose an elongated nose on his face any time he’s shown?
I’m not familiar with all of the journalists and press pool members who’ve had access to Trump and what their employment status is, but last I checked Kaitlyn Collins and Laura Barron Lopez were still on the beat and they challenge him relentlessly, as have numerous other journalists, including, recently Terry Moran. And no, Moran was not fired for challenging Trump, but rather for engaging in the sort of objectivity abandoning advocacy that I presume you would prefer to be standard journalistic procedure.
You can insist all you like (without evidence!) that the media don’t check Trump’s lies, but consulting the publications and programming that I’ve mentioned will prove otherwise.
What I want them to do is totally ban the word "falsehood" from their publications & broadcasts! Just use "lie" which is also much shorter & to the point!
I find the sanewashing of Trump's idiotic word salads to be despicable. I believe that any media outlet that did not post the electric boat vs sharks rant is guilty of aiding the election of the mendacious and cruel and ignorant criminal felon.
How are they “sanewashing” them? Are there news outlets that present his ramblings and then follow them up by saying things like, “Although the President’s speech sounded to many like the unhinged ravings of a madman, here is why his words were actually quite lucid and made a lot of sense….”? Maybe they do that at Fox News, but they don’t do it on any of the news programs that I watch.
Your 2nd sentence really gets to the crux of the matter, which is the scapegoating problem. You can blame the media all you like, but no one did more to aid Trump’s re-election than the Democrats, first by not primarying Biden out of the nomination, and then by back dooring his wildly unpopular vice president (without a primary battle) into the nomination when he finally did step aside, two years too late.
There is something else here that doesn't get talked about often enough. Trump wants his bill passed by the 4th of July. Trump wants this. Trump wants that. Who the hell is Donald Trump? We dumped royalty supposedly back when the country was founded. The views of each and every person in this forum are supposed to be just as important as those of the orange stain. We have elections to put people in office to represent our views. But right now it's all about what Trump wants. I don't want any of our local MAGAs telling me they voted for Trump to do exactly what he is doing. I will tell them bull**** right to their faces. I dare them to tell me they voted for him to be a royal ruler and one man entity. If they actually meant it, I would lose all respect for them. This is supposed to be a constitutional republic. All views are supposed to be welcome. The stain doesn't even talk to or listen to anyone not kissing his rear. Believe it or not, MAGAs, the orange stain doesn't know the best way to do everything and doesn't do everything the best way. I don't think even most MAGAs believe that. So let's be real. With his latest actions and statements, it's long past time for him to be gone. By the way, if he wants to throw out dogs, he should start with his little lap dog, Netanyahu.
Pritzker: It always annoys me when someone gets elected to a position - and spends a majority of their time in that position running for a different position. You're voted in to do a job, not look for another job. Does history matter here? Previous governors who reached the White House. Things are so different from 2000 and 1992 - let alone '80 and '76. How many governors have run since 2000 that got bumped out. You may consider Pritzker a good governor - is that for his work or in comparison to every governor in the past 75 years
NEWS: Bombing 1) Fancy distraction to CA ICE protests. 2) Jumping on coattail of Netanyahu attacks 3) "See we can keep a secret to attack someone" 4) "What we've never used those bombs before? I think we can fix that." 5) "When should we do this?" June 21 Mr President. "So roughly 'two weeks' - good."
10 Commandments: They are a part of the 3 Abrahamic religions so they are widely viewed - maybe not in daily practice. Of course "Principles of Good Behavior" would be considered "Woke." Really, it's the irony of MAGA promoting sound values - no stealing, lying, killing, adultery... oops, oops, oops. (See the Daily Show's latest take on this) Let's add in the Ten Precepts of Taoism
Gallery of images: Over the weekend I watch movies that included westerns, sci fi, and shows with too tightly gather murders solved. The most distracting movie had a full size phone book in which main characters ran into to grab the yellow pages to find an address.
Brown's Chicken Murders: Read the book for "anecdotes and nuggets of information." Nuggets?
Old timers like me remember that Illinois changed the governor election to the off year in 1978 so that governors could run (and maybe some other reasons) for president without giving up the governor job. We voted for governor (well not me) in 1976 and then 1978 (my first election). I actually saw Jim Thompson on the U of I campus outside the post office while I was on my way to mail my ballot. I yelled to him “guess who I voted for?”.
Here in Virginia gubernatorial elections are held on the year after the presidential one (so we're having one this year), also as I understand specifically to separate the two.
It would be wonderful if Pritzker used his third term to actually fix Illinois, rather than as a springboard for a presidential run. I think after seeing Mamdani's win, he realizes that youth, a dynamic personality and promises of a quick fix is what moves votes and he does not have that. (Trump doesn't have youth but like Mandami and Brandan Johnson he promises unrealistic easy fixes to immediate problems) If Pritzker could find the courage to put a constitutional pension fix on the ballot, which is really the driver of so many of Illinois's current and future problems, he could actually prove that a Democrat can govern effectively and really solve long term problems, rather than kicking them down the road.
He tried very hard to get the progressive tax passed, which would have fixed a lot of problems. Too many people either didn’t understand it, though, or didn’t trust how it would be implemented. Pretty sad we missed that opportunity.
He should also get off the fence and fully support the growth of nuclear energy in Illinois. The current policy and regulations are halfhearted at best. This would both reduce carbon and provide the reliable power for economic growth.
In regard to profanity, multiple publications still print the Bowdlerized version of what VP John Nance Garner said about being VP: "Being vice-President is like a bowl of warm spit", which was changed in the 1930s when in actuality he said "warm piss"! I have had to email several well known journalists about that over the years & every one of them had no idea it was Bowdlerized!
I haven’t given much thought on whether Pritzker running for a third term was a good idea, but one thing I could see happening is Trump using his power to sow even more chaos in Illinois to try and trip JB up on his bid for the White House. Whether such a move would damage that bid or ultimately help I don’t really know.
Regarding the AI song snippet, I couldn’t tell the difference. But then I consider most country music to be simplistic drivel, so I might not be the best person to ask…
So much of it IS machine generated. What are rap and techno other than the product of so much button pushing and knob twaddling? I don’t say that as a knock either. I like Radiohead, and much of their music seems to be created by the same means.
So I’m thinking Bobby Sherman had to use hair spray with a do like that. How about you, Eric? Looking at your high school pic makes me wonder what you did to keep the hair out of your eyes.
AI plagiarized music is less than Musak and no more useful than background noise. It is literally 100% copied and mimicked sounds. The shared clip could have been used as a comedic satire of the typical whiny song genre.
But it will be interesting to see how far the media and consumers are willing to accept extensions of this sort of crap. What would an album from this 'artist' sound like? Will people enjoy interviews with an avatar of the 'artist'? How about concerts? When the avatar mimics the stage presence of real artists will its 'showmanship' and dance moves be lauded? What will the fans of the 'artist' be like? And how will we describe their mental issues? Will the music award shows have a new category and allow an avatar acceptance speech? It would forget to thank all of the human artists that it plagiarized but maybe thank the geeks that provided the prompts to the engine.
One thing is certain; the growth of AI melodic noise is the death of originality and creativity since the engine is incapable of either.
Sooner or later -- or maybe it's already been done -- casual or even intense music fans will be put to a laboratory test in which they will hear, say, 10 songs, five of them with lyrics and melodies and instrumentation by actual human beings with acknowledged talent; five wholly generated by AI. And we'll see whether they can even come close to reliably telling the difference. You say that the shared clip could have been a satire, but a lot of real songs sound like they could be satires or parodies. To some degree, I think those of you who are confident about being able to tell the difference are similiar to the oenophiles who claim to be able to tell the difference between a $400 bottle of wine and and a $40 bottle of wine, but then, when put to the test, not only can't, but often can't tell the difference beweeen a red wine and white wine with red food coloring in it. https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html
In other words, knowing that a clip is AI predisposes you to thinking it's not music, not art, not worthy, But that preconception skewers your judgment (the generic you).
I agree completely. I would also point out that the production of popular music has, for so long, been dominated by electronic artifice that I don’t know how different AI generated music can be considered to be. It seems to me that entire genres of music are created by way of sampling and knob twaddling at a console rather than what might be considered “organic” instrumentation. Not just techno and rap either; it was 56 years ago that the Beatles went into the studio to record their “Get Back” album (retitled “Let It Be” upon release) with the intent of getting back to basic organic musical creation after too many years of wallowing in electronic gobbledygook. And even THAT plan fell through once Phil Spector got his hands on the tapes.
Very true, as far as it goes. It's not just wine. Violins from the golden age of Italian instrument making (by the likes of Stradivari, et al.), prized in part for their allegedly magical sound, have fared poorly in blind tests of both professional players and listeners compared with modern violins. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/science/a-strad-violinists-cant-tell.html
I say "as far as it goes," because it's worth thinking about what we really value when we think about such things -- wine, antique instruments, pop music, whatever. There's more to it than being able to tell the difference.
One example: When you go the Field Museum to look at archeological specimens -- dinosaurs, etc. -- I doubt you can tell the difference just by looking between the genuine articles and the replicas made from casts. I certainly can't. And yet I gain greater enjoyment knowing that what I'm looking at was an actual dinosaur that actually pranced around my planet many millions of years ago. This gets at a couple of reasons we value things: their authenticity and rareness. We have similar concerns with respect to jewelry, documents, antiques of any sort, and so on. Why is it so important to know whether that da Vinci painting was actually by da Vinci? Beyond historical interest, people value genuine paintings or other works of art, like Greek and Roman statues say, not only for their aesthetic merit but because the thing represents an immediate, tangible link to something we find interesting out of the past -- the hand of a master, the culture of a time long ago.
One might argue that such notions amount to irrational sentimentality, but sentiment as such, like any emotion, is neither rational nor irrational. It just is. It only becomes irrational when deployed to assert dubious facts about the world -- that, for example, Old Italian instruments generally sound better than new ones, or that analog recording produces a more authentic result compared with digital recording, or that wines made by legendary vintners always taste better.
It does not surprise me that AI can produce a country song that sounds like a lot of country songs -- or, at any rate, one verse of such a song -- such that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Just as I'm not a wine guy, I'm not a popular music guy. I'm enough of both to be able to have an opinion about whether I like it, but I'm not into either very much. But I take Marc's point that, for people who are, part of the enjoyment comes not only from the merits of the song itself but also from experiencing the performance of it in some way, hooking into the performer in some way. I find Taylor Swift's oeuvre -- what I've heard of it -- awfully bland. At the same time, I can't imagine a series of AI-created songs in the same style generating Swiftie fandom any more than I can imagine falling in love with a robot.
To which a response might be, well, why can't you imagine it? What are our own minds but a tangle of billions of little electrical switches after all? That's a common leap these days -- to counter suggestions of AI thoughtlessness by suggesting that our own thoughts are but versions of an analogous process. But are they? I'm not convinced. The way LLMs work doesn't look like how we work. In brains, thoughts and memories are part of a single integrated and continuous process; they change in response to experience; they use various chemicals (neurotransmitters) to make synaptic connections, and many more connections, all with far less power. AI's results and learning process seem different. It's good at stuff that humans are bad at (like searching the whole internet in a few seconds) but also bad at stuff that humans are good at (like staying on a task for an extended period of time, up to a lifetime, or completing highly complex tasks). I have neither read nor seen intimations of human-like consciousness or will or feelings or an inner life. I'm very willing to be proved wrong -- my sense of this is not "cope," as people are tiresomely saying these days ad nauseam -- but I would not be surprised if, in a few years, researchers start to quietly coalesce around a consensus that this version of AI has been barking up the wrong tree when it comes to AGI or "superintelligence" however (ill-)defined.
I agree with your last point, but it is a definition not a predisposition. It applies to anything machine generated.
But comparative tunes is not really the point. I don't doubt that people will not be able to identify machine plagiarized music from human performed music. That does not make the AI engine an artist nor does it make the music original, creative, or meaningful. It would be interesting to see how such a test would go with avatar Will-E Nelson or Doll-E Parton vs the real thing over a dozen songs.
A better test would be to ask the AI engine to compose a piece of music based on its own experience and emotions. Because it has neither. Each request to an AI engine requires detailed input of prompts which the engine uses to scan a large data set looking for sounds to copy and assemble.
Here is another test for the engine. Tell it to create an avatar based on the life of a composer or songwriter, without scanning any of that person's music. Then ask it to compose a piece of music in the style of that avatar, scanning only music from before the time of the source artist. I guarantee avatar Miles Davis will produce nothing like real MD.
And my other points still stand. Will anyone pay money, other than streaming background noise, for an AI music experience? Will you welcome the Banjo Bob avatar into your circle of friends to share an evening of playing tunes on your instruments?
And unlike the wine example, I think most fans can easily distinguish between talented performers and average performers in both singers and instruments. An AI engine can mimic Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, or Stevie Ray Vaughn but it is not 'playing' or riffing or extemporizing. Without specifically scanning and copying their performance, it could not produce a sound at all. Same goes for Ella Fitzgerald, Mel Torme, Frank Sinatra, Barbara Streisand et al. The best that an AI engine can do is mimic a cover band or be an Elvis impersonator.
Sorry, but I just saw that Lalo Shifrin died. Which made me think of another test. Ask the AI engine to compose a theme song given only the script and the ability to scan music prior to the year of the movie or TV show. My guess is that the result would not compare favorably to actual theme songs. Even providing the engine with dozens of additional prompts and cues would not produce a good result. Lalo Shifrin, Henry Mancini, Maurice Jarre, Ennio Morricone, et al would win hands down.
Your comment about the Texas ten commandments law:
"It’s not my business, as long as no one tries to make it my business. But as a civic belief, the notion of God as the source of morality is not benign — it’s dangerous because it removes questions of law, customs and morals from the arena of human logic and reason"
is a perfectly concise and effective response to anyone that downplays the significance of pushing religious beliefs into the public forum. Groups that tirelessly fight these incursions, like Freedom From Religion Foundation, should be on every thinking person's donee list.
As a Christian, I have always been puzzled by the desire of other believers to put the ten commandments in public schools and in public places like a city hall. After all, every picture we display of Jesus including crucifixes violates the commandment against graven images. Plus, Jesus summed it up in two commandments - love God and love your neighbor. If we're going to push commandments, why not those two instead of the ten commandments? I suspect that a lot of the push behind posting the ten commandments is a desire to mark our spot and demonstrate to others that we're calling the shots. It's akin to a dog peeing to mark its territory.
As a Roman Catholic, the Fundies' obsession with the Old Testament (the source of Exodus and the 10 Commandments) has always boggled my mind. (Although many non-Catholics have similar thoughts about many [most?] Catholics' worship of Mary, the Mother of Jesus - which I certainly understand). From my very parochial (and biased view), I often conflate Fundamentalists' beliefs with the judgmental/punitive/racist strain(s) of Protestantism that seems to exist in the US. (Many point at the Southern Baptist Convention and its variants for this. [See, especially, Leviticus.]) Christianity is supposed to be about Jesus and his teachings, I've always thought. I probably what most would call a cafeteria Catholic.
Fundamentalists are mostly frauds. I haven’t met one yet who preaches or adheres to any actual Christian principles, quite the opposite. And of course, the vast majority of them have cast their lot with a leader who is probably the least Christian man on earth. As Lemmy said, hypocrisy made paramount.
People are saying that Agent Orange has broken all ten of the Ten Commandments. That is a lie. He has never made a graven image.
Would his pissing on someone's photo count?
DOGE Coins? They're pretty graven.
Trump and Melania digital collectibles - which they sell?
I know nothing about the workings of the crypto scams but I thought the "coins" were virtual. Since they are "mined" on computers and all. Anyway, the devoted couple's scam breaks the commandment about not robbing thy neighbor blind.
Excellent summary of the ten commandments issue, I agree with all of it. I would only add one aspect: Forcing public schools to display this religious text is antithetical to the founding principles of our country because it is exclusionary. Anyone who is not Christian (even Jews who follow the Old Testament from which the text comes from know that this is a Christian text) will see this posted and know they are not fully accepted, only tolerated at best, that they are the "other" and they better watch themselves. It's a claim on territory, saying "You don't tell us what to do, we tell you what to do". "Stickin' it to the libs" at its finest.
Edited to add: The fake/parody religion of Pastafarianism has an equivalent of the Ten Commandments that are more inclusive and practical, the Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts, available at this link: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-eight-pastafarian-id-really-rather-you-didnts.35519/
Never forget, the original Hebrew version is don't murder, which is different than don't kill. The original allows for self defense killings & war!
What A Day "Trump attacked the CNN reporter who broke the news of the report: “She should be IMMEDIATELY reprimanded, and then thrown out ‘like a dog.’”"
Who throws dogs out?
It's another one of his catchphrases, and a particularly disgusting one. He has a psychopathic dislike of animals in general and dogs in particular. I have a suspicion that Kristi Noem's lovely gravel pit story was included in her book specifically to appeal to him for a cabinet post and it worked.
"I find it patronizing and paternalistic when publications and cable news outlets censor words that everyone in their audience knows, hears all the time and, in many cases, uses freely."
Yes, it's maddening. I also haste when the update/censor/change/whatever words in movies. Michael Fox asking something to the effect of "what, are they assholes?" when Doc needs to take him to the future is one of way too many.
It seems George Carlin's seven words still stir peoples emotions too. Granted, they are exclamation points and should be used sparingly. But pearl clutching? Bullshit!
I find it fascinating that the news media is torn over whether to publish Trump's profanity, yet has no problems with publishing his endless lies.
If only that outrage was directed against the real harm he is doing to the country - the raids on immigrants in public places, the draconian cuts in the budget bill, the crippling tariffs, so many more.
And, DHS/ICE police agents (thugs) wearing face coverings and street clothes when rounding up suspected immigrants.
Do you think that they should just ignore them? Given that he’s the president, that would kind of be ignoring the 800 pound albino gorilla in the room. It seems like in most of the reporting that I read or watch they usually characterise his lies as such, at least.
No, they don't. And when you're knowingly pushing the lies without reporting the facts/truth, you're pushing propaganda. How many reporters and commentators are brave enough to verbally challenge the lies? The few that have soon find themselves out of a job for not kowtowing to the New Order.
What are you watching, Fox News? I read the Tribune almost daily, watch PBS News Hour, BBC News, Amanpour and Company and frequently pop in on the programming on CNN, and they all routinely use “lie”, “false claim”, “disproven claim”, “discredited assertion”, “without evidence” and all kinds of other buzz words to demonstrate that he isn’t truthful. What do you want them to do? Sound a siren and put flashing red lights with a big flashing “LIE!” across the screen every time he fibs? Maybe superimpose an elongated nose on his face any time he’s shown?
I’m not familiar with all of the journalists and press pool members who’ve had access to Trump and what their employment status is, but last I checked Kaitlyn Collins and Laura Barron Lopez were still on the beat and they challenge him relentlessly, as have numerous other journalists, including, recently Terry Moran. And no, Moran was not fired for challenging Trump, but rather for engaging in the sort of objectivity abandoning advocacy that I presume you would prefer to be standard journalistic procedure.
You can insist all you like (without evidence!) that the media don’t check Trump’s lies, but consulting the publications and programming that I’ve mentioned will prove otherwise.
What I want them to do is totally ban the word "falsehood" from their publications & broadcasts! Just use "lie" which is also much shorter & to the point!
I find the sanewashing of Trump's idiotic word salads to be despicable. I believe that any media outlet that did not post the electric boat vs sharks rant is guilty of aiding the election of the mendacious and cruel and ignorant criminal felon.
How are they “sanewashing” them? Are there news outlets that present his ramblings and then follow them up by saying things like, “Although the President’s speech sounded to many like the unhinged ravings of a madman, here is why his words were actually quite lucid and made a lot of sense….”? Maybe they do that at Fox News, but they don’t do it on any of the news programs that I watch.
Your 2nd sentence really gets to the crux of the matter, which is the scapegoating problem. You can blame the media all you like, but no one did more to aid Trump’s re-election than the Democrats, first by not primarying Biden out of the nomination, and then by back dooring his wildly unpopular vice president (without a primary battle) into the nomination when he finally did step aside, two years too late.
There is something else here that doesn't get talked about often enough. Trump wants his bill passed by the 4th of July. Trump wants this. Trump wants that. Who the hell is Donald Trump? We dumped royalty supposedly back when the country was founded. The views of each and every person in this forum are supposed to be just as important as those of the orange stain. We have elections to put people in office to represent our views. But right now it's all about what Trump wants. I don't want any of our local MAGAs telling me they voted for Trump to do exactly what he is doing. I will tell them bull**** right to their faces. I dare them to tell me they voted for him to be a royal ruler and one man entity. If they actually meant it, I would lose all respect for them. This is supposed to be a constitutional republic. All views are supposed to be welcome. The stain doesn't even talk to or listen to anyone not kissing his rear. Believe it or not, MAGAs, the orange stain doesn't know the best way to do everything and doesn't do everything the best way. I don't think even most MAGAs believe that. So let's be real. With his latest actions and statements, it's long past time for him to be gone. By the way, if he wants to throw out dogs, he should start with his little lap dog, Netanyahu.
Pritzker: It always annoys me when someone gets elected to a position - and spends a majority of their time in that position running for a different position. You're voted in to do a job, not look for another job. Does history matter here? Previous governors who reached the White House. Things are so different from 2000 and 1992 - let alone '80 and '76. How many governors have run since 2000 that got bumped out. You may consider Pritzker a good governor - is that for his work or in comparison to every governor in the past 75 years
NEWS: Bombing 1) Fancy distraction to CA ICE protests. 2) Jumping on coattail of Netanyahu attacks 3) "See we can keep a secret to attack someone" 4) "What we've never used those bombs before? I think we can fix that." 5) "When should we do this?" June 21 Mr President. "So roughly 'two weeks' - good."
10 Commandments: They are a part of the 3 Abrahamic religions so they are widely viewed - maybe not in daily practice. Of course "Principles of Good Behavior" would be considered "Woke." Really, it's the irony of MAGA promoting sound values - no stealing, lying, killing, adultery... oops, oops, oops. (See the Daily Show's latest take on this) Let's add in the Ten Precepts of Taoism
Gallery of images: Over the weekend I watch movies that included westerns, sci fi, and shows with too tightly gather murders solved. The most distracting movie had a full size phone book in which main characters ran into to grab the yellow pages to find an address.
Brown's Chicken Murders: Read the book for "anecdotes and nuggets of information." Nuggets?
Old timers like me remember that Illinois changed the governor election to the off year in 1978 so that governors could run (and maybe some other reasons) for president without giving up the governor job. We voted for governor (well not me) in 1976 and then 1978 (my first election). I actually saw Jim Thompson on the U of I campus outside the post office while I was on my way to mail my ballot. I yelled to him “guess who I voted for?”.
Here in Virginia gubernatorial elections are held on the year after the presidential one (so we're having one this year), also as I understand specifically to separate the two.
At least we won't all be on pins and needles waiting to see what the 2025 WOTY will be...
OBLITERATED!
It would be wonderful if Pritzker used his third term to actually fix Illinois, rather than as a springboard for a presidential run. I think after seeing Mamdani's win, he realizes that youth, a dynamic personality and promises of a quick fix is what moves votes and he does not have that. (Trump doesn't have youth but like Mandami and Brandan Johnson he promises unrealistic easy fixes to immediate problems) If Pritzker could find the courage to put a constitutional pension fix on the ballot, which is really the driver of so many of Illinois's current and future problems, he could actually prove that a Democrat can govern effectively and really solve long term problems, rather than kicking them down the road.
He tried very hard to get the progressive tax passed, which would have fixed a lot of problems. Too many people either didn’t understand it, though, or didn’t trust how it would be implemented. Pretty sad we missed that opportunity.
He should also get off the fence and fully support the growth of nuclear energy in Illinois. The current policy and regulations are halfhearted at best. This would both reduce carbon and provide the reliable power for economic growth.
In regard to profanity, multiple publications still print the Bowdlerized version of what VP John Nance Garner said about being VP: "Being vice-President is like a bowl of warm spit", which was changed in the 1930s when in actuality he said "warm piss"! I have had to email several well known journalists about that over the years & every one of them had no idea it was Bowdlerized!
Warm spit makes no sense when you think about it.
I haven’t given much thought on whether Pritzker running for a third term was a good idea, but one thing I could see happening is Trump using his power to sow even more chaos in Illinois to try and trip JB up on his bid for the White House. Whether such a move would damage that bid or ultimately help I don’t really know.
Regarding the AI song snippet, I couldn’t tell the difference. But then I consider most country music to be simplistic drivel, so I might not be the best person to ask…
I had the same reaction. So much popular music sounds machine-generated anyway.
So much of it IS machine generated. What are rap and techno other than the product of so much button pushing and knob twaddling? I don’t say that as a knock either. I like Radiohead, and much of their music seems to be created by the same means.
So I’m thinking Bobby Sherman had to use hair spray with a do like that. How about you, Eric? Looking at your high school pic makes me wonder what you did to keep the hair out of your eyes.
AI plagiarized music is less than Musak and no more useful than background noise. It is literally 100% copied and mimicked sounds. The shared clip could have been used as a comedic satire of the typical whiny song genre.
But it will be interesting to see how far the media and consumers are willing to accept extensions of this sort of crap. What would an album from this 'artist' sound like? Will people enjoy interviews with an avatar of the 'artist'? How about concerts? When the avatar mimics the stage presence of real artists will its 'showmanship' and dance moves be lauded? What will the fans of the 'artist' be like? And how will we describe their mental issues? Will the music award shows have a new category and allow an avatar acceptance speech? It would forget to thank all of the human artists that it plagiarized but maybe thank the geeks that provided the prompts to the engine.
One thing is certain; the growth of AI melodic noise is the death of originality and creativity since the engine is incapable of either.
Sooner or later -- or maybe it's already been done -- casual or even intense music fans will be put to a laboratory test in which they will hear, say, 10 songs, five of them with lyrics and melodies and instrumentation by actual human beings with acknowledged talent; five wholly generated by AI. And we'll see whether they can even come close to reliably telling the difference. You say that the shared clip could have been a satire, but a lot of real songs sound like they could be satires or parodies. To some degree, I think those of you who are confident about being able to tell the difference are similiar to the oenophiles who claim to be able to tell the difference between a $400 bottle of wine and and a $40 bottle of wine, but then, when put to the test, not only can't, but often can't tell the difference beweeen a red wine and white wine with red food coloring in it. https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html
In other words, knowing that a clip is AI predisposes you to thinking it's not music, not art, not worthy, But that preconception skewers your judgment (the generic you).
I agree completely. I would also point out that the production of popular music has, for so long, been dominated by electronic artifice that I don’t know how different AI generated music can be considered to be. It seems to me that entire genres of music are created by way of sampling and knob twaddling at a console rather than what might be considered “organic” instrumentation. Not just techno and rap either; it was 56 years ago that the Beatles went into the studio to record their “Get Back” album (retitled “Let It Be” upon release) with the intent of getting back to basic organic musical creation after too many years of wallowing in electronic gobbledygook. And even THAT plan fell through once Phil Spector got his hands on the tapes.
Very true, as far as it goes. It's not just wine. Violins from the golden age of Italian instrument making (by the likes of Stradivari, et al.), prized in part for their allegedly magical sound, have fared poorly in blind tests of both professional players and listeners compared with modern violins. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/science/a-strad-violinists-cant-tell.html
https://www.bormanviolins.com/blind.html
I say "as far as it goes," because it's worth thinking about what we really value when we think about such things -- wine, antique instruments, pop music, whatever. There's more to it than being able to tell the difference.
One example: When you go the Field Museum to look at archeological specimens -- dinosaurs, etc. -- I doubt you can tell the difference just by looking between the genuine articles and the replicas made from casts. I certainly can't. And yet I gain greater enjoyment knowing that what I'm looking at was an actual dinosaur that actually pranced around my planet many millions of years ago. This gets at a couple of reasons we value things: their authenticity and rareness. We have similar concerns with respect to jewelry, documents, antiques of any sort, and so on. Why is it so important to know whether that da Vinci painting was actually by da Vinci? Beyond historical interest, people value genuine paintings or other works of art, like Greek and Roman statues say, not only for their aesthetic merit but because the thing represents an immediate, tangible link to something we find interesting out of the past -- the hand of a master, the culture of a time long ago.
One might argue that such notions amount to irrational sentimentality, but sentiment as such, like any emotion, is neither rational nor irrational. It just is. It only becomes irrational when deployed to assert dubious facts about the world -- that, for example, Old Italian instruments generally sound better than new ones, or that analog recording produces a more authentic result compared with digital recording, or that wines made by legendary vintners always taste better.
It does not surprise me that AI can produce a country song that sounds like a lot of country songs -- or, at any rate, one verse of such a song -- such that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Just as I'm not a wine guy, I'm not a popular music guy. I'm enough of both to be able to have an opinion about whether I like it, but I'm not into either very much. But I take Marc's point that, for people who are, part of the enjoyment comes not only from the merits of the song itself but also from experiencing the performance of it in some way, hooking into the performer in some way. I find Taylor Swift's oeuvre -- what I've heard of it -- awfully bland. At the same time, I can't imagine a series of AI-created songs in the same style generating Swiftie fandom any more than I can imagine falling in love with a robot.
To which a response might be, well, why can't you imagine it? What are our own minds but a tangle of billions of little electrical switches after all? That's a common leap these days -- to counter suggestions of AI thoughtlessness by suggesting that our own thoughts are but versions of an analogous process. But are they? I'm not convinced. The way LLMs work doesn't look like how we work. In brains, thoughts and memories are part of a single integrated and continuous process; they change in response to experience; they use various chemicals (neurotransmitters) to make synaptic connections, and many more connections, all with far less power. AI's results and learning process seem different. It's good at stuff that humans are bad at (like searching the whole internet in a few seconds) but also bad at stuff that humans are good at (like staying on a task for an extended period of time, up to a lifetime, or completing highly complex tasks). I have neither read nor seen intimations of human-like consciousness or will or feelings or an inner life. I'm very willing to be proved wrong -- my sense of this is not "cope," as people are tiresomely saying these days ad nauseam -- but I would not be surprised if, in a few years, researchers start to quietly coalesce around a consensus that this version of AI has been barking up the wrong tree when it comes to AGI or "superintelligence" however (ill-)defined.
https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/illusion-of-thinking
I agree with your last point, but it is a definition not a predisposition. It applies to anything machine generated.
But comparative tunes is not really the point. I don't doubt that people will not be able to identify machine plagiarized music from human performed music. That does not make the AI engine an artist nor does it make the music original, creative, or meaningful. It would be interesting to see how such a test would go with avatar Will-E Nelson or Doll-E Parton vs the real thing over a dozen songs.
A better test would be to ask the AI engine to compose a piece of music based on its own experience and emotions. Because it has neither. Each request to an AI engine requires detailed input of prompts which the engine uses to scan a large data set looking for sounds to copy and assemble.
Here is another test for the engine. Tell it to create an avatar based on the life of a composer or songwriter, without scanning any of that person's music. Then ask it to compose a piece of music in the style of that avatar, scanning only music from before the time of the source artist. I guarantee avatar Miles Davis will produce nothing like real MD.
And my other points still stand. Will anyone pay money, other than streaming background noise, for an AI music experience? Will you welcome the Banjo Bob avatar into your circle of friends to share an evening of playing tunes on your instruments?
And unlike the wine example, I think most fans can easily distinguish between talented performers and average performers in both singers and instruments. An AI engine can mimic Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, or Stevie Ray Vaughn but it is not 'playing' or riffing or extemporizing. Without specifically scanning and copying their performance, it could not produce a sound at all. Same goes for Ella Fitzgerald, Mel Torme, Frank Sinatra, Barbara Streisand et al. The best that an AI engine can do is mimic a cover band or be an Elvis impersonator.
Love the Miles Davis test.
Sorry, but I just saw that Lalo Shifrin died. Which made me think of another test. Ask the AI engine to compose a theme song given only the script and the ability to scan music prior to the year of the movie or TV show. My guess is that the result would not compare favorably to actual theme songs. Even providing the engine with dozens of additional prompts and cues would not produce a good result. Lalo Shifrin, Henry Mancini, Maurice Jarre, Ennio Morricone, et al would win hands down.
Just so readers know, the now late great Lalo Schifrin not only did this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7alss3sDJdg
But also:
https://cso.org/experience/article/13719/the-greatest-hits-of-lalo-schifrin---other-th
If you like Ennio Morricone, there is a wonderful documentary about him, trailer here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdhiDjF_uSQ&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD
Whole movie here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkrNxpuT_z4
Thanks for the great links!