The parallels between your critique of music analysis, and linguists' critique of LLMs, bear remarkable similarities. "Language/thought is more than sequences of tokens" will still be true no matter how much data we throw at the problem to smooth the rough edges.
The parallelism doesn't really work, I'm going to try to stretch it to make a point though.
Imagine that we were at a stage in which LLMs didn't really make sentences, only output like "Potato rainbow screen sunny throat", then we studied which words are used. There's really not much value to the words at all, we could maybe see which words are bundled together, we could try to ascertain what kind of words are used more, but in wanting to study the coherence of it all, it just holds very, very little value.
Chords by themselves hold very little meaning. The sensations evoked come from chords in a context and the progression provides very valuable context. Talking about a chord in a song is like talking about a word in a book, it's never really about that piece of the puzzle appearing, it's about how that piece is used in the puzzle.
It does work, particularly the emphasis on causal sequences being wholly inefficient to represent multidimensional and abstract concepts such as those that exist in both language and music.
The fact that you never refer to "syntax" even in this attempt at high level reasoning gives me pause and I cannot help but to conclude that you are making arguments in bad faith.
There is a lot of mathematics that can be used to analyse language. Phonetics is basically acoustics, phonology has things like optimality theory, for morphology you can use finite state machines, syntax uses formal grammars, statistics obviously plays a big role in certain areas, etc.
Both in the case of music and linguistics, there are people who argue (probably not wholly without merit) that looking at the mathematics too much is missing the point.
A refusal to acknowledge such integral parts of these systems as semantics renders that line of argument wholly irrelevant. No good faith discussion cannot be conducted without participants who already understand the meaning behind symbols.
If you had more to say on the topic at hand, you would have said it by now. I'm not interested in trying to educate someone so comfortable in promulgating assertions informed by nothing but amateur-level vibes.
We could list the logical fallacies you're displaying in the spirit of "debate and reasoning" but I have no faith this would go anywhere productive.
Report me instead of complaining about guidelines if retaliation for being exposed for your ignorance is so important to you.
But it would be terribly wasteful to further entertain someone on the subject of music and artificial intelligence, when it is so evident they must first overcome their oblivious impertinence and emotional incompetence in order for such debate to be even moderately enjoyable to anyone else less arrogant and unhappy.
You assume my choice to not continue the conversation is because I have nothing to say, when in fact I do so because I have nothing to say to you specifically.
Oh good, you know big words. Next on the list is to learn the relevant big words for the things for which you claim competence. I'll wait.
PS: it's funny that your best comeback is just to imitate the critique I levied against you. You could demonstrate your "debate and reasoning" ability by crafting an actual argument, but you don't. I'm convinced that was not a cognizant choice but an act of desperation to save what's left of your ego. I've dealt with your type enough to know what you are, and after all this you will be forced to acknowledge the same... unless your ego really is strong enough to overcome your capacity for "reasoning".
Insofar as the "intention" is to expose yourself to multiple varied communities where you might find commonalities, sure. Other approaches carry a heavy whiff of manipulative behavior and should be treated with the appropriate amount of skepticism.
The author literally asked if the people were willing to take part in an experiment and clearly stated the goal. Doesn't sound very manipulative to me.
In my time in management, I found that the commonplace psychological descriptors we use failed to adequately describe what I was seeing. Two employees may both be “detail-oriented,” but there are subcategories within that depending on where the motivation comes from and those subcategories behave differently. Some people want that A+, some people like their squares square and their circles round (and it gives them anxiety when they’re not). Those groups are different, and I don’t know what to call them.
At bottom, there are ‘simple machines’ of psychology that, in combination with each other, produce behavioral traits at the top level. We don’t really have words for them, or at least not words I can think of for the ones I see.
The spectrum of political opinion isn't 1D. The causal links between political opinion and someone's propensity to vote are also far from straightforward. The feedback loops between media and the evolution of people's political opinions might be stronger than any principles people imagine themselves having. Altogether, Bernie was the compromise candidate, except that companies with "news" in the name but who emphatically argue in the courts that they are not news and only idiots would believe that they are, are the ones who really won this election, at the expense of nearly everyone else.
Immigration policy was the single largest policy issue of the Trump campaign. No, you can't play this game. No one is surprised that this is the policy. Everyone heard what he said about immigrants.
What I think you're trying to say is that some people fooled themselves that this was all a bit[1], and that he wouldn't actually do the things he was very clearly and very loudly saying he would do.
But he would, and he did, and now he has. And that's on you, not some fiction you told yourself about the candidate.
[1] Not the only such area. See the embarassing mess in Bill Ackman's twitter output over the past week.
Maybe you would need to explicate your definition of "immigrant" before continuing. All visas are "temporary" so that is a meaningless qualification in this context.
> immigrant (noun) - a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
The US has two classes of visas: immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. Student visas are the latter along with things like tourist visas. People here simply to go to school on student visas are not immigrants.
It's worth noting that this is another example of the "Trump would never do that" to "Okay, first of all, I don't agree with your definition of 'concentration camp'" pipeline.
Maybe if your politics are far left, but nationwide polling showed that he was consistently trailing Clinton. Even diehard Bernie supporters would admit he was left of Clinton, and considering that there are Republican candidates as well, it's laughable to claim he was a "compromise" candidate.
Please re-read my comments about the feedback loop between media and voting behavior. There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the depiction of both candidates in mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders. Making the obvious conclusion, of course polls would reflect this disparity.
>There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the depiction of both candidates in mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders.
So you take national poll numbers, apply a handwavy fudge factor for "mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders", and conclude that Sanders is the "compromise candidate"? Doesn't seem very rigorous. It also doesn't address the fact that Sanders was the left-most candidate, and there are republicans to the right of him and Clinton. On a spectrum of Sanders, Clinton, and whatever other Republicans there are, there's no plausible case to be made that Sanders is somehow the "compromise" (median?) candidate. Finally, the" mainstream news" denigrated Trump as well, arguably more. Does that make him the "compromise candidate" even more?
Would you like to revise your comments now that you understand your assumptions are misplaced? I suggest you do a lot more reading into the sentiments depicted by mainstream news sources on each candidate before replying.
A more reasonable application of Occam's razor is that humans also don't meet the definition of "intelligence". Reasoning and perception are separate faculties and need not align. Just because we feel like we're making decisions, doesn't mean we are.
reply