Zompist Bboard Again

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 4:10 pm I had a question that I wanted to ask the Random Thread. Not, I think, related to any of the recent topics here. But by the time I had gotten around to logging into the ZBB, I had forgotten what the question was. Where are trashy dystopian sci-fi brain scanners when you need them?

I hate it when that happens.

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 4:10 pmI had a question that I wanted to ask the Random Thread. Not, I think, related to any of the recent topics here. But by the time I had gotten around to logging into the ZBB, I had forgotten what the question was. Where are trashy dystopian sci-fi brain scanners when you need them?

Yeah, I often have that problem when looking something up on Wikipedia. All the featured articles and latest news on the front page distract me and I forget why I originally came there.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 9:32 amYep. Authenticity is the currency in the music business. Remember the Milli Vanilli scandal? People may to some degree get used to such manipulation, but only to some degree. An AI-generated music act can just not play live. This is already a problem with current mainstream pop acts where everything except the voice is put together on a computer, and even the voice is often manipulated by digital effects. There will be a market for AI-generated commercial jingles and such, but to sell a record, or concert tickets, you need something authentic.

Sure but I recall the headline saying the band had a million subscribers on Spotify which suggests that quite a number of people genuinely like it regardless of authenticity. Numerous human bands would kill for that kind of popularity.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 4:29 pm

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 9:32 amYep. Authenticity is the currency in the music business. Remember the Milli Vanilli scandal? People may to some degree get used to such manipulation, but only to some degree. An AI-generated music act can just not play live. This is already a problem with current mainstream pop acts where everything except the voice is put together on a computer, and even the voice is often manipulated by digital effects. There will be a market for AI-generated commercial jingles and such, but to sell a record, or concert tickets, you need something authentic.

Sure but I recall the headline saying the band had a million subscribers on Spotify which suggests that quite a number of people genuinely like it regardless of authenticity. Numerous human bands would kill for that kind of popularity.

Do you know what novelty is? Just because a band has had a million people play them does not mean they are actually popular. They likely just played it wondering what AI-generated music sounds like. That does not mean that they were impressed by it in reality. And novelty wears off ─ just having a million plays does not mean that AI-generated music will be successful in the long run.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 8:13 pmDo you know what novelty is? Just because a band has had a million people play them does not mean they are actually popular. They likely just played it wondering what AI-generated music sounds like. That does not mean that they were impressed by it in reality. And novelty wears off ─ just having a million plays does not mean that AI-generated music will be successful in the long run.

Sorry but I found the article and your explanation simply doesn't wash. Nothing in the article suggests that people knew the band was AI, let alone that they subscribed for the sheer novelty. It sounds like they genuinely enjoyed the music and thought they were listening to human musicians.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 8:36 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 8:13 pmDo you know what novelty is? Just because a band has had a million people play them does not mean they are actually popular. They likely just played it wondering what AI-generated music sounds like. That does not mean that they were impressed by it in reality. And novelty wears off ─ just having a million plays does not mean that AI-generated music will be successful in the long run.

Sorry but I found the article and your explanation simply doesn't wash. Nothing in the article suggests that people knew the band was AI, let alone that they subscribed for the sheer novelty. It sounds like they genuinely enjoyed the music and thought they were listening to human musicians.

lets assume thats correct...an AI band that only makes 4 songs in a year, and only makes 7 dollars a year...producers are as greedy as you say they are, they aren't going to sign those AI bands ever -- one million people is mayyybe the population of a city, yet even with that many subscribers, the band hasn't been raking in money.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 4:29 pm

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 9:32 amYep. Authenticity is the currency in the music business. Remember the Milli Vanilli scandal? People may to some degree get used to such manipulation, but only to some degree. An AI-generated music act can just not play live. This is already a problem with current mainstream pop acts where everything except the voice is put together on a computer, and even the voice is often manipulated by digital effects. There will be a market for AI-generated commercial jingles and such, but to sell a record, or concert tickets, you need something authentic.

Sure but I recall the headline saying the band had a million subscribers on Spotify which suggests that quite a number of people genuinely like it regardless of authenticity. Numerous human bands would kill for that kind of popularity.

You're assuming none of the subscribers are bots, and none of them are people with multiple accounts.

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 10:10 amlets assume thats correct...an AI band that only makes 4 songs in a year, and only makes 7 dollars a year...producers are as greedy as you say they are, they aren't going to sign those AI bands ever -- one million people is mayyybe the population of a city, yet even with that many subscribers, the band hasn't been raking in money.

Plenty of human bands would consider reaching one million listeners an unqualified success and spend their entire careers with far less popularity than this band. While the current profits for this band sound meager, you must also consider the incredibly low cost of creating AI band in the first place and the possibility of cranking up their productivity or spawning whole new bands with little effort. Imagine if they directed the band to new songs everyday or created dozens of bands in every genre. It would cost them much less than signing human musicians while allowing them to dominate music streaming through sheer numbers.

You're assuming none of the subscribers are bots, and none of them are people with multiple accounts.

That hardly matters, though, since that same point would apply just as well to any other band on the platform. We have no reason to assume that this band specifically has inflated subscriber numbers while the subscriber counts for all human bands are reliable.

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 11:13 am

keenir wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 10:10 amlets assume thats correct...an AI band that only makes 4 songs in a year, and only makes 7 dollars a year...producers are as greedy as you say they are, they aren't going to sign those AI bands ever -- one million people is mayyybe the population of a city, yet even with that many subscribers, the band hasn't been raking in money.

Plenty of human bands would consider reaching one million listeners an unqualified success and spend their entire careers with far less popularity than this band. While the current profits for this band sound meager, you must also consider the incredibly low cost of creating AI band in the first place and the possibility of cranking up their productivity or spawning whole new bands with little effort.

you're conflating again.

Malloc, most bands - whether they have a million listeners or more, or a million fans or more - can make $7 just by selling one CD of their music.

Imagine if they directed the band to new songs everyday or created dozens of bands in every genre.

oh so you're asking us to imagine if they did that, yet below, you want us to pretend that they're supernaturally unordinary. why do you imagine that they haven't already been directed to make many new songs for that band? they're AI, so don't they experience time faster than humans?

We have no reason to assume that this band specifically has inflated subscriber numbers while the subscriber counts for all human bands are reliable.

on the contrary, there are bots and robosubscribers in human band memberships, bboards, and many other place already.

You are dancing around the important point that AI has advanced to the point that many people cannot distinguish AI generated noise from human composed music. That opens the floodgates for AI to replace humans in the music industry given its extraordinary advantages of cost and productivity. Why music producers have refrained from hitting the gas on AI, I cannot say. Nonetheless the success of this band demonstrates that nothing in principle prevents AI from competing successfully against humans in music.

Hello everyone? What was the decision about the AI thread, again?

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 2:15 pm You are dancing around the important point that AI has advanced to the point that many people cannot distinguish AI generated noise from human composed music. That opens the floodgates for AI to replace humans in the music industry given its extraordinary advantages of cost and productivity.

a one-time purchase of a $7 music CD purchase x # of purchases for and by fans annually.

vs

an annual profit of $7 for everything an AI band creates.

gee, i think i see where the profit comes in...unless this is like how some realtors will arson their own properties in order to get the insurance.

Why music producers have refrained from hitting the gas on AI, I cannot say.

you're assuming they can hit the gas.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 2:34 pm Hello everyone? What was the decision about the AI thread, again?

Not to argue about if AI is going to kill us all?

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 2:34 pm Hello everyone? What was the decision about the AI thread, again?

Sorry for getting caught up in this. I think we can say that restarting the AI topic in another thread goes against that decision, and should end.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 3:12 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 2:34 pm Hello everyone? What was the decision about the AI thread, again?

Sorry for getting caught up in this. I think we can say that restarting the AI topic in another thread goes against that decision, and should end.

I second both points. my apologies.

I was (re)reading John James’s historical novel Not For All the Gold in Ireland, which is written from the perspective of a pagan Greek trader under the Roman Empire, and was struck by this passage:

John James wrote: When you have some skill or access to some commodity, and this has cost you a great deal of work in the past, then it is an act of impiety to the God who gave it to you not to show how much you value it by asking for it the highest price you can get. And if a man will not pay the price you demand, then he must go without. If he cannot pay for a fire or for food or for a doctor’s knowledge, then let him die of cold or hunger or disease. It is blasphemy for him to ask for food or firing or treatment free, and it is blasphemy for anyone to have pity on him and help him for nothing. This is the basic law of all religion, and the foundation of the science of medicine: no man is entitled to life unless he can pay for it.

I’m curious to know: does this reflect sentiments expressed by any real Greek (or Roman) writer? Or is this attitude just an invention of James’s?

Truly a horrible sentiment. If it does reflect ancient Greek pagan thought, then no wonder Nietzsche love them so much.

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Jul 18, 2025 8:08 am Truly a horrible sentiment. If it does reflect ancient Greek pagan thought, then no wonder Nietzsche love them so much.

Well, the protagonist (who’s speaking there) isn’t a particularly nice person in the first place…

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 4:10 pm I had a question that I wanted to ask the Random Thread. Not, I think, related to any of the recent topics here. But by the time I had gotten around to logging into the ZBB, I had forgotten what the question was. Where are trashy dystopian sci-fi brain scanners when you need them?

I think I remember it now!

What, exactly, is it about glasses wipes that makes them better for wiping glasses than other pieces of cloth?

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Jul 18, 2025 10:08 amI think I remember it now!

What, exactly, is it about glasses wipes that makes them better for wiping glasses than other pieces of cloth?

Glasses wipes are softer than most forms of cloth, making them less likely to scratch the lenses. That has always been my impression anyway.

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Jul 18, 2025 8:08 am Truly a horrible sentiment. If it does reflect ancient Greek pagan thought, then no wonder Nietzsche love them so much.

I'm no expert, but from what I have seen, Greek philosophers tended to range on this subject from "You have to give up everything you can spare to the poor to be a moral person," to "help if you can but not at your own detriment," to *shrugging and not really caring*.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jul 18, 2025 4:20 am I was (re)reading John James’s historical novel Not For All the Gold in Ireland, which is written from the perspective of a pagan Greek trader under the Roman Empire, and was struck by this passage:

John James wrote: When you have some skill or access to some commodity, and this has cost you a great deal of work in the past, then it is an act of impiety to the God who gave it to you not to show how much you value it by asking for it the highest price you can get. And if a man will not pay the price you demand, then he must go without. If he cannot pay for a fire or for food or for a doctor’s knowledge, then let him die of cold or hunger or disease. It is blasphemy for him to ask for food or firing or treatment free, and it is blasphemy for anyone to have pity on him and help him for nothing. This is the basic law of all religion, and the foundation of the science of medicine: no man is entitled to life unless he can pay for it.

I’m curious to know: does this reflect sentiments expressed by any real Greek (or Roman) writer? Or is this attitude just an invention of James’s?

I can't answer your question, but these sentiments remind me of certain people, especially those currently in power in the United States, but only there.

linguistcat wrote: ↑Fri Jul 18, 2025 10:57 am

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Jul 18, 2025 8:08 am Truly a horrible sentiment. If it does reflect ancient Greek pagan thought, then no wonder Nietzsche love them so much.

I'm no expert, but from what I have seen, Greek philosophers tended to range on this subject from "You have to give up everything you can spare to the poor to be a moral person," to "help if you can but not at your own detriment," to *shrugging and not really caring*.

That would make sense. It’s dangerous to generalise over whole societies, after all…