I'll be delivering a class/seminar for Friends Of CC Music on The History of A.I., tentatively on Feb. 21 2026. I'm sharing a draft of (some of) the classes/seminars concluding statements here early as both food for thought and commentary.
Music & “A.I.” (Advanced Idiots)
*Concluding Thoughts Draft*
While much of the same can be stated for the arts in the greater general, musically speaking, the term "A.I." is near, if not completely, synonymous with the term "synthesizer". As such, I've been yet to see an argument, be it for or against "A.I." in the musical sphere, that's been anything other than a rehash of past arguments about “synthesizers” in the same sphere .
The first serious modern advent of "analogue (acoustic) synthesizers" driven by "biological A.I." player systems was in fact the orchestra. The various acoustic instrument sections of the orchestra acting in capacities of oscillators and oscillator wave shape selections. People often forget that THE INSTRUMENTALIST DOES NOT EXIST IN A "CREATIVE" ROLL IN THE ORCHESTRA
... Show more...I'll be delivering a class/seminar for Friends Of CC Music on The History of A.I., tentatively on Feb. 21 2026. I'm sharing a draft of (some of) the classes/seminars concluding statements here early as both food for thought and commentary.
Music & “A.I.” (Advanced Idiots)
*Concluding Thoughts Draft*
While much of the same can be stated for the arts in the greater general, musically speaking, the term "A.I." is near, if not completely, synonymous with the term "synthesizer". As such, I've been yet to see an argument, be it for or against "A.I." in the musical sphere, that's been anything other than a rehash of past arguments about “synthesizers” in the same sphere .
The first serious modern advent of "analogue (acoustic) synthesizers" driven by "biological A.I." player systems was in fact the orchestra. The various acoustic instrument sections of the orchestra acting in capacities of oscillators and oscillator wave shape selections. People often forget that THE INSTRUMENTALIST DOES NOT EXIST IN A "CREATIVE" ROLL IN THE ORCHESTRA. In fact, the roll of the instrumentalist was and continues to be simply to act in the capacity of “automa”, where they are ready to both receive and interpret procedural instruction AND execute said instruction with a high degree of technical efficiency and accuracy. Achieving "First Chair" in the orchestra being synonymous with being labeled "The most effective biological A.I." at the given roll placement. Subsequently the "Conductor" of the orchestra serving simply as the "player" or "orchestrator" of the acoustical synthesis and biological A.I. driven system. All be it in arguably an esoteric fashion, I feel the film Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure spoke well to this via it's scene of unleashing historical figures of the past into a later 20th century shopping mall, where among other happenings, Beethoven is introduced to both musical synthesis and sequencing technologies of the later 1980s. Understandably, freed from the constraints of needing extremely high budget concert halls coupled to high cost individual acoustic instruments, and even more high cost biological human ("A.I.") players of the instruments, Beethoven proceeds to joyously lose his mind and go creatively wild.
youtube.com/watch?v=H2DeBG7pAX…
To put some of the film’s more “esoteric” (hidden) message into a more “exoteric” (publicly understood) context, it’s perhaps worth noting that while the 20th century musical technologies of the 80s not only freed Beethoven of his regular high cost finance constraints while also placing him into more direct and efficient rolls of both control and creativity, it also served as what would have been for his time (and effectively proved to be) a huge monetary economics job disrupter, if not full on destroyer. It disrupted/destroyed the need for the design and construction of the large acoustically adapted concert hall, the need for the large multitude of instruments, as well as the needs for not only the players paired to those instruments, but also the time and finance needed to train those players to be technically efficient in reading music, understanding conductor instruction, and executing play instructions on the instruments to high degrees of technical efficiency. However, in order to both gain and take effective use of his liberation, Beethoven himself was required to hold certain degrees of technical knowledge, understanding, and actionable creative prowess that the technology, by itself, did not and could not give him. Toward such ends, the technology proved NOT to be a threat to the sufficiently knowledgeable and creative, but it did prove as an existential threat explicitly to the sufficiently ignorant AND non-creative.
For those musical artist that feel at threat by “A.I.”, I would propose a simple scientific proof of sorts to relieve them of their concerns. Simply get together with a “band” comprised of two or more flexible musicians (meaning they aren’t bound to any set particular style or genre) that they find of respectable merit, insert any given “A.I.” system that will act as a final musician in the ensemble that is to receive no human control or instruction beyond when to begin, and finally, without any pre-writing or rehearsal, simply give a “1, 2, 3, GO!” and proceed to punk rock jazz free improv on the spot. I assure, the weakest link in the chain will be the “A.I.”; quickly, if not immediately, tripping all over itself and everyone else and revealing itself as little more than an “Advanced Idiot” at best. The reasoning for this is, just as in Beethoven’s time, in contrast to when Bill & Ted led to his introduction to the 20th century synthesizer, the “A.I.” not only lacked “soul” (a seemingly key component to the creative arts according to Erik B and Rakim), but by it’s nature, was only ever capable of replacing the rolls of the sufficiently ignorant and non-creative. It is towards such ends that I would argue that “A.I.” fears speak more towards the very real threat that truly meaningful synthesis technologies have always posed towards the sufficiently ignorant and non-creative. Further, that such threats are applicable to not only “producers” of content, but also to the consumer audiences of “A.I.” content. In essence, “A.I.” fears, notably when taken at large scale, may be just as misplaced as the Beethoven of Bill & Ted would have found fears against the musical technologies that liberated him and perhaps, in reality, speak more towards unacknowledged and systemic issues in regards to standing ignorances, relatable lacks of meaningful education systems, and finally, both related and subsequent lacks in publicly understood technologies and accessible tools that enable liberated agency and creativity.
#Music #AI #AdvancedIdiots #FriendsOfCCMusic #Arts #Technology #Synthesizers #Synthesis #MachineIntelligence #Automation #Creativity #Disruption #Economics #BlocSonicRecords #ChurchOfSpace
unmittelbar
in reply to Alien (A23P) • • •or do we use the tautology that we are fatal to justify our flaws?
if so, then do we not have a fatal flaw?
unmittelbar
in reply to Alien (A23P) • • •- YouTube
www.youtube.comunmittelbar
in reply to Alien (A23P) • • •equivalent statement found in "everything's gnarly
pls don't take me to be moralizing. I'm not isolating any action as immoral, but rather indicating that every sustaining or pleasurable action in the world is dependent on things that we don't care to appreciate if we live psychologically attached to these entities in their sense-object form.
And I would say every flaw a person can mention is at root negligence of some higher purpose, because we don't say "flaw" to actual immorality, we just assume it comes from a flawed personality. If there is flaws-awareness, there's hope, even if it's hope qualified by overcoming doubt.
And I think a lot rests on tautologies acting as on-switches for everything gnarly. The real moral question is: can we have anything gnarly and maintain self-control and Self-awareness (own-needs and the needs of the contextualized self, the "higher self"--not as a goal or ideal, but as a continuous "thinking out" done by people to differing degrees all the time, whose integral limit for all numbers is the referent of the word God.
KATSEYE (캣츠아이) "Gnarly" Official MV
HYBE LABELS (YouTube)unmittelbar
in reply to Alien (A23P) • • •Alien (A23P)
in reply to Alien (A23P) • •1. Are you the author ov Project V?
2. I question the employ of both the words "god" and (even more so) "gods"
unmittelbar likes this.
unmittelbar
in reply to Alien (A23P) • • •That's where we differ old buddy, old pal...I think having Jung as an early influence made me parse psychic content (whatever it may be) first on a pre-rational level, giving it the primacy and then deriving statements after the fact in the sense of the individual (or in this case religio-human nexus) as a whole entity. In this sense, you may find that my usage is not subsequent to the logic of god or gods, but rather integrating it on a psychic level concerning the whole entity of humanity and gaia--the "why" and "what" of this interesting preoccupation as we exist in the cosmos.
As I recently determined: there is no winning rational arguments with reason. What is more important to me is spreading the awareness of "irrationales"--that we no longer need to justify ourselves exclusively, but rather justification itself is overrated. Rather, we should try and move past our differences into an integration space--I'm well past values, but the double meaning
... Show more...That's where we differ old buddy, old pal...I think having Jung as an early influence made me parse psychic content (whatever it may be) first on a pre-rational level, giving it the primacy and then deriving statements after the fact in the sense of the individual (or in this case religio-human nexus) as a whole entity. In this sense, you may find that my usage is not subsequent to the logic of god or gods, but rather integrating it on a psychic level concerning the whole entity of humanity and gaia--the "why" and "what" of this interesting preoccupation as we exist in the cosmos.
As I recently determined: there is no winning rational arguments with reason. What is more important to me is spreading the awareness of "irrationales"--that we no longer need to justify ourselves exclusively, but rather justification itself is overrated. Rather, we should try and move past our differences into an integration space--I'm well past values, but the double meaning of outputs of functions, as rational results, haunts my work like a specter.
Glad to see your waves!
unmittelbar
in reply to Alien (A23P) • • •unmittelbar
in reply to Alien (A23P) • • •can you name me something else that humans have gotten wrong for 10s of thousands of years?
even market is just shaking after 500 years--but that term is very old itself.
and is market wrong, or are rather we suffering under the definition of "the market", especially the culture that surrounds it?
i am making an appeal to authority, but to which authority? All things we can know and influence happen in a homogenous reactive space, while all things in general also include inhomogeneity to either our systems of knowledge (their homogeneity--e.g. "God" "the market") or under the influence of things we cannot know, like ordered subsets of inhomogeneous space (agents of chaos, renegade monks).
This epistemology limits our knowledge to within homogeneity with the thing (interoperability) or its space (which includes our inhomogeneous action.) The extent to which interoperability with me counts accords with its homogeneous reality insofar as we understand it, and interferes which inhomogenous reality insofar as the latter exists. Lacking
... Show more...can you name me something else that humans have gotten wrong for 10s of thousands of years?
even market is just shaking after 500 years--but that term is very old itself.
and is market wrong, or are rather we suffering under the definition of "the market", especially the culture that surrounds it?
i am making an appeal to authority, but to which authority? All things we can know and influence happen in a homogenous reactive space, while all things in general also include inhomogeneity to either our systems of knowledge (their homogeneity--e.g. "God" "the market") or under the influence of things we cannot know, like ordered subsets of inhomogeneous space (agents of chaos, renegade monks).
This epistemology limits our knowledge to within homogeneity with the thing (interoperability) or its space (which includes our inhomogeneous action.) The extent to which interoperability with me counts accords with its homogeneous reality insofar as we understand it, and interferes which inhomogenous reality insofar as the latter exists. Lacking the first knowledge, nothing seems real.
I propose God is a simplex. According knowledge exclusively to rational elements results in more simpler explainers, and a stint with "science"--but agnosis is not not-knowing: it refers to the knowledge of the gaps. Exactly as God is used is how God is meant to be known: the unknown and our homogenous link to the mystery of change.
By including the rational and the irrational, God has all-factorization (i.e. teleology.), and so to give up what God has in trade of one's own self-factorization (sharira) is what critics call materialism, because it limits the knowledge. To understand the paths of things, or rather, non-things.
The highest postulate was the homogeneity of the highest, that all things happen. The deepest postulate was the integrity of inhomogeneity, chance meets change. To see coincidence always as an act of God opens the meaning gates, but it radically changes the search: thence religious groups function well for themselves. We moderns are missing the ability to form non-alternative groups--those that can operate in open society. Granted, this isn't a modern issue, but a religious one.
How would we operate if we openly stated our virtues? I think it would be second to a conditioning-response-request "God" subsequent to which we could parlay with the aliens, or any worldly neighbors who might not understand the things we mean.
if it doesn't happen, it isn't a thing.
you can have cultures without markets, but in order to have a word for things--for abstractions--it must become knowledge to begin with--thus knowledge becomes a vortex of character unless we posess the key to all-things and all-knowledge: this portal word is the first one an expeditionary party learns (speaking openly about the highest good--this is knowledge of Brahman). Then they appeal to their best interests (values). Finally they employ weapons.
The processof knowledge always employs abstractions, but unless there is a common unifying factor irrespective of input, then all abstractions are divising. Epistemology without guardrails is a thing, but it is what I preach as well as follow, into the club with you.
I serve the same usage of god I mean to unfollow: always a magnetic friend wish.
god is for many suspect, because it can be synonymous with self. I argue this misses the point in favor of adding unnecessary dimensionality to the mindspace. First off, then you have to prove everything, which roses start to stink like poo poo.
To claim our knowledge is the limit, we say "I am just the abstractor"--but we do not attain to homogeneity--this leads to disappointment. Agnosis acknowledges knowledge from a limited homogeneity, but it reaches the numinous exactly when that numinosity breaches our open cavities.
I say "integral limit for all numbers is the referent of the word God" I mean numbers in the sanskrit sense (sankhya): an accounted-for-ness of material things in the context of yoga: a togetherness synchronicity (e.g. flow, epistemologically religious extacy/bliss).
This is somethiing more than just the functional extent of the word. I mean that as an ordering potential, locating god will lead us to it: this goes past everything--beyond good, evil, and even the self.
i am unfortunately not one who causes absence gladly, therefore your lack of question was not well-met, since I consider you a friend and a reader. Perhaps this was an important conversation in the chapter of values.
The main failure of the V-project was not in the religiosity of its writer, but in the lack thereof: only true solidarity will refine words, and we think far too highly and lowly of ourselves at the same time. We humans tend to think so much about ourselves.
In developing language, God comes from beyond, but in ordering the world we learn about beyondness, as it were: to talk about this and mean beyond in the limit always refers to the same as much as it is different: it forces omni-presence, omnipotence, and all-knowingness one way or the other. I speak beyond homogeneity, which I naively thought values would reach.
We lack a connecting principle which brings us outside of ourselves--sex could be this for many, a good thing which could be refinable--what beyond raw power and control could refine a good thing to make it a cultural good?
As good as this value is, it gets highlighted because no one asserts values. No one does this either because they do do it, and they doo doo all over it--99% of God stuff--or they don't do it, and I want to speak critically about that--I can't really offer you questions, but feel free to pick apart my arguments--obviously if you don't believe it, then you will continue.
by karma, I believe that all things exist by choice, and most of that choice is the world sustaining us--the more we lose this belief, the closer it comes to meet us screaming, willing the illusion to shatter at the loss of life, at the chaos of intention. The world's gods scream, and our silence shatters--some people get religious.
I must go to relieve myself of such preoccupations with truth and beauty, and I respect your values. You will not see a criticism of ~them~ here.
I appreciate this, but the question is not there--it's more a statement about your mindset and interest right? as you can probably see, the employ is a humble matter of hierarchy: the authority for all things is in their homogeneity.
At the moment I study non-homogeneity and chaos, therefore our reunion is well met!
unmittelbar
in reply to Alien (A23P) • • •tldr I recommend God augments the values of sex, science, and values themselves.
If this response to #weird had a motto, it would be:
I think it's a relic of my values-awareness that I tend to segway into gappable-value valencies in people--don't mean to come off as an alien arrival front of incarnating entities who integrate into the divine content of reality and try to leave the world better than we found it. You have your "suicide is always an option," but there are significant gains to be had in the universal cosmic travel--even open acknowledgement would do the species a world of good--but God is hard? I say God is without context to be expected, because other than divine work I am in divine bliss.
unmittelbar
in reply to Alien (A23P) • • •