handy2000

Ableton Live already has Microtuner (https://www.ableton.com/en/packs/microtuner/), I haven't heard it being used much though. Also, Bitwig released the Micro-Pitch device years ago.

I am curious whether a better Live integration is going to lead to more usage.

Interesting point re: technique vs structure. Structure is in general a much harder aspect to both master and innovate in.

I am curious, why do you consider Glass a more innovative composer than, say, Reich? Reich's counterpoint and phase music seem to have pushed music forward more noticeably than Glass (outside of, perhaps, Einstein on the Beach).

Apologies for hijacking the conversation. Would you be able to recommend any reading specifically on complex UI for critical operations?

In an ideal world I would agree with you without reservations. Maybe I am too jaded, but find it hard to trust an UAE oil exec not to have an ulterior motive.

Right, agreed - it's an improvement over what we currently use! From what I read E-fuel is very expensive to produce, so I was surprised by the possibility of airplanes switching to it.

E-fuel is different from SAF that is described in this article. E-fuel is carbon-neutral and SAF is low-carbon (made from tallow, algae, etc).

The fuel mentioned in the article — "sustainable aviation fuels, or SAF" — is biofuel I believe, not synthetic fuel.

Do you mean synthetic fuel? Haven't heard of Formula1 being interested in biofuel.

> Is it snake oil?

It's biofuel made from palm oil, algae, tallow, etc.

I agree with you in principle: if a person (don't think it's reasonable to limit this to children only) dies due to some consequence of society we can change, there is a shared responsibility on all of us to face this injustice. But this is wildly impractical, attention is a valuable and limited commodity. This whole thread is dedicated to that specific notion: neither the media, nor individually we can't collect, process and raise awareness of all unjust deaths. So then the question is, what is the process for choosing and reporting these injustices?

> if a child dies due to some consequence of society we’re capable of changing, we should be forced to look upon those images

Just to reiterate: this is impossible due to various unresolvable constraints.

He will solve the negative effects of climate change at a week-long conference?

I see, thanks for clarifying.

I don't necessarily see how this is treacherous. Most Israelis, at least at and around the time of founding the state of Israel, were European immigrants. Some of the founders of Israel weren't even religious. Of course, it's safe to assume that at least practicing Jews carried over some traditions and, perhaps, values from their non-western origin, but it's not like fifth generation Polish Jews were in all respects non-westerners by the time they moved to Israel.

There are many reasons for this, one of the key reasons being less insidious than you imply. Americans see Israelis as people with the same "western" values, same cultural and ethical norms. Most Americans are not shocked by tribal violence in Yemen (as despicable as it is by general humanistic standards), but can relate and identify with Israelis both experiencing violence and inflicting it.

I agree with you that we need to always provide clear context for what is happening in this specific situation, not rush to judgment and not to be as reactive in general. Israelis are defending themselves, Hamas is clearly using their own people as human shields. Saying that, Israel does have other options in this war, options that would reduce the civilian death count (e.g. allowing women and children leave Gaza for Israel, even at the cost of an increased terrorist activity).

> All of them. How is this not obvious?

Not sure if you are in agreement with the comment you are replying to or challenging it. If the latter - your stance does not address the question. All unjust deaths are tragic, we could have thick magazines published daily listing details of unjust deaths of children just in the US. So the question is what do we pay attention to? (Apologies if I misunderstood your comment.)

For most people with this mindset money is the ultimate good. If something they do makes money, it's an unquestionable benefit. Most people with this mindset either become very rich or end up in prison.

Your example is overly focused on a small detail. I think what the parent commenter means, is that it's fairly uncommon to see highly attractive women who subscribe to the idea of "everyone is beautiful" date conventionally unattractive men.

Just to add to that: confidence is often a wonderful substitute (or an enhancer?) for conventional physical attractiveness.

Fat is not an inalienable trait though. It’s not something you are, it’s something you become. I would rather be an Arab than fat is a comical observation.

In terms of being ugly… it’s a way more flexible quality than people care to admit. Being fit, successful, undergoing plastic surgery, using makeup, dressing fashionably, etc - so many ways to improve your perceived attractiveness.

> AGI might be a modern form of divine 'rest,'

AGI? Are you commenting from the future?

Yes... and? Both Cave's letter and my comment are directed at songwriters.

> Someone at the factory wrote and programmed that song, so he probably would consider it art.

That's clearly not the argument I was making.

> What if I use an AI chord generator and decide which chords to use in my song based on what the AI generates?

"Write me a pop song" == not you. "Create a chord progression in the key of E major" plus you yourself write the actual song and lyrics == you.

A pretty important distinction between machines in the 1980s and ChatGPT is the amount of human effort that the output requires. It's unlikely that Herbie Hancock considers people who press "start" on a Casio synthesizer to play a factory programmed demo track real musicians.

If someone incorporates a factory preset into a song - sure, nothing's wrong with that. That's when a machine is used as a tool, not as a substitute for human creativity.

You are completely missing the point Cave is making. He is not arguing against ChatGPT as a technology. He is reminding songwriters that writing lyrics is not a meaningless obstruction standing between them and a commodity they are producing. The process of writing lyrics is what makes them songwriters. The attempt to "optimize" this process to such an extent that it removes the songwriter from it is a dead end.

I agree with Cave's perhaps overly dramatized response. But overall it's a response to a very early misinterpretation of what statistics-based models are for. Sure, they are capable of producing an output that looks like a product of human creativity, but so are e.g. chance-based techniques (dice rolling to pick a sequence of notes in a scale). LLMs should and will be used as tools, they won't replace human creativity in any meaningful sense.

> auto-mirroring to bittorrent

Oh, haven't heard of this technique before. Very cool!

I encountered this approach before (I think here on HN) and had a question since then: when video ads run faster, can't YT just compare the expected time to the actual time and flag the user, show an anti-ad blocking popup, etc?

Oh right! Mescaline became known in the US artistic and scientific circles a bit earlier than psilocybin.

Visually it's not that different from a lot of current psychedelic imagery. E.g. the Eurorack video synthesis scene.

The creators most likely took inspiration from their personal experiences smoking reefers (probably too early for psilocybin considering it's 1940s, but possible too!).

And even more off-topic (sorry!).

To this day I find pretty elemental algorithmic and/or deterministic composition experiments far more inspiring and idiosyncratic than gen AI. There is such a wide gap between gen AI sound generation and the prompter, that the result feels utterly disconnected from the composer's intent.