<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_24_2315204</id>
	<title>Triumph of the Cyborg Composer</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1267019880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"UC Santa Cruz emeritus professor David Cope's software, nicknamed Emmy, <a href="http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/">creates beautiful original music</a>. So why are people so angry about that? From the article: 'Cope attracted praise from musicians and computer scientists, but his creation raised troubling questions: If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart? And was there really any soul behind the great works, or were Beethoven and his ilk just clever mathematical manipulators of notes?'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " UC Santa Cruz emeritus professor David Cope 's software , nicknamed Emmy , creates beautiful original music .
So why are people so angry about that ?
From the article : 'Cope attracted praise from musicians and computer scientists , but his creation raised troubling questions : If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals , then what was so special about Mozart ?
And was there really any soul behind the great works , or were Beethoven and his ilk just clever mathematical manipulators of notes ?
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "UC Santa Cruz emeritus professor David Cope's software, nicknamed Emmy, creates beautiful original music.
So why are people so angry about that?
From the article: 'Cope attracted praise from musicians and computer scientists, but his creation raised troubling questions: If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?
And was there really any soul behind the great works, or were Beethoven and his ilk just clever mathematical manipulators of notes?
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31278514</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267095780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How long before the RIAA sues the robot?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto!
</p><p>
(This whole thread's been about Styx, right from the Subject: line.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before the RIAA sues the robot ?
Domo arigato , Mr. Roboto ! ( This whole thread 's been about Styx , right from the Subject : line .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before the RIAA sues the robot?
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto!

(This whole thread's been about Styx, right from the Subject: line.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268750</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1265134320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact that a relatively simple machine (especially when we look back ten or fifty years from now) can do what was originally thought to be difficult undermines the pedestal that many humans have put themselves on. This is why people were upset when Deep Blue beat Kasparov. It would have to be a skill that we've abandoned as uniquely human - such as raw mathematical calculations - that a machine would be allowed to beat us at without this sort of reaction.</p><p>Fact is, what's hard for humans to do isn't necessarily hard for a computer, but those who fail to understand that get upset.</p></div><p>You miss the difference between Mozart and a computer.  It is extraordinarily easy for me to get a computer to produce a Mozart symphony.  At the simplest, I put a Mozart CD into a CD player and the computer program in the CD player carefully produces Mozart tunes.  Only one level more complex is hard-coding the tunes into the program itself so it really is a program producing Mozart.  If you want to get a bit more complex, you can have a nifty algorithm that you have carefully tuned to produce something that sounds a bit like Mozart from whatever source you like (genetic algorithms, or whatever composition algorithm this program uses).  Mozart himself, however, did not have a professor directly programming his brain with an algorithm (not even an AI genetic algorithm -- the music itself was not encoded in his DNA), nor a few centuries of academic analysis of his own compositions to derive the algorithms from.  He had to start from scratch, learn his own craft, find his own style, with not much more than a piano teacher and a disdain for Salieri.  And of course that was after growing himself from a single cell and inducing what the concept of "music" means in the first place.</p><p>The computer has done nothing special at all.  It has blindly implemented the algorithm its programmer told it to.  If the output is beautiful music, then that suggests the algorithms (or the algorithms' value functions in an iterative approach) correspond to some things that humans consider beautiful in music; it says nothing about computers.  They are still just the mechanical implementations of human-derived algorithms that they always were.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that a relatively simple machine ( especially when we look back ten or fifty years from now ) can do what was originally thought to be difficult undermines the pedestal that many humans have put themselves on .
This is why people were upset when Deep Blue beat Kasparov .
It would have to be a skill that we 've abandoned as uniquely human - such as raw mathematical calculations - that a machine would be allowed to beat us at without this sort of reaction.Fact is , what 's hard for humans to do is n't necessarily hard for a computer , but those who fail to understand that get upset.You miss the difference between Mozart and a computer .
It is extraordinarily easy for me to get a computer to produce a Mozart symphony .
At the simplest , I put a Mozart CD into a CD player and the computer program in the CD player carefully produces Mozart tunes .
Only one level more complex is hard-coding the tunes into the program itself so it really is a program producing Mozart .
If you want to get a bit more complex , you can have a nifty algorithm that you have carefully tuned to produce something that sounds a bit like Mozart from whatever source you like ( genetic algorithms , or whatever composition algorithm this program uses ) .
Mozart himself , however , did not have a professor directly programming his brain with an algorithm ( not even an AI genetic algorithm -- the music itself was not encoded in his DNA ) , nor a few centuries of academic analysis of his own compositions to derive the algorithms from .
He had to start from scratch , learn his own craft , find his own style , with not much more than a piano teacher and a disdain for Salieri .
And of course that was after growing himself from a single cell and inducing what the concept of " music " means in the first place.The computer has done nothing special at all .
It has blindly implemented the algorithm its programmer told it to .
If the output is beautiful music , then that suggests the algorithms ( or the algorithms ' value functions in an iterative approach ) correspond to some things that humans consider beautiful in music ; it says nothing about computers .
They are still just the mechanical implementations of human-derived algorithms that they always were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that a relatively simple machine (especially when we look back ten or fifty years from now) can do what was originally thought to be difficult undermines the pedestal that many humans have put themselves on.
This is why people were upset when Deep Blue beat Kasparov.
It would have to be a skill that we've abandoned as uniquely human - such as raw mathematical calculations - that a machine would be allowed to beat us at without this sort of reaction.Fact is, what's hard for humans to do isn't necessarily hard for a computer, but those who fail to understand that get upset.You miss the difference between Mozart and a computer.
It is extraordinarily easy for me to get a computer to produce a Mozart symphony.
At the simplest, I put a Mozart CD into a CD player and the computer program in the CD player carefully produces Mozart tunes.
Only one level more complex is hard-coding the tunes into the program itself so it really is a program producing Mozart.
If you want to get a bit more complex, you can have a nifty algorithm that you have carefully tuned to produce something that sounds a bit like Mozart from whatever source you like (genetic algorithms, or whatever composition algorithm this program uses).
Mozart himself, however, did not have a professor directly programming his brain with an algorithm (not even an AI genetic algorithm -- the music itself was not encoded in his DNA), nor a few centuries of academic analysis of his own compositions to derive the algorithms from.
He had to start from scratch, learn his own craft, find his own style, with not much more than a piano teacher and a disdain for Salieri.
And of course that was after growing himself from a single cell and inducing what the concept of "music" means in the first place.The computer has done nothing special at all.
It has blindly implemented the algorithm its programmer told it to.
If the output is beautiful music, then that suggests the algorithms (or the algorithms' value functions in an iterative approach) correspond to some things that humans consider beautiful in music; it says nothing about computers.
They are still just the mechanical implementations of human-derived algorithms that they always were.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268380</id>
	<title>Nothing new here...</title>
	<author>Spy der Mann</author>
	<datestamp>1265130240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since I learned about harmony, chords and progressions, I knew that there would be a way where music could be parametrized and be written by a computer without need for a composer. Just fill in the rules, add some transitions here and there, and use these instruments. Ta-da!</p><p>Music is a mathematical concept (I learned that since watching Donald Duck in the Mathmagic land when I was 8). It's only natural that computers can do something that is by its nature, mathematical.</p><p>However, just because music can be written by a machine, doesn't make the machine superior. After all, musical genres are born and some new twists to old classics are done. This requires something called creativity - and that's a quality that machines cannot have. Certainly, I can listen to a beautiful sonata or (insert your favorite music kind here) with randomly-generated sequences. However, can a machine write a song about how I felt the time I watched a full moon over the sea while the sun was just rising?</p><p>Well maybe a machine could do that in the future... when androids are able to dream with electric sheep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I learned about harmony , chords and progressions , I knew that there would be a way where music could be parametrized and be written by a computer without need for a composer .
Just fill in the rules , add some transitions here and there , and use these instruments .
Ta-da ! Music is a mathematical concept ( I learned that since watching Donald Duck in the Mathmagic land when I was 8 ) .
It 's only natural that computers can do something that is by its nature , mathematical.However , just because music can be written by a machine , does n't make the machine superior .
After all , musical genres are born and some new twists to old classics are done .
This requires something called creativity - and that 's a quality that machines can not have .
Certainly , I can listen to a beautiful sonata or ( insert your favorite music kind here ) with randomly-generated sequences .
However , can a machine write a song about how I felt the time I watched a full moon over the sea while the sun was just rising ? Well maybe a machine could do that in the future... when androids are able to dream with electric sheep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I learned about harmony, chords and progressions, I knew that there would be a way where music could be parametrized and be written by a computer without need for a composer.
Just fill in the rules, add some transitions here and there, and use these instruments.
Ta-da!Music is a mathematical concept (I learned that since watching Donald Duck in the Mathmagic land when I was 8).
It's only natural that computers can do something that is by its nature, mathematical.However, just because music can be written by a machine, doesn't make the machine superior.
After all, musical genres are born and some new twists to old classics are done.
This requires something called creativity - and that's a quality that machines cannot have.
Certainly, I can listen to a beautiful sonata or (insert your favorite music kind here) with randomly-generated sequences.
However, can a machine write a song about how I felt the time I watched a full moon over the sea while the sun was just rising?Well maybe a machine could do that in the future... when androids are able to dream with electric sheep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267774</id>
	<title>Beauty is in the ear of the beholder</title>
	<author>ciaohound</author>
	<datestamp>1265124480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real test is whether it can be used to drive the loitering kids away from convenience stores and McDonald's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real test is whether it can be used to drive the loitering kids away from convenience stores and McDonald 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real test is whether it can be used to drive the loitering kids away from convenience stores and McDonald's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268402</id>
	<title>Removal of common experience?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265130540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the limit, we could stop copying or sharing any music recordings, as our "players" could simply be real-time composer and synthesizer devices that give us our own unique stream of music (unique among all listeners, and among all times for one listener).  This leads me to several vaguely opposing observations:</p><p>Many people would object, because to them music is a social activity. The masses don't really want to sit and listen deeply to music in private. No matter how engaging it might be, what they really care about is whether others are listening to it as well.</p><p>Others might object because a common way of privately enjoying music is to listen to something familiar for its nostalgic value. Having a constant stream of novel music would diminish the chances of reminiscing.</p><p>On the other hand, even these dynamic systems would then open a new meta-art: revising and circulating the rulesets that drive these dynamic music machines. Those rules would be the new creative compositions, explored and communicated among people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the limit , we could stop copying or sharing any music recordings , as our " players " could simply be real-time composer and synthesizer devices that give us our own unique stream of music ( unique among all listeners , and among all times for one listener ) .
This leads me to several vaguely opposing observations : Many people would object , because to them music is a social activity .
The masses do n't really want to sit and listen deeply to music in private .
No matter how engaging it might be , what they really care about is whether others are listening to it as well.Others might object because a common way of privately enjoying music is to listen to something familiar for its nostalgic value .
Having a constant stream of novel music would diminish the chances of reminiscing.On the other hand , even these dynamic systems would then open a new meta-art : revising and circulating the rulesets that drive these dynamic music machines .
Those rules would be the new creative compositions , explored and communicated among people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the limit, we could stop copying or sharing any music recordings, as our "players" could simply be real-time composer and synthesizer devices that give us our own unique stream of music (unique among all listeners, and among all times for one listener).
This leads me to several vaguely opposing observations:Many people would object, because to them music is a social activity.
The masses don't really want to sit and listen deeply to music in private.
No matter how engaging it might be, what they really care about is whether others are listening to it as well.Others might object because a common way of privately enjoying music is to listen to something familiar for its nostalgic value.
Having a constant stream of novel music would diminish the chances of reminiscing.On the other hand, even these dynamic systems would then open a new meta-art: revising and circulating the rulesets that drive these dynamic music machines.
Those rules would be the new creative compositions, explored and communicated among people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267806</id>
	<title>It has limits</title>
	<author>xbeefsupreme</author>
	<datestamp>1265124720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may be able to create pretty sounding melodies because of the rules involved with music writing.  If you take a music theory class, you get told certain rules that must be followed: how cords can progress, intervals to avoid etc. If you just translate those rules to computer code, then anything it makes will sound good.  What it cannot create is real creativity.  There are some composers such as Wagner, Mahler and Stravinsky who chose to break those rules.  Their music doesn't sound pretty, but it is very enjoyable and it obeys enough of those rules to sound good.  In short, we'll never see a computer compose something like the rite of spring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be able to create pretty sounding melodies because of the rules involved with music writing .
If you take a music theory class , you get told certain rules that must be followed : how cords can progress , intervals to avoid etc .
If you just translate those rules to computer code , then anything it makes will sound good .
What it can not create is real creativity .
There are some composers such as Wagner , Mahler and Stravinsky who chose to break those rules .
Their music does n't sound pretty , but it is very enjoyable and it obeys enough of those rules to sound good .
In short , we 'll never see a computer compose something like the rite of spring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be able to create pretty sounding melodies because of the rules involved with music writing.
If you take a music theory class, you get told certain rules that must be followed: how cords can progress, intervals to avoid etc.
If you just translate those rules to computer code, then anything it makes will sound good.
What it cannot create is real creativity.
There are some composers such as Wagner, Mahler and Stravinsky who chose to break those rules.
Their music doesn't sound pretty, but it is very enjoyable and it obeys enough of those rules to sound good.
In short, we'll never see a computer compose something like the rite of spring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268612</id>
	<title>Re:Human arrogance knows no bounds.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265132880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Music is a form of communication.  People listen to music because of how it makes them feel, this is as true in our day as it was in Mozart's day.  Nowadays if people listen to Mozart at all it is because it is relaxing (or they think it will make them smart). But.......in Mozart's day his music was new and exciting.  He would go to the concert hall and people would come and were excited with the new sounds he came up with.  It is similar in modern day to hip hop or turntable scratchers.  He was inventing a  new genre, and it was exciting.<br> <br>
Beethoven used his ninth symphony to communicate deep philosophical ideas, similar to what Goethe did in <i>Faust</i>.  His Pastoral symphony was written with the simple idea of portraying peasants in the fields.  Let's see any computer come up with even that kind of simple representation in music.<br> <br>nce again, these things are often lost on modern listeners, who come from a different cultural background, thus it is often hard for them to tell the difference between music that conveys emotion and meaningless music written by a computer.  The old classical music is meaningless to them anyway.  Not so with modern music: everyone can feel the meaning behind Taylor Swift's <i>Love Story</i> or NIN <i>The Hand that Feeds</i>, even if they are disgusted by the meaning.  That is why computer music cannot come close to producing songs like these, because people will hear that the music has no meaning and be bored.<br> <br>
As for the music in TFA, the most attractive part is the beautiful sweet tone, but that wasn't created by the computer, it was chosen by a human.  Furthermore, a human musician is adding interest to the piece as he plays it.  Underneath that, the composition is not particularly exciting.  Which is not surprising, it communicates nothing.
<br> <br>
Note that I am not disagreeing with your main point that humans are computers, but until computers learn to communicate, they will not be defeating their masters in music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Music is a form of communication .
People listen to music because of how it makes them feel , this is as true in our day as it was in Mozart 's day .
Nowadays if people listen to Mozart at all it is because it is relaxing ( or they think it will make them smart ) .
But.......in Mozart 's day his music was new and exciting .
He would go to the concert hall and people would come and were excited with the new sounds he came up with .
It is similar in modern day to hip hop or turntable scratchers .
He was inventing a new genre , and it was exciting .
Beethoven used his ninth symphony to communicate deep philosophical ideas , similar to what Goethe did in Faust .
His Pastoral symphony was written with the simple idea of portraying peasants in the fields .
Let 's see any computer come up with even that kind of simple representation in music .
nce again , these things are often lost on modern listeners , who come from a different cultural background , thus it is often hard for them to tell the difference between music that conveys emotion and meaningless music written by a computer .
The old classical music is meaningless to them anyway .
Not so with modern music : everyone can feel the meaning behind Taylor Swift 's Love Story or NIN The Hand that Feeds , even if they are disgusted by the meaning .
That is why computer music can not come close to producing songs like these , because people will hear that the music has no meaning and be bored .
As for the music in TFA , the most attractive part is the beautiful sweet tone , but that was n't created by the computer , it was chosen by a human .
Furthermore , a human musician is adding interest to the piece as he plays it .
Underneath that , the composition is not particularly exciting .
Which is not surprising , it communicates nothing .
Note that I am not disagreeing with your main point that humans are computers , but until computers learn to communicate , they will not be defeating their masters in music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Music is a form of communication.
People listen to music because of how it makes them feel, this is as true in our day as it was in Mozart's day.
Nowadays if people listen to Mozart at all it is because it is relaxing (or they think it will make them smart).
But.......in Mozart's day his music was new and exciting.
He would go to the concert hall and people would come and were excited with the new sounds he came up with.
It is similar in modern day to hip hop or turntable scratchers.
He was inventing a  new genre, and it was exciting.
Beethoven used his ninth symphony to communicate deep philosophical ideas, similar to what Goethe did in Faust.
His Pastoral symphony was written with the simple idea of portraying peasants in the fields.
Let's see any computer come up with even that kind of simple representation in music.
nce again, these things are often lost on modern listeners, who come from a different cultural background, thus it is often hard for them to tell the difference between music that conveys emotion and meaningless music written by a computer.
The old classical music is meaningless to them anyway.
Not so with modern music: everyone can feel the meaning behind Taylor Swift's Love Story or NIN The Hand that Feeds, even if they are disgusted by the meaning.
That is why computer music cannot come close to producing songs like these, because people will hear that the music has no meaning and be bored.
As for the music in TFA, the most attractive part is the beautiful sweet tone, but that wasn't created by the computer, it was chosen by a human.
Furthermore, a human musician is adding interest to the piece as he plays it.
Underneath that, the composition is not particularly exciting.
Which is not surprising, it communicates nothing.
Note that I am not disagreeing with your main point that humans are computers, but until computers learn to communicate, they will not be defeating their masters in music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31274294</id>
	<title>Re:This just in....</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1267122780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Program: Destroy all humans!
<br> <br>
What? Call me a traitor to my own species, but I, for one, would like a Bender-like friend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Program : Destroy all humans !
What ? Call me a traitor to my own species , but I , for one , would like a Bender-like friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Program: Destroy all humans!
What? Call me a traitor to my own species, but I, for one, would like a Bender-like friend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272812</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Xoltri</author>
	<datestamp>1267117440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Standing on the shoulders of giants...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Standing on the shoulders of giants.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standing on the shoulders of giants...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268164</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1265127780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;What the hell is up with this anti-science bent society has come up with lately?
<br> <br>
I think a lot of people are having trouble keeping up.
<br> <br>
And that's a serious problem.  Whenever technology moves too quickly, the result is facism.  Facism is nothing more than technology in the hands of the elite.  When a small number of people possess a powerful idea, it's inevitable that it will be used against the masses who don't.  Hitler had tanks.  Wall Street has the credit-default swap.
<br> <br>
An anti-science bent can sound like immature whining, but it's an important signal that people are being left behind.  Those people will either rebel, or get squashed.  Neither one is good, because it means that most decent people will get caught in the crossfire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What the hell is up with this anti-science bent society has come up with lately ?
I think a lot of people are having trouble keeping up .
And that 's a serious problem .
Whenever technology moves too quickly , the result is facism .
Facism is nothing more than technology in the hands of the elite .
When a small number of people possess a powerful idea , it 's inevitable that it will be used against the masses who do n't .
Hitler had tanks .
Wall Street has the credit-default swap .
An anti-science bent can sound like immature whining , but it 's an important signal that people are being left behind .
Those people will either rebel , or get squashed .
Neither one is good , because it means that most decent people will get caught in the crossfire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;What the hell is up with this anti-science bent society has come up with lately?
I think a lot of people are having trouble keeping up.
And that's a serious problem.
Whenever technology moves too quickly, the result is facism.
Facism is nothing more than technology in the hands of the elite.
When a small number of people possess a powerful idea, it's inevitable that it will be used against the masses who don't.
Hitler had tanks.
Wall Street has the credit-default swap.
An anti-science bent can sound like immature whining, but it's an important signal that people are being left behind.
Those people will either rebel, or get squashed.
Neither one is good, because it means that most decent people will get caught in the crossfire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268978</id>
	<title>Ears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265136960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you listened to the music? Sounds like someone badly practicing a third rate imitation of Bach. Better than I could compose, but it aint Bach or Mozart or Beethoven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you listened to the music ?
Sounds like someone badly practicing a third rate imitation of Bach .
Better than I could compose , but it aint Bach or Mozart or Beethoven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you listened to the music?
Sounds like someone badly practicing a third rate imitation of Bach.
Better than I could compose, but it aint Bach or Mozart or Beethoven.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270274</id>
	<title>Re:It has limits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267097520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this is slashdot, but obviously you didn't bother reading the article.<br>Creativity is based on what you have experienced and recombining these experiences in novel and interesting ways.<br>"Emmy" which is now about 20-25 years old was written in such a way that it interpreted composer's styles, including how they break the rules and many other things.<br>It recombines with these "styles" so well that it passed the turing test.</p><p>He wanted to compose himself, though, so he decided to write helper programs to allow him to quickly generate compositions and make a rough sketch of a piece of music, allowing him to quickly decide if it's worth doing, you'll note that he's doing the composing while the program takes care of quickly turning ideas into rough music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is slashdot , but obviously you did n't bother reading the article.Creativity is based on what you have experienced and recombining these experiences in novel and interesting ways .
" Emmy " which is now about 20-25 years old was written in such a way that it interpreted composer 's styles , including how they break the rules and many other things.It recombines with these " styles " so well that it passed the turing test.He wanted to compose himself , though , so he decided to write helper programs to allow him to quickly generate compositions and make a rough sketch of a piece of music , allowing him to quickly decide if it 's worth doing , you 'll note that he 's doing the composing while the program takes care of quickly turning ideas into rough music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is slashdot, but obviously you didn't bother reading the article.Creativity is based on what you have experienced and recombining these experiences in novel and interesting ways.
"Emmy" which is now about 20-25 years old was written in such a way that it interpreted composer's styles, including how they break the rules and many other things.It recombines with these "styles" so well that it passed the turing test.He wanted to compose himself, though, so he decided to write helper programs to allow him to quickly generate compositions and make a rough sketch of a piece of music, allowing him to quickly decide if it's worth doing, you'll note that he's doing the composing while the program takes care of quickly turning ideas into rough music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31289516</id>
	<title>Re:It's maths all the way down</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1267216620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Write a program to generate all possible sequences of N notes (*) that sound pleasing to the ear.<br>2. Write them down (automatic copyright)<br>3. Sue everybody that creates a "new" song<br>4. Sit back and enjoy the fireworks.</p><p>(*) I seem to remember there was a court ruling for N as low as 4 but I may be mistaken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Write a program to generate all possible sequences of N notes ( * ) that sound pleasing to the ear.2 .
Write them down ( automatic copyright ) 3 .
Sue everybody that creates a " new " song4 .
Sit back and enjoy the fireworks .
( * ) I seem to remember there was a court ruling for N as low as 4 but I may be mistaken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Write a program to generate all possible sequences of N notes (*) that sound pleasing to the ear.2.
Write them down (automatic copyright)3.
Sue everybody that creates a "new" song4.
Sit back and enjoy the fireworks.
(*) I seem to remember there was a court ruling for N as low as 4 but I may be mistaken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269518</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1267130640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"who was upset because they felt that deep blue had demeaned mankind?</i>
<br> <br>
The people who said a computer would never beat the world champion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" who was upset because they felt that deep blue had demeaned mankind ?
The people who said a computer would never beat the world champion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"who was upset because they felt that deep blue had demeaned mankind?
The people who said a computer would never beat the world champion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>greg1104</author>
	<datestamp>1265127120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games.  If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I'm similarly unimpressed.  The fact that it's possible to extract patterns from analyzing human behavior and then replicate those patterns as well as a person isn't all that special.  Deep Blue had its occasional moment where it did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered, but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games .
If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I 'm similarly unimpressed .
The fact that it 's possible to extract patterns from analyzing human behavior and then replicate those patterns as well as a person is n't all that special .
Deep Blue had its occasional moment where it did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered , but even that 's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games.
If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I'm similarly unimpressed.
The fact that it's possible to extract patterns from analyzing human behavior and then replicate those patterns as well as a person isn't all that special.
Deep Blue had its occasional moment where it did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered, but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31275544</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>jbengt</author>
	<datestamp>1267127160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not surprising that a machine can absorb Mozart's prodigious output and spit out something similar</p></div><p>To me the amazing thing about Mozart's prodigious output is that by the time he was my age, it was already more thanr 20 years since he had died.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not surprising that a machine can absorb Mozart 's prodigious output and spit out something similarTo me the amazing thing about Mozart 's prodigious output is that by the time he was my age , it was already more thanr 20 years since he had died .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not surprising that a machine can absorb Mozart's prodigious output and spit out something similarTo me the amazing thing about Mozart's prodigious output is that by the time he was my age, it was already more thanr 20 years since he had died.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269640</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Boronx</author>
	<datestamp>1267089240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who else had access to a huge library of Kasparov games?  Kasparov's human opponents, and Kasparov himself.  It's hardly an unfair advantage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who else had access to a huge library of Kasparov games ?
Kasparov 's human opponents , and Kasparov himself .
It 's hardly an unfair advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who else had access to a huge library of Kasparov games?
Kasparov's human opponents, and Kasparov himself.
It's hardly an unfair advantage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31276922</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1267089300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Kasparov was trained on a giant library of other masters' games. For some reason, when a human shows fluency in a skill because they have spent 10 years mastering something, we don't say, well that's just because they spent so much time learning through trial and error and from the experience of others, it's nothing special. But when a computer shows fluency because it learned through trial and error and from the experience of others, we say, well of course it appears to be skilled because it's programmers gave it that ability.</p><p>All the research [citation needed] shows that master chess players play the way they do by pattern recognition. A decade of playing has built up a huge bank of chess positions. They "recognize" the boards that have won. This is how the experts can play 10 games at once. They don't have to replan each game. They recognize the board they are playing at against games they have experienced. Yet, knowing that doesn't make the feat any less impressive. Why should we be less impressed with machines for the same thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Kasparov was trained on a giant library of other masters ' games .
For some reason , when a human shows fluency in a skill because they have spent 10 years mastering something , we do n't say , well that 's just because they spent so much time learning through trial and error and from the experience of others , it 's nothing special .
But when a computer shows fluency because it learned through trial and error and from the experience of others , we say , well of course it appears to be skilled because it 's programmers gave it that ability.All the research [ citation needed ] shows that master chess players play the way they do by pattern recognition .
A decade of playing has built up a huge bank of chess positions .
They " recognize " the boards that have won .
This is how the experts can play 10 games at once .
They do n't have to replan each game .
They recognize the board they are playing at against games they have experienced .
Yet , knowing that does n't make the feat any less impressive .
Why should we be less impressed with machines for the same thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Kasparov was trained on a giant library of other masters' games.
For some reason, when a human shows fluency in a skill because they have spent 10 years mastering something, we don't say, well that's just because they spent so much time learning through trial and error and from the experience of others, it's nothing special.
But when a computer shows fluency because it learned through trial and error and from the experience of others, we say, well of course it appears to be skilled because it's programmers gave it that ability.All the research [citation needed] shows that master chess players play the way they do by pattern recognition.
A decade of playing has built up a huge bank of chess positions.
They "recognize" the boards that have won.
This is how the experts can play 10 games at once.
They don't have to replan each game.
They recognize the board they are playing at against games they have experienced.
Yet, knowing that doesn't make the feat any less impressive.
Why should we be less impressed with machines for the same thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271456</id>
	<title>Re:As much genre as you want</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1267109700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>until something comes out that I like</p></div><p>The only reason you like it is because you've heard other music.  You're still standing on the shoulders of civilization.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>until something comes out that I likeThe only reason you like it is because you 've heard other music .
You 're still standing on the shoulders of civilization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>until something comes out that I likeThe only reason you like it is because you've heard other music.
You're still standing on the shoulders of civilization.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269666</id>
	<title>Re:It's also not a case of so what if</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267089660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Music is math in the same way that anything else is math, in that math is just a way that we've come up to interpret the result of things that we don't really understand. Human consciousness can't be reduced to an algorithm. Music is DESCRIBED in mathematical terms, but music is really the result of a reaction of human consciousness to stimulus, and is unique to the individual who created it. People who believe that a computer algorithm is just as good as an inspired piece of music don't know anything about music, or even art in general. They understand the appearance of it, but maybe not the actual genius of it. Just because something has the appearance of an artform doesn't make it as such if it lacks the purpose and emotional constructs that inspired it's existence. Without that, Mozart is just a bunch of notes and patterns that rely on typical concepts of typical music within the framework of his sliver of existence, rather than the entire point, which is that it exists as an creative expression of his way of seeing the universe. It is only the result, not the source of his creativity.</p><p>This would be like trying to write a story with a mathematical algorithm. Think about it. You might have complete sentences and such, but would you have a GOOD story that was WORTH anything other than to impress a bunch of geeks that a stupid ass machine pumped it out? The entire point of any art is the will behind it's creation: the purposeful creation that willed it into existence. What was it trying to portray? What story is it telling you? How does it translate it's meaning toward the listener? I think they picked Mozart because he was more Algorithmic in his writing, and thus would have proven their point (and kept the money rolling in). I guess it's a good way to keep your tenure money going, but really... aren't there more important things to be doing in respect to science, other than trying to replicate things that already exist, on the surface alone, with inanimate objects for no good reason, and no actual benefit?</p><p>This sort of thinking denies the advance of actual music by merely mimicking what one particular person used to express himself. It's not so much the "formulas" that make it great. With that thinking, top 40 pop stars are just as relevent, regardless of the inspiration that makes it valid as an art form. Does a computer create great art every time it synthesizes an image stored on it of a real object, or does the person who conceptualized it with their artistic expression actually deserve credit? Art is the will of the individual to create. Care to buy some muzak?</p><p>See how this doesn't make any sense? What kind of nutters do they have in the science world these days?! Sheesh. AI is just that... Artificial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Music is math in the same way that anything else is math , in that math is just a way that we 've come up to interpret the result of things that we do n't really understand .
Human consciousness ca n't be reduced to an algorithm .
Music is DESCRIBED in mathematical terms , but music is really the result of a reaction of human consciousness to stimulus , and is unique to the individual who created it .
People who believe that a computer algorithm is just as good as an inspired piece of music do n't know anything about music , or even art in general .
They understand the appearance of it , but maybe not the actual genius of it .
Just because something has the appearance of an artform does n't make it as such if it lacks the purpose and emotional constructs that inspired it 's existence .
Without that , Mozart is just a bunch of notes and patterns that rely on typical concepts of typical music within the framework of his sliver of existence , rather than the entire point , which is that it exists as an creative expression of his way of seeing the universe .
It is only the result , not the source of his creativity.This would be like trying to write a story with a mathematical algorithm .
Think about it .
You might have complete sentences and such , but would you have a GOOD story that was WORTH anything other than to impress a bunch of geeks that a stupid ass machine pumped it out ?
The entire point of any art is the will behind it 's creation : the purposeful creation that willed it into existence .
What was it trying to portray ?
What story is it telling you ?
How does it translate it 's meaning toward the listener ?
I think they picked Mozart because he was more Algorithmic in his writing , and thus would have proven their point ( and kept the money rolling in ) .
I guess it 's a good way to keep your tenure money going , but really... are n't there more important things to be doing in respect to science , other than trying to replicate things that already exist , on the surface alone , with inanimate objects for no good reason , and no actual benefit ? This sort of thinking denies the advance of actual music by merely mimicking what one particular person used to express himself .
It 's not so much the " formulas " that make it great .
With that thinking , top 40 pop stars are just as relevent , regardless of the inspiration that makes it valid as an art form .
Does a computer create great art every time it synthesizes an image stored on it of a real object , or does the person who conceptualized it with their artistic expression actually deserve credit ?
Art is the will of the individual to create .
Care to buy some muzak ? See how this does n't make any sense ?
What kind of nutters do they have in the science world these days ? !
Sheesh. AI is just that... Artificial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Music is math in the same way that anything else is math, in that math is just a way that we've come up to interpret the result of things that we don't really understand.
Human consciousness can't be reduced to an algorithm.
Music is DESCRIBED in mathematical terms, but music is really the result of a reaction of human consciousness to stimulus, and is unique to the individual who created it.
People who believe that a computer algorithm is just as good as an inspired piece of music don't know anything about music, or even art in general.
They understand the appearance of it, but maybe not the actual genius of it.
Just because something has the appearance of an artform doesn't make it as such if it lacks the purpose and emotional constructs that inspired it's existence.
Without that, Mozart is just a bunch of notes and patterns that rely on typical concepts of typical music within the framework of his sliver of existence, rather than the entire point, which is that it exists as an creative expression of his way of seeing the universe.
It is only the result, not the source of his creativity.This would be like trying to write a story with a mathematical algorithm.
Think about it.
You might have complete sentences and such, but would you have a GOOD story that was WORTH anything other than to impress a bunch of geeks that a stupid ass machine pumped it out?
The entire point of any art is the will behind it's creation: the purposeful creation that willed it into existence.
What was it trying to portray?
What story is it telling you?
How does it translate it's meaning toward the listener?
I think they picked Mozart because he was more Algorithmic in his writing, and thus would have proven their point (and kept the money rolling in).
I guess it's a good way to keep your tenure money going, but really... aren't there more important things to be doing in respect to science, other than trying to replicate things that already exist, on the surface alone, with inanimate objects for no good reason, and no actual benefit?This sort of thinking denies the advance of actual music by merely mimicking what one particular person used to express himself.
It's not so much the "formulas" that make it great.
With that thinking, top 40 pop stars are just as relevent, regardless of the inspiration that makes it valid as an art form.
Does a computer create great art every time it synthesizes an image stored on it of a real object, or does the person who conceptualized it with their artistic expression actually deserve credit?
Art is the will of the individual to create.
Care to buy some muzak?See how this doesn't make any sense?
What kind of nutters do they have in the science world these days?!
Sheesh. AI is just that... Artificial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271672</id>
	<title>Re:imitating a composer doesn't take as much skill</title>
	<author>JCZwart</author>
	<datestamp>1267110960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess it's easier to drive down a road after someone else has paved it.</p></div><p>Exactly that. Excellent improvisors like Richard Grayson and Keith Jarrett are perfectly able to improvise in any music style - it's creating something new yet interesting that's difficult.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it 's easier to drive down a road after someone else has paved it.Exactly that .
Excellent improvisors like Richard Grayson and Keith Jarrett are perfectly able to improvise in any music style - it 's creating something new yet interesting that 's difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it's easier to drive down a road after someone else has paved it.Exactly that.
Excellent improvisors like Richard Grayson and Keith Jarrett are perfectly able to improvise in any music style - it's creating something new yet interesting that's difficult.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31273672</id>
	<title>Re:The machine can do it because we allow it to.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267120860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. It's obvious that the compositions David Cope produces are his compositions, not that of a machine. He came up with the rules and wrote the algorithms. He's just a composer who chose to copy a certain style (be it the classical style or whatever) and uses computers and software to accomplish that task. A program could never come up with new styles, it could never innovate, it could never make a connection between musical expression, human life and culture &ndash;it just does what its programmer wants it to do.</p><p>There's no single super-set of rules of rules behind music (=THE key to music), that's just a scientific myth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
It 's obvious that the compositions David Cope produces are his compositions , not that of a machine .
He came up with the rules and wrote the algorithms .
He 's just a composer who chose to copy a certain style ( be it the classical style or whatever ) and uses computers and software to accomplish that task .
A program could never come up with new styles , it could never innovate , it could never make a connection between musical expression , human life and culture    it just does what its programmer wants it to do.There 's no single super-set of rules of rules behind music ( = THE key to music ) , that 's just a scientific myth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
It's obvious that the compositions David Cope produces are his compositions, not that of a machine.
He came up with the rules and wrote the algorithms.
He's just a composer who chose to copy a certain style (be it the classical style or whatever) and uses computers and software to accomplish that task.
A program could never come up with new styles, it could never innovate, it could never make a connection between musical expression, human life and culture –it just does what its programmer wants it to do.There's no single super-set of rules of rules behind music (=THE key to music), that's just a scientific myth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268962</id>
	<title>Cleverness vs. Creativity</title>
	<author>DollyTheSheep</author>
	<datestamp>1265136780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar\_Peterson" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Oscar Peterson</a> [wikipedia.org] answered to a student, who wanted to impress him by aping him: "yeah, you know what I do, you know, how I do it, but you don't know, WHY I do it".
This pattern extracting, rule breaking (made doing so by other rules) program can ape styles, but can it invent new ones? Can it reflect about, what it does? This program reminds me of a more clever version of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl\_Jenkins" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Karl Jenkins</a> [wikipedia.org], whose melodies many people find nice but get boring after some pieces, because you begin to know, what musical knowledge and tricks he deploys.</p><p>Yes, there is a lot of mathematics underneath music, beginning from very mechanisms of sound creation, over to function of accords and harmonics reaching out to the structure of larger pieces. Every student of musicology knows that. Every student of musicolgy also has to compose smaller pieces after a particular style. It's really not surprising, that a computer program can do it, too. There is probably years of hard work in what Cope did in wading through compositions and writing the program, I won't deny that. But is that really creative? In the times of Mozart, there were a lot of musicians, who "knew the rules". But Mozart remains unique. If he were alive today and listened to Cope's "Mozart" pieces, he would easily outdo them, by inventing something completely different. Computers can analyze the "what" and can apply the "how", but they cannot reflect about the "why".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once , Oscar Peterson [ wikipedia.org ] answered to a student , who wanted to impress him by aping him : " yeah , you know what I do , you know , how I do it , but you do n't know , WHY I do it " .
This pattern extracting , rule breaking ( made doing so by other rules ) program can ape styles , but can it invent new ones ?
Can it reflect about , what it does ?
This program reminds me of a more clever version of Karl Jenkins [ wikipedia.org ] , whose melodies many people find nice but get boring after some pieces , because you begin to know , what musical knowledge and tricks he deploys.Yes , there is a lot of mathematics underneath music , beginning from very mechanisms of sound creation , over to function of accords and harmonics reaching out to the structure of larger pieces .
Every student of musicology knows that .
Every student of musicolgy also has to compose smaller pieces after a particular style .
It 's really not surprising , that a computer program can do it , too .
There is probably years of hard work in what Cope did in wading through compositions and writing the program , I wo n't deny that .
But is that really creative ?
In the times of Mozart , there were a lot of musicians , who " knew the rules " .
But Mozart remains unique .
If he were alive today and listened to Cope 's " Mozart " pieces , he would easily outdo them , by inventing something completely different .
Computers can analyze the " what " and can apply the " how " , but they can not reflect about the " why " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once, Oscar Peterson [wikipedia.org] answered to a student, who wanted to impress him by aping him: "yeah, you know what I do, you know, how I do it, but you don't know, WHY I do it".
This pattern extracting, rule breaking (made doing so by other rules) program can ape styles, but can it invent new ones?
Can it reflect about, what it does?
This program reminds me of a more clever version of Karl Jenkins [wikipedia.org], whose melodies many people find nice but get boring after some pieces, because you begin to know, what musical knowledge and tricks he deploys.Yes, there is a lot of mathematics underneath music, beginning from very mechanisms of sound creation, over to function of accords and harmonics reaching out to the structure of larger pieces.
Every student of musicology knows that.
Every student of musicolgy also has to compose smaller pieces after a particular style.
It's really not surprising, that a computer program can do it, too.
There is probably years of hard work in what Cope did in wading through compositions and writing the program, I won't deny that.
But is that really creative?
In the times of Mozart, there were a lot of musicians, who "knew the rules".
But Mozart remains unique.
If he were alive today and listened to Cope's "Mozart" pieces, he would easily outdo them, by inventing something completely different.
Computers can analyze the "what" and can apply the "how", but they cannot reflect about the "why".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270054</id>
	<title>Re:The machine can do it because we allow it to.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267095180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, no. Stop putting yourself in a pedestal. Sure, the machine can't be "creative" today, but that's only because nobody programmed it for it, and it can't program itself (yet). But creativity is just random output that is pleasing to the unpredictable human brain at a certain time given certain cultural context. Is that really useful? At the point where machines are capable of that, they might not even care about it anymore. They won't exist exclusively to server us forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , no .
Stop putting yourself in a pedestal .
Sure , the machine ca n't be " creative " today , but that 's only because nobody programmed it for it , and it ca n't program itself ( yet ) .
But creativity is just random output that is pleasing to the unpredictable human brain at a certain time given certain cultural context .
Is that really useful ?
At the point where machines are capable of that , they might not even care about it anymore .
They wo n't exist exclusively to server us forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, no.
Stop putting yourself in a pedestal.
Sure, the machine can't be "creative" today, but that's only because nobody programmed it for it, and it can't program itself (yet).
But creativity is just random output that is pleasing to the unpredictable human brain at a certain time given certain cultural context.
Is that really useful?
At the point where machines are capable of that, they might not even care about it anymore.
They won't exist exclusively to server us forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269086</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here...</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1265138400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact, Microprose released a <a href="http://compare.ebay.com/like/360148211858?ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes" title="ebay.com">very similar concept</a> [ebay.com] for the 3DO way back in 1994. Granted technology has moved on, as has the ability to reproduce instruments with much higher fidelity.</p><p>However if you actually listen to the music, it's nothing special. In fact it's the sort of painful music you could imagine "nouveau riche" 30 year olds would listen to in order to pretend to be sophisticated, over glasses of california "wine", of course. For all the little ticks this program employs, reproducing patterns of melody and harmony according to some algorithms, it will never ever give us "The 4 Seasons", or something like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g5Q1p6C7ho&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com">this</a> [youtube.com] (Vanessa Mae BWV 1006).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , Microprose released a very similar concept [ ebay.com ] for the 3DO way back in 1994 .
Granted technology has moved on , as has the ability to reproduce instruments with much higher fidelity.However if you actually listen to the music , it 's nothing special .
In fact it 's the sort of painful music you could imagine " nouveau riche " 30 year olds would listen to in order to pretend to be sophisticated , over glasses of california " wine " , of course .
For all the little ticks this program employs , reproducing patterns of melody and harmony according to some algorithms , it will never ever give us " The 4 Seasons " , or something like this [ youtube.com ] ( Vanessa Mae BWV 1006 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, Microprose released a very similar concept [ebay.com] for the 3DO way back in 1994.
Granted technology has moved on, as has the ability to reproduce instruments with much higher fidelity.However if you actually listen to the music, it's nothing special.
In fact it's the sort of painful music you could imagine "nouveau riche" 30 year olds would listen to in order to pretend to be sophisticated, over glasses of california "wine", of course.
For all the little ticks this program employs, reproducing patterns of melody and harmony according to some algorithms, it will never ever give us "The 4 Seasons", or something like this [youtube.com] (Vanessa Mae BWV 1006).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269014</id>
	<title>Go back further, to Baroque music</title>
	<author>Atmchicago</author>
	<datestamp>1265137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You raise a good point, namely that we have no idea even today how to quantify creativity.  Bach was excellent at carrying out a theme and then throwing in a key change that dramatically altered the sense of the piece.  See: Brandenburg concerto no 5, first movement, in the keyboard solo.  Furthermore, a certain aspect of music is to show off the skill of the musician, and it's fun to see someone whiz along.</p><p>But I doubt the author of the music software ever intended to replace composers - he's just found a way of gleaning a better understanding of what harmonies and melodies are naturally appealing.  Good music is more than "pleasant-sounding" melodies and harmonies, though - it should make you think.  There's nothing wrong with pop music <em>per se</em>, but it certainly doesn't make you think hard about what's going on.</p><p>I would still be careful, though, to say that a computer will never compose something creative.  We just haven't gotten there yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You raise a good point , namely that we have no idea even today how to quantify creativity .
Bach was excellent at carrying out a theme and then throwing in a key change that dramatically altered the sense of the piece .
See : Brandenburg concerto no 5 , first movement , in the keyboard solo .
Furthermore , a certain aspect of music is to show off the skill of the musician , and it 's fun to see someone whiz along.But I doubt the author of the music software ever intended to replace composers - he 's just found a way of gleaning a better understanding of what harmonies and melodies are naturally appealing .
Good music is more than " pleasant-sounding " melodies and harmonies , though - it should make you think .
There 's nothing wrong with pop music per se , but it certainly does n't make you think hard about what 's going on.I would still be careful , though , to say that a computer will never compose something creative .
We just have n't gotten there yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You raise a good point, namely that we have no idea even today how to quantify creativity.
Bach was excellent at carrying out a theme and then throwing in a key change that dramatically altered the sense of the piece.
See: Brandenburg concerto no 5, first movement, in the keyboard solo.
Furthermore, a certain aspect of music is to show off the skill of the musician, and it's fun to see someone whiz along.But I doubt the author of the music software ever intended to replace composers - he's just found a way of gleaning a better understanding of what harmonies and melodies are naturally appealing.
Good music is more than "pleasant-sounding" melodies and harmonies, though - it should make you think.
There's nothing wrong with pop music per se, but it certainly doesn't make you think hard about what's going on.I would still be careful, though, to say that a computer will never compose something creative.
We just haven't gotten there yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271716</id>
	<title>c64</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267111200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i remember something like this for the commodore 64, i think it was by sid meyer but i'm not sure. it was always great to put it into infinite creation mode where it would play nonstop never repeating music that flowed really well into various moods.<br>RIP c64/c128 i miss you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i remember something like this for the commodore 64 , i think it was by sid meyer but i 'm not sure .
it was always great to put it into infinite creation mode where it would play nonstop never repeating music that flowed really well into various moods.RIP c64/c128 i miss you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i remember something like this for the commodore 64, i think it was by sid meyer but i'm not sure.
it was always great to put it into infinite creation mode where it would play nonstop never repeating music that flowed really well into various moods.RIP c64/c128 i miss you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268362</id>
	<title>Re:Like any other language</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1265130120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know. I mean if a grade 12 kid can jump half a metre of the ground, then I see no reason that a grown human couldn't fly.... because, you know... they are related.</p><p>Not that I disagree with you, but your logic is a little faulty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know .
I mean if a grade 12 kid can jump half a metre of the ground , then I see no reason that a grown human could n't fly.... because , you know... they are related.Not that I disagree with you , but your logic is a little faulty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know.
I mean if a grade 12 kid can jump half a metre of the ground, then I see no reason that a grown human couldn't fly.... because, you know... they are related.Not that I disagree with you, but your logic is a little faulty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268678</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1265133600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Were people upset that Deep Blue had won because they felt they had fallen from a pedestal?  I don't remember that.  The only people I remember who were upset were annoyed that Kasparov had played so poorly in that match.  The IBM team played the psychological game well, and Kasparov made some silly mistakes (which of course even he later regretted).  It wasn't until Rybka came out a few years ago that a true computer world champion challenger made it on the scene.  But back to my question, who was upset because they felt that deep blue had demeaned mankind?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were people upset that Deep Blue had won because they felt they had fallen from a pedestal ?
I do n't remember that .
The only people I remember who were upset were annoyed that Kasparov had played so poorly in that match .
The IBM team played the psychological game well , and Kasparov made some silly mistakes ( which of course even he later regretted ) .
It was n't until Rybka came out a few years ago that a true computer world champion challenger made it on the scene .
But back to my question , who was upset because they felt that deep blue had demeaned mankind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were people upset that Deep Blue had won because they felt they had fallen from a pedestal?
I don't remember that.
The only people I remember who were upset were annoyed that Kasparov had played so poorly in that match.
The IBM team played the psychological game well, and Kasparov made some silly mistakes (which of course even he later regretted).
It wasn't until Rybka came out a few years ago that a true computer world champion challenger made it on the scene.
But back to my question, who was upset because they felt that deep blue had demeaned mankind?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269100</id>
	<title>It just goes to show</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265138580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid. Human beings are incredibly slow, inaccurate, and brilliant. Together they are powerful beyond imagination." - Albert Einstein</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Computers are incredibly fast , accurate , and stupid .
Human beings are incredibly slow , inaccurate , and brilliant .
Together they are powerful beyond imagination .
" - Albert Einstein</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid.
Human beings are incredibly slow, inaccurate, and brilliant.
Together they are powerful beyond imagination.
" - Albert Einstein</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271024</id>
	<title>Re:The machine can do it because we allow it to.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267106640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're misguided.  Did you read TFA?  The Emily Howell program uses a different approach from Cope's previous work.  It's entirely different work, sounding nothing like an existing composer.  The new approach seems much more interactive, and involves machine learning, so the new program seems even more strong-AI-ish and more creative than the older, retired program that generated Mozart-like sonatas.</p><p>TFA spends a fair bit of time talking about how the software has been tuned to break the rules creatively, and is able to determine when it's OK to do so -- the older software did so to a degree, the newer software (Emily Howell) even moreso.</p><p>Cope is still right about one thing -- we are what we eat, and with music, we are what we hear.  Or rather, we compose what we hear.  Sometimes that inspiration comes from birds (Beethoven's Fifth comes to mind) or other environmental sounds.  Usually, it comes from other humans.  So yeah, there are going to be social, cultural, and regional influences... on stuff that various societies, cultures, and regions pick up from other societies, cultures, and regions.  Nothing is created in a vacuum, and there is very little that is novel or original in music that isn't derived from something else.  That's more of an evolutionary process, not spontaneous generation of art from pure nothingness.</p><p>So let me turn your assertion around: Humans won't be able to tread where humans haven't, since we only know the rules we give ourselves.  Sounds a little absurd?  Maybe.  But largely a correct assertion.  True innovation enters the system only slowly, usually introduced by some inspiration that impinges upon humans -- natural phenomena, new discoveries (scientific, philosophical, etc.) that shake our cultural foundations, even disasters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're misguided .
Did you read TFA ?
The Emily Howell program uses a different approach from Cope 's previous work .
It 's entirely different work , sounding nothing like an existing composer .
The new approach seems much more interactive , and involves machine learning , so the new program seems even more strong-AI-ish and more creative than the older , retired program that generated Mozart-like sonatas.TFA spends a fair bit of time talking about how the software has been tuned to break the rules creatively , and is able to determine when it 's OK to do so -- the older software did so to a degree , the newer software ( Emily Howell ) even moreso.Cope is still right about one thing -- we are what we eat , and with music , we are what we hear .
Or rather , we compose what we hear .
Sometimes that inspiration comes from birds ( Beethoven 's Fifth comes to mind ) or other environmental sounds .
Usually , it comes from other humans .
So yeah , there are going to be social , cultural , and regional influences... on stuff that various societies , cultures , and regions pick up from other societies , cultures , and regions .
Nothing is created in a vacuum , and there is very little that is novel or original in music that is n't derived from something else .
That 's more of an evolutionary process , not spontaneous generation of art from pure nothingness.So let me turn your assertion around : Humans wo n't be able to tread where humans have n't , since we only know the rules we give ourselves .
Sounds a little absurd ?
Maybe. But largely a correct assertion .
True innovation enters the system only slowly , usually introduced by some inspiration that impinges upon humans -- natural phenomena , new discoveries ( scientific , philosophical , etc .
) that shake our cultural foundations , even disasters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're misguided.
Did you read TFA?
The Emily Howell program uses a different approach from Cope's previous work.
It's entirely different work, sounding nothing like an existing composer.
The new approach seems much more interactive, and involves machine learning, so the new program seems even more strong-AI-ish and more creative than the older, retired program that generated Mozart-like sonatas.TFA spends a fair bit of time talking about how the software has been tuned to break the rules creatively, and is able to determine when it's OK to do so -- the older software did so to a degree, the newer software (Emily Howell) even moreso.Cope is still right about one thing -- we are what we eat, and with music, we are what we hear.
Or rather, we compose what we hear.
Sometimes that inspiration comes from birds (Beethoven's Fifth comes to mind) or other environmental sounds.
Usually, it comes from other humans.
So yeah, there are going to be social, cultural, and regional influences... on stuff that various societies, cultures, and regions pick up from other societies, cultures, and regions.
Nothing is created in a vacuum, and there is very little that is novel or original in music that isn't derived from something else.
That's more of an evolutionary process, not spontaneous generation of art from pure nothingness.So let me turn your assertion around: Humans won't be able to tread where humans haven't, since we only know the rules we give ourselves.
Sounds a little absurd?
Maybe.  But largely a correct assertion.
True innovation enters the system only slowly, usually introduced by some inspiration that impinges upon humans -- natural phenomena, new discoveries (scientific, philosophical, etc.
) that shake our cultural foundations, even disasters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269124</id>
	<title>Re:Human arrogance knows no bounds.</title>
	<author>Zaphod The 42nd</author>
	<datestamp>1265138880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree entirely. As I study artificial intelligence and learning algorithms more and more, The less I can see something like a "soul" and the more I think that we're just biological machines that are too arrogant to realize how beautiful a machine feeling emotions is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree entirely .
As I study artificial intelligence and learning algorithms more and more , The less I can see something like a " soul " and the more I think that we 're just biological machines that are too arrogant to realize how beautiful a machine feeling emotions is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree entirely.
As I study artificial intelligence and learning algorithms more and more, The less I can see something like a "soul" and the more I think that we're just biological machines that are too arrogant to realize how beautiful a machine feeling emotions is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272496</id>
	<title>Cope's Genius was to define the vocabulary</title>
	<author>rclandrum</author>
	<datestamp>1267115760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the article states, when people listen to music it often evokes an emotional response.  This doesn't happen when you simply teach a computer how to play chords and then toss in a random number generator - there must be a story told, some type of structure.</p><p>Cope's genius was in defining - admittedly in his own terms - what different portions of a composition were attempting to achieve: "statement, preparation, extension, antecedent, consequent".  Once he had defined those and could define how different composers achieved them, he could more easily have the computer express new, cogent themes based on older masters.  And because the new themes were expressed using the same techniques, they tended to sound like the the old composers to the point where people could recognize them.</p><p>His new "Emily Howell" software is an extension of that capability, but apparently also allows the composer to define their own techniques for achieving "statement, preparation, etc", providing a powerful aide to modern composers.  They can start with an idea for a general theme and the software can help expand it into a composition expressed using techniques the composer prefers to use.</p><p>In just about any field of human study, things can seem magical until some analytical thinker helps to define the language of the underlying subject, whether that is logic constructs in software, mathematics, physics, or astronomy - or musical composition.  Once the language has been defined, it allows us to conceptualize the formerly magical-seeming process as a series of definable operations - i.e. it becomes something humans can understand and talk about.</p><p>If Cope is also street-smart, he will productize "Emily Howell" and make it the industry standard for computational assistance in the composing arts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the article states , when people listen to music it often evokes an emotional response .
This does n't happen when you simply teach a computer how to play chords and then toss in a random number generator - there must be a story told , some type of structure.Cope 's genius was in defining - admittedly in his own terms - what different portions of a composition were attempting to achieve : " statement , preparation , extension , antecedent , consequent " .
Once he had defined those and could define how different composers achieved them , he could more easily have the computer express new , cogent themes based on older masters .
And because the new themes were expressed using the same techniques , they tended to sound like the the old composers to the point where people could recognize them.His new " Emily Howell " software is an extension of that capability , but apparently also allows the composer to define their own techniques for achieving " statement , preparation , etc " , providing a powerful aide to modern composers .
They can start with an idea for a general theme and the software can help expand it into a composition expressed using techniques the composer prefers to use.In just about any field of human study , things can seem magical until some analytical thinker helps to define the language of the underlying subject , whether that is logic constructs in software , mathematics , physics , or astronomy - or musical composition .
Once the language has been defined , it allows us to conceptualize the formerly magical-seeming process as a series of definable operations - i.e .
it becomes something humans can understand and talk about.If Cope is also street-smart , he will productize " Emily Howell " and make it the industry standard for computational assistance in the composing arts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the article states, when people listen to music it often evokes an emotional response.
This doesn't happen when you simply teach a computer how to play chords and then toss in a random number generator - there must be a story told, some type of structure.Cope's genius was in defining - admittedly in his own terms - what different portions of a composition were attempting to achieve: "statement, preparation, extension, antecedent, consequent".
Once he had defined those and could define how different composers achieved them, he could more easily have the computer express new, cogent themes based on older masters.
And because the new themes were expressed using the same techniques, they tended to sound like the the old composers to the point where people could recognize them.His new "Emily Howell" software is an extension of that capability, but apparently also allows the composer to define their own techniques for achieving "statement, preparation, etc", providing a powerful aide to modern composers.
They can start with an idea for a general theme and the software can help expand it into a composition expressed using techniques the composer prefers to use.In just about any field of human study, things can seem magical until some analytical thinker helps to define the language of the underlying subject, whether that is logic constructs in software, mathematics, physics, or astronomy - or musical composition.
Once the language has been defined, it allows us to conceptualize the formerly magical-seeming process as a series of definable operations - i.e.
it becomes something humans can understand and talk about.If Cope is also street-smart, he will productize "Emily Howell" and make it the industry standard for computational assistance in the composing arts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271092</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1267107300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Machines can beat Kasparov in chess, but they can't invent a game as enjoyable as chess by themselves.</p></div><p>Note, however, that most people can't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Machines can beat Kasparov in chess , but they ca n't invent a game as enjoyable as chess by themselves.Note , however , that most people ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Machines can beat Kasparov in chess, but they can't invent a game as enjoyable as chess by themselves.Note, however, that most people can't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270150</id>
	<title>Re:The machine can do it because we allow it to.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267096200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A Machine could easily create things totally new, but I guess we would find most of it really bad. So we have to tell the machine what we like. That's what constraints are about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Machine could easily create things totally new , but I guess we would find most of it really bad .
So we have to tell the machine what we like .
That 's what constraints are about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Machine could easily create things totally new, but I guess we would find most of it really bad.
So we have to tell the machine what we like.
That's what constraints are about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271022</id>
	<title>Thank You!</title>
	<author>Chummy62</author>
	<datestamp>1267106640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a wonderful article. It exposes the weakness that we refer to as emotion and passion. Tina Turner said it best when she belted out the lyric &ldquo;Oh what&rsquo;s Love got to do, got to do with it? What&rsquo;s Love but a second hand emotion? I ask; why do we selfishly cling to that which can&rsquo;t be grasped? It all comes down to what we believe. Our core beliefs dictate weather we will accept or reject music solely based on knowing the creator. Is it a human or is it a machine? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a wonderful article .
It exposes the weakness that we refer to as emotion and passion .
Tina Turner said it best when she belted out the lyric    Oh what    s Love got to do , got to do with it ?
What    s Love but a second hand emotion ?
I ask ; why do we selfishly cling to that which can    t be grasped ?
It all comes down to what we believe .
Our core beliefs dictate weather we will accept or reject music solely based on knowing the creator .
Is it a human or is it a machine ?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a wonderful article.
It exposes the weakness that we refer to as emotion and passion.
Tina Turner said it best when she belted out the lyric “Oh what’s Love got to do, got to do with it?
What’s Love but a second hand emotion?
I ask; why do we selfishly cling to that which can’t be grasped?
It all comes down to what we believe.
Our core beliefs dictate weather we will accept or reject music solely based on knowing the creator.
Is it a human or is it a machine?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268990</id>
	<title>It's the musical equivalent to entropy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soon those ipod listening teens that have 10th generation "Emily"pods that spontaneously generate the music for them will get tired of all genres and prefer white noise or a cacophony of sound instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soon those ipod listening teens that have 10th generation " Emily " pods that spontaneously generate the music for them will get tired of all genres and prefer white noise or a cacophony of sound instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soon those ipod listening teens that have 10th generation "Emily"pods that spontaneously generate the music for them will get tired of all genres and prefer white noise or a cacophony of sound instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269760</id>
	<title>Re:Human arrogance knows no bounds.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267090860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2. storing things efficiently. Like &ldquo;base configuration X&rdquo; plus &ldquo;mod Y&rdquo; plus &ldquo;property Z changed&rdquo; = 3 memory slots.</p></div><p>What the fuck does that even mean?</p><p>Your arrogance certainly knows no bounds.  Like how you assume that we're only machines even though it has only been in the past half century that we even began looking at the bits that make up humans.</p><p>I suppose next you'll tell me that the universe is deterministic, so you'll understand that I have no choice in calling you a pompous prick.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2. storing things efficiently .
Like    base configuration X    plus    mod Y    plus    property Z changed    = 3 memory slots.What the fuck does that even mean ? Your arrogance certainly knows no bounds .
Like how you assume that we 're only machines even though it has only been in the past half century that we even began looking at the bits that make up humans.I suppose next you 'll tell me that the universe is deterministic , so you 'll understand that I have no choice in calling you a pompous prick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2. storing things efficiently.
Like “base configuration X” plus “mod Y” plus “property Z changed” = 3 memory slots.What the fuck does that even mean?Your arrogance certainly knows no bounds.
Like how you assume that we're only machines even though it has only been in the past half century that we even began looking at the bits that make up humans.I suppose next you'll tell me that the universe is deterministic, so you'll understand that I have no choice in calling you a pompous prick.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270436</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1267099980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.</p></div><p>It's a shame we mere mortals can only consume an hour's worth of knowledge in an hour.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.It 's a shame we mere mortals can only consume an hour 's worth of knowledge in an hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.It's a shame we mere mortals can only consume an hour's worth of knowledge in an hour.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268222</id>
	<title>What was so special about Mozart!?</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1265128620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?</p></div><p>What was so special about Mozart? Are you effing kidding me? How about that he <i>wrote great music</i>?<br> <br>You take some great composer who creates a seminal style, writes some really great music, and then a program comes along and makes a descent song in that style. It still sounds like we need Mozarts, Bachs,  Beethovens, and Ellingtons and Parkers to come up with that great genre for the programs to work in. <br> <br>Wake me when a program writes a really great genre all by itself. You want to know what I'll say then? "Wow, human beings and programs can write some really nice music."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals , then what was so special about Mozart ? What was so special about Mozart ?
Are you effing kidding me ?
How about that he wrote great music ?
You take some great composer who creates a seminal style , writes some really great music , and then a program comes along and makes a descent song in that style .
It still sounds like we need Mozarts , Bachs , Beethovens , and Ellingtons and Parkers to come up with that great genre for the programs to work in .
Wake me when a program writes a really great genre all by itself .
You want to know what I 'll say then ?
" Wow , human beings and programs can write some really nice music .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?What was so special about Mozart?
Are you effing kidding me?
How about that he wrote great music?
You take some great composer who creates a seminal style, writes some really great music, and then a program comes along and makes a descent song in that style.
It still sounds like we need Mozarts, Bachs,  Beethovens, and Ellingtons and Parkers to come up with that great genre for the programs to work in.
Wake me when a program writes a really great genre all by itself.
You want to know what I'll say then?
"Wow, human beings and programs can write some really nice music.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268142</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Computers will teach us as a race one thing, humility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers will teach us as a race one thing , humility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers will teach us as a race one thing, humility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269460</id>
	<title>but canit compose competitively in it's own style?</title>
	<author>DABANSHEE</author>
	<datestamp>1267129980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until then the machine's just a tribute composer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until then the machine 's just a tribute composer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until then the machine's just a tribute composer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016</id>
	<title>The machine can do it because we allow it to.</title>
	<author>SillySixPins</author>
	<datestamp>1265126460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The machine extrapolates based upon certain rules or constraints the programmer has programmed the machine to abide by. The machine knows that note X is pleasing to the ear after note Y, or note Z will cause a cacophony. But keep in mind the machine only knows this because we allow it to. And while the machine may compose music abiding by whatever constraints we give to it, it will never be able to develop or experiment with music. The machine can create Mozart-like pieces because the fundamental ways in which Mozart changed music are well-documented and have influenced popular music ever since, thus factoring into however we program the machine. Even so, the machine won't be able to tread where humans haven't, since it only knows the rules we give it. Music will always be furthered by us based on social, cultural, or regional influences.<br> <br>

Anyone else feel me on this one? Or am I misguided?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The machine extrapolates based upon certain rules or constraints the programmer has programmed the machine to abide by .
The machine knows that note X is pleasing to the ear after note Y , or note Z will cause a cacophony .
But keep in mind the machine only knows this because we allow it to .
And while the machine may compose music abiding by whatever constraints we give to it , it will never be able to develop or experiment with music .
The machine can create Mozart-like pieces because the fundamental ways in which Mozart changed music are well-documented and have influenced popular music ever since , thus factoring into however we program the machine .
Even so , the machine wo n't be able to tread where humans have n't , since it only knows the rules we give it .
Music will always be furthered by us based on social , cultural , or regional influences .
Anyone else feel me on this one ?
Or am I misguided ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The machine extrapolates based upon certain rules or constraints the programmer has programmed the machine to abide by.
The machine knows that note X is pleasing to the ear after note Y, or note Z will cause a cacophony.
But keep in mind the machine only knows this because we allow it to.
And while the machine may compose music abiding by whatever constraints we give to it, it will never be able to develop or experiment with music.
The machine can create Mozart-like pieces because the fundamental ways in which Mozart changed music are well-documented and have influenced popular music ever since, thus factoring into however we program the machine.
Even so, the machine won't be able to tread where humans haven't, since it only knows the rules we give it.
Music will always be furthered by us based on social, cultural, or regional influences.
Anyone else feel me on this one?
Or am I misguided?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31347658</id>
	<title>Music isn't an algorithm</title>
	<author>yusing</author>
	<datestamp>1267640760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?"</p><p>First of all, no machine has ever 'written' anything comparable to great music. The result can be no better than the algorithm, and an adequate algorithm would be beyond even those great composers who benefited from the gift of creating great music. It flows, as does emotion, from an inscrutable source.</p><p>If a machine *could* do that, it would have learned (as did all the greats) from the example of those who came before. But great music is liberated from the tutorials that confine ordinary music, and that comes from a combination of mastery of musical language and a faculty of freedom to receive and express. Call it indomitable spirit, or whatever. Such a machine would deserve as much credit as the human 'machines' that created, overcoming all odds against it -- poverty and ignorance and jealousy and the deliberate obstructions of the small-minded  -- the great music.</p><p>Personally I don't care who or what authors great music<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'll take it when I can get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals , then what was so special about Mozart ?
" First of all , no machine has ever 'written ' anything comparable to great music .
The result can be no better than the algorithm , and an adequate algorithm would be beyond even those great composers who benefited from the gift of creating great music .
It flows , as does emotion , from an inscrutable source.If a machine * could * do that , it would have learned ( as did all the greats ) from the example of those who came before .
But great music is liberated from the tutorials that confine ordinary music , and that comes from a combination of mastery of musical language and a faculty of freedom to receive and express .
Call it indomitable spirit , or whatever .
Such a machine would deserve as much credit as the human 'machines ' that created , overcoming all odds against it -- poverty and ignorance and jealousy and the deliberate obstructions of the small-minded -- the great music.Personally I do n't care who or what authors great music ... I 'll take it when I can get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?
"First of all, no machine has ever 'written' anything comparable to great music.
The result can be no better than the algorithm, and an adequate algorithm would be beyond even those great composers who benefited from the gift of creating great music.
It flows, as does emotion, from an inscrutable source.If a machine *could* do that, it would have learned (as did all the greats) from the example of those who came before.
But great music is liberated from the tutorials that confine ordinary music, and that comes from a combination of mastery of musical language and a faculty of freedom to receive and express.
Call it indomitable spirit, or whatever.
Such a machine would deserve as much credit as the human 'machines' that created, overcoming all odds against it -- poverty and ignorance and jealousy and the deliberate obstructions of the small-minded  -- the great music.Personally I don't care who or what authors great music ... I'll take it when I can get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272094</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267113420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, aren't you so special and hard to impress. Yawn. Tell you what, if it is so unimpressive that "merely by studying Kasparov games" that Deep Blue was able to beat him -- why don't you do it? If it is just that easy, why wasn't Kasparov consistently beaten by anyone who studied his games? By refusing to acknowledge the achievement you show yourself to be shallow and vapid, not "superior".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , are n't you so special and hard to impress .
Yawn. Tell you what , if it is so unimpressive that " merely by studying Kasparov games " that Deep Blue was able to beat him -- why do n't you do it ?
If it is just that easy , why was n't Kasparov consistently beaten by anyone who studied his games ?
By refusing to acknowledge the achievement you show yourself to be shallow and vapid , not " superior " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, aren't you so special and hard to impress.
Yawn. Tell you what, if it is so unimpressive that "merely by studying Kasparov games" that Deep Blue was able to beat him -- why don't you do it?
If it is just that easy, why wasn't Kasparov consistently beaten by anyone who studied his games?
By refusing to acknowledge the achievement you show yourself to be shallow and vapid, not "superior".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270368</id>
	<title>Orwell's 1984 Versificator</title>
	<author>mikedep333</author>
	<datestamp>1267098960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holy Crap. George Orwell was right.<br> A machine can create music. The versifacator is real.<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versificator\_(1984)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy Crap .
George Orwell was right .
A machine can create music .
The versifacator is real.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versificator \ _ ( 1984 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy Crap.
George Orwell was right.
A machine can create music.
The versifacator is real.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versificator\_(1984)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271332</id>
	<title>Robotic music has certainly come a long way!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267108980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6b2\_1266675913" title="liveleak.com" rel="nofollow">Ah, the early days!</a> [liveleak.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , the early days !
[ liveleak.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, the early days!
[liveleak.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267692</id>
	<title>Not scared yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing "mere" about the mathematics of music or the fractal beauty of the shape of landscapes or the sound of the great outdoors.  Humans are wired to appreciate all that, and it's the patterns at their core that both make them appealing and tractable to generate artificially.</p><p>A computer program that can generate music doesn't scare me.</p><p>A program that can enjoy music<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing " mere " about the mathematics of music or the fractal beauty of the shape of landscapes or the sound of the great outdoors .
Humans are wired to appreciate all that , and it 's the patterns at their core that both make them appealing and tractable to generate artificially.A computer program that can generate music does n't scare me.A program that can enjoy music .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing "mere" about the mathematics of music or the fractal beauty of the shape of landscapes or the sound of the great outdoors.
Humans are wired to appreciate all that, and it's the patterns at their core that both make them appealing and tractable to generate artificially.A computer program that can generate music doesn't scare me.A program that can enjoy music ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270194</id>
	<title>Mozart??</title>
	<author>redGiraffe</author>
	<datestamp>1267096620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps this just highlights how mechanical and un-emotional Mozart was? If the app could create something comparable to Beethoven's works then maybe we are going somewhere.</p><p>The other point is that most 'great' music is created in the transitional state of musical styles: think Elvis, but it was the same for Beethoven etc.. The musicians playing the same style were generally not regarded as highly.</p><p>Could the app create something 'new' and compelling?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this just highlights how mechanical and un-emotional Mozart was ?
If the app could create something comparable to Beethoven 's works then maybe we are going somewhere.The other point is that most 'great ' music is created in the transitional state of musical styles : think Elvis , but it was the same for Beethoven etc.. The musicians playing the same style were generally not regarded as highly.Could the app create something 'new ' and compelling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this just highlights how mechanical and un-emotional Mozart was?
If the app could create something comparable to Beethoven's works then maybe we are going somewhere.The other point is that most 'great' music is created in the transitional state of musical styles: think Elvis, but it was the same for Beethoven etc.. The musicians playing the same style were generally not regarded as highly.Could the app create something 'new' and compelling?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271104</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1267107360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games.  If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I'm similarly unimpressed.  The fact that it's possible to extract patterns from analyzing human behavior and then replicate those patterns as well as a person isn't all that special.  Deep Blue had its occasional moment where it did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered, but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.</p></div><p>Please explain to me exactly how that's any different than a human growing up and "learning" through a lifetime of exposure to all that which we are exposed?  If it had been a human opponent who went back and "studied" tapes of Kasparov people would have been indifferent to it other than saying "he studied his strategies well" but since Deep Blue was "programmed" (arguably the same thing as educated just in a much faster process) it doesn't count?  I call bullshit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games .
If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I 'm similarly unimpressed .
The fact that it 's possible to extract patterns from analyzing human behavior and then replicate those patterns as well as a person is n't all that special .
Deep Blue had its occasional moment where it did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered , but even that 's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.Please explain to me exactly how that 's any different than a human growing up and " learning " through a lifetime of exposure to all that which we are exposed ?
If it had been a human opponent who went back and " studied " tapes of Kasparov people would have been indifferent to it other than saying " he studied his strategies well " but since Deep Blue was " programmed " ( arguably the same thing as educated just in a much faster process ) it does n't count ?
I call bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games.
If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I'm similarly unimpressed.
The fact that it's possible to extract patterns from analyzing human behavior and then replicate those patterns as well as a person isn't all that special.
Deep Blue had its occasional moment where it did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered, but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.Please explain to me exactly how that's any different than a human growing up and "learning" through a lifetime of exposure to all that which we are exposed?
If it had been a human opponent who went back and "studied" tapes of Kasparov people would have been indifferent to it other than saying "he studied his strategies well" but since Deep Blue was "programmed" (arguably the same thing as educated just in a much faster process) it doesn't count?
I call bullshit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31285708</id>
	<title>Re:The machine can do it because we allow it to.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267203240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait till you have algorithms that can learn and make decisions unsupervised<br>then give them the ability to modify its rule system based on its learning<br>then give them the ability to value (give weithings) to their knowledge / rule base<br>then give it the ability to mutate its base algorithms to suit conditions<br>(faster hardware / computational power etc)</p><p>Then run it on thousands of clusters and see if it doesnt go where we haven't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I dare you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait till you have algorithms that can learn and make decisions unsupervisedthen give them the ability to modify its rule system based on its learningthen give them the ability to value ( give weithings ) to their knowledge / rule basethen give it the ability to mutate its base algorithms to suit conditions ( faster hardware / computational power etc ) Then run it on thousands of clusters and see if it doesnt go where we have n't .. I dare you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait till you have algorithms that can learn and make decisions unsupervisedthen give them the ability to modify its rule system based on its learningthen give them the ability to value (give weithings) to their knowledge / rule basethen give it the ability to mutate its base algorithms to suit conditions(faster hardware / computational power etc)Then run it on thousands of clusters and see if it doesnt go where we haven't .. I dare you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269562</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>fsterman</author>
	<datestamp>1267131180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troll, the parent is commenting on the very valid point that many computers are able to "win" chess games only because they their math processing is really fast.  The whole human intelligence vs. animal/computer is rather silly anyway, they are just different.  When modeling human intelligence, the closer you are mimicking the real processes, the more interesting it becomes, not if you are just surpassing it's ability to do math!</p><p>When going against a human brain, there is no question that basic math can be done faster by the average calculator than the average human.</p><p>The interesting problem sets in AI are the analogous to crypto: brute forcing any solution is rather boring, but when the AI can simulate human processes, or "breaking" the code through a better understanding of it, is very interesting indeed.</p><p>Analyzing past human patterns and mimicking them is akin to optimizing a password list.  It shows off horsepower- but in the end it's a low level optimization focused on one particular instance, pretty boring compared to teams that break one-way hashes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll , the parent is commenting on the very valid point that many computers are able to " win " chess games only because they their math processing is really fast .
The whole human intelligence vs. animal/computer is rather silly anyway , they are just different .
When modeling human intelligence , the closer you are mimicking the real processes , the more interesting it becomes , not if you are just surpassing it 's ability to do math ! When going against a human brain , there is no question that basic math can be done faster by the average calculator than the average human.The interesting problem sets in AI are the analogous to crypto : brute forcing any solution is rather boring , but when the AI can simulate human processes , or " breaking " the code through a better understanding of it , is very interesting indeed.Analyzing past human patterns and mimicking them is akin to optimizing a password list .
It shows off horsepower- but in the end it 's a low level optimization focused on one particular instance , pretty boring compared to teams that break one-way hashes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll, the parent is commenting on the very valid point that many computers are able to "win" chess games only because they their math processing is really fast.
The whole human intelligence vs. animal/computer is rather silly anyway, they are just different.
When modeling human intelligence, the closer you are mimicking the real processes, the more interesting it becomes, not if you are just surpassing it's ability to do math!When going against a human brain, there is no question that basic math can be done faster by the average calculator than the average human.The interesting problem sets in AI are the analogous to crypto: brute forcing any solution is rather boring, but when the AI can simulate human processes, or "breaking" the code through a better understanding of it, is very interesting indeed.Analyzing past human patterns and mimicking them is akin to optimizing a password list.
It shows off horsepower- but in the end it's a low level optimization focused on one particular instance, pretty boring compared to teams that break one-way hashes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.</p></div><p>Sure Einstein has his moments where he  did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered, but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but even that 's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.Sure Einstein has his moments where he did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered , but even that 's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.Sure Einstein has his moments where he  did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered, but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31286646</id>
	<title>Re:It has limits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267206600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can add Debussy, Satie, Ravel to this list.</p><p>The RIAA is not going to like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can add Debussy , Satie , Ravel to this list.The RIAA is not going to like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can add Debussy, Satie, Ravel to this list.The RIAA is not going to like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268118</id>
	<title>Yawn... Someone Wake Me When...</title>
	<author>Telephone Sanitizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265127420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wake me when computers write original, meaningful and compelling lyrics to their music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wake me when computers write original , meaningful and compelling lyrics to their music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wake me when computers write original, meaningful and compelling lyrics to their music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268198</id>
	<title>yes, but..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can his computer father 8 children, go blind, hack up bits of lung, die of syphilis, etc.? Come'on, *that's* what it *really* means to be *human*! Any farkin machine can do what I do on guitar, but is it also an artist, coder, it monkey, father of two (geniuses, yes I know), travlin' mugrotharaunchero, writer, phoet, gardenier, sleepin-at-the-wheel neopagan, breadmakin', puppet tossing, dwarfballin' cthulhubogomilitant rumsmugglin' cyberpunk? Geeze! Give me a break an' another cup of shut the fuck up. will'ya?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can his computer father 8 children , go blind , hack up bits of lung , die of syphilis , etc. ?
Come'on , * that 's * what it * really * means to be * human * !
Any farkin machine can do what I do on guitar , but is it also an artist , coder , it monkey , father of two ( geniuses , yes I know ) , travlin ' mugrotharaunchero , writer , phoet , gardenier , sleepin-at-the-wheel neopagan , breadmakin ' , puppet tossing , dwarfballin ' cthulhubogomilitant rumsmugglin ' cyberpunk ?
Geeze ! Give me a break an ' another cup of shut the fuck up .
will'ya ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can his computer father 8 children, go blind, hack up bits of lung, die of syphilis, etc.?
Come'on, *that's* what it *really* means to be *human*!
Any farkin machine can do what I do on guitar, but is it also an artist, coder, it monkey, father of two (geniuses, yes I know), travlin' mugrotharaunchero, writer, phoet, gardenier, sleepin-at-the-wheel neopagan, breadmakin', puppet tossing, dwarfballin' cthulhubogomilitant rumsmugglin' cyberpunk?
Geeze! Give me a break an' another cup of shut the fuck up.
will'ya?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269834</id>
	<title>A few red herrings there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267091700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Musical theory (which this software is based on) is an afterfact. First, the composers (such as Mozart) write the music with what "math" is available to them, but mostly using their ear as the final judge. After a while (centuries), the theorists have enough data to draw conclusions from the common practice of the composers, and usually by that time music changes. This software might account for some classical music (though I imagine not even all that - it probably can't do Schoenberg's type of almost atonal composition), but then there came jazz, suddenly including dissonances that were deeply shunned in classical music. So there again humans made the leap and got more sophisticated, and the theorists (and their machines) were left to simply follow and try to break it into patterns.</p><p>And even if it's an algorithm that creates the music, there's a man (or several men - or women) behind it, and the patterns they selected represent their choices among many possibilities. So, in a way, it's their music, and therefore still human-made.</p><p>As for Mozart, it really doesn't prove that he wasn't special, but it might prove that you don't need all that complexity to make beautiful music, and maybe finally we can discard our pretentiousness and put blues, jazz, and good rock music on the same level of respectability as tonal classical music. They are worth the same, but as usual it does take us a couple of centuries to accept it.</p><p>I would recommend W.A. Mathieu's "Harmonic Experience", Arnold Schoenberg's "Theory of Harmony" and maybe Mark Levine's "Jazz Theory" books to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.-ers, before rushing into conclusions based only on their experience with VIM and (X)Emacs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Musical theory ( which this software is based on ) is an afterfact .
First , the composers ( such as Mozart ) write the music with what " math " is available to them , but mostly using their ear as the final judge .
After a while ( centuries ) , the theorists have enough data to draw conclusions from the common practice of the composers , and usually by that time music changes .
This software might account for some classical music ( though I imagine not even all that - it probably ca n't do Schoenberg 's type of almost atonal composition ) , but then there came jazz , suddenly including dissonances that were deeply shunned in classical music .
So there again humans made the leap and got more sophisticated , and the theorists ( and their machines ) were left to simply follow and try to break it into patterns.And even if it 's an algorithm that creates the music , there 's a man ( or several men - or women ) behind it , and the patterns they selected represent their choices among many possibilities .
So , in a way , it 's their music , and therefore still human-made.As for Mozart , it really does n't prove that he was n't special , but it might prove that you do n't need all that complexity to make beautiful music , and maybe finally we can discard our pretentiousness and put blues , jazz , and good rock music on the same level of respectability as tonal classical music .
They are worth the same , but as usual it does take us a couple of centuries to accept it.I would recommend W.A .
Mathieu 's " Harmonic Experience " , Arnold Schoenberg 's " Theory of Harmony " and maybe Mark Levine 's " Jazz Theory " books to the /.-ers , before rushing into conclusions based only on their experience with VIM and ( X ) Emacs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Musical theory (which this software is based on) is an afterfact.
First, the composers (such as Mozart) write the music with what "math" is available to them, but mostly using their ear as the final judge.
After a while (centuries), the theorists have enough data to draw conclusions from the common practice of the composers, and usually by that time music changes.
This software might account for some classical music (though I imagine not even all that - it probably can't do Schoenberg's type of almost atonal composition), but then there came jazz, suddenly including dissonances that were deeply shunned in classical music.
So there again humans made the leap and got more sophisticated, and the theorists (and their machines) were left to simply follow and try to break it into patterns.And even if it's an algorithm that creates the music, there's a man (or several men - or women) behind it, and the patterns they selected represent their choices among many possibilities.
So, in a way, it's their music, and therefore still human-made.As for Mozart, it really doesn't prove that he wasn't special, but it might prove that you don't need all that complexity to make beautiful music, and maybe finally we can discard our pretentiousness and put blues, jazz, and good rock music on the same level of respectability as tonal classical music.
They are worth the same, but as usual it does take us a couple of centuries to accept it.I would recommend W.A.
Mathieu's "Harmonic Experience", Arnold Schoenberg's "Theory of Harmony" and maybe Mark Levine's "Jazz Theory" books to the /.-ers, before rushing into conclusions based only on their experience with VIM and (X)Emacs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269820</id>
	<title>Re:It's maths all the way down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267091460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love you.</p><p>You made a Diskworld/Buddhism reference, you used the British formulation, and your comment was apropos, succinct and comprehensible all the while.</p><p>Marry me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love you.You made a Diskworld/Buddhism reference , you used the British formulation , and your comment was apropos , succinct and comprehensible all the while.Marry me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love you.You made a Diskworld/Buddhism reference, you used the British formulation, and your comment was apropos, succinct and comprehensible all the while.Marry me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268812</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>baryluk</author>
	<datestamp>1265134980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eventually it would take maybe decade or two, but it will be discovered. And Einstein have big help of other physicists, and mathematics, notably Riman, Minkowski, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually it would take maybe decade or two , but it will be discovered .
And Einstein have big help of other physicists , and mathematics , notably Riman , Minkowski , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually it would take maybe decade or two, but it will be discovered.
And Einstein have big help of other physicists, and mathematics, notably Riman, Minkowski, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272226</id>
	<title>Re:It has limits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267114380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA.  He takes the deliberate breaking of rules into account.</p><p>The guy has been playing multiple instruments since age two and was transcribing scores at 12.  Trust him, he knows how music works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .
He takes the deliberate breaking of rules into account.The guy has been playing multiple instruments since age two and was transcribing scores at 12 .
Trust him , he knows how music works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.
He takes the deliberate breaking of rules into account.The guy has been playing multiple instruments since age two and was transcribing scores at 12.
Trust him, he knows how music works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267732</id>
	<title>Jazari</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1265124120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out the "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm435icmFSQ" title="youtube.com">drum machine</a> [youtube.com]" this guy built using real African drums and a couple of Wii controllers -- he explains <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b-tWK6AeLY" title="youtube.com">how it works here</a> [youtube.com].  The interesting thing is he's similarly letting the computers do the actual improvising through algorithms that he developed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out the " drum machine [ youtube.com ] " this guy built using real African drums and a couple of Wii controllers -- he explains how it works here [ youtube.com ] .
The interesting thing is he 's similarly letting the computers do the actual improvising through algorithms that he developed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out the "drum machine [youtube.com]" this guy built using real African drums and a couple of Wii controllers -- he explains how it works here [youtube.com].
The interesting thing is he's similarly letting the computers do the actual improvising through algorithms that he developed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268100</id>
	<title>Diminshed? Whatever.</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1265127240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?</p></div><p>What was special about Mozart was that he could write music so good that it has taken nearly ten thousand years of human civilization and, in the past century, an unprecedented, billion-dollar industry backed by a huge number of brilliant scientists and engineers to <i>begin</i> to devise machines that write music good enough for someone to even ask the question.</p><p>If people are going to get upset every time one of our creations outdoes us, they had better plan on being upset a lot. Eventually, someone will write software that bitches about its unique place in nature better than we do, too.</p><p>As for art -- art is a mental stance on the part of the observer. It's how you look at (or listen to) something that makes it art. It doesn't matter whether that something was made by a human being, a lower animal, an extraterrestrial alien, or a machine, or even if it was the product of purely natural processes. There is nothing intrinsically artistic about any object. Art is a set of human mental processes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals , then what was so special about Mozart ? What was special about Mozart was that he could write music so good that it has taken nearly ten thousand years of human civilization and , in the past century , an unprecedented , billion-dollar industry backed by a huge number of brilliant scientists and engineers to begin to devise machines that write music good enough for someone to even ask the question.If people are going to get upset every time one of our creations outdoes us , they had better plan on being upset a lot .
Eventually , someone will write software that bitches about its unique place in nature better than we do , too.As for art -- art is a mental stance on the part of the observer .
It 's how you look at ( or listen to ) something that makes it art .
It does n't matter whether that something was made by a human being , a lower animal , an extraterrestrial alien , or a machine , or even if it was the product of purely natural processes .
There is nothing intrinsically artistic about any object .
Art is a set of human mental processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?What was special about Mozart was that he could write music so good that it has taken nearly ten thousand years of human civilization and, in the past century, an unprecedented, billion-dollar industry backed by a huge number of brilliant scientists and engineers to begin to devise machines that write music good enough for someone to even ask the question.If people are going to get upset every time one of our creations outdoes us, they had better plan on being upset a lot.
Eventually, someone will write software that bitches about its unique place in nature better than we do, too.As for art -- art is a mental stance on the part of the observer.
It's how you look at (or listen to) something that makes it art.
It doesn't matter whether that something was made by a human being, a lower animal, an extraterrestrial alien, or a machine, or even if it was the product of purely natural processes.
There is nothing intrinsically artistic about any object.
Art is a set of human mental processes.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269676</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Yoozer</author>
	<datestamp>1267089900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Once the humans begin imitating the computers is when I'll be worried.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Compare the results of running everything through Auto-Tune and whatever Vocaloid spews out. Be afraid. Be very afraid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once the humans begin imitating the computers is when I 'll be worried .
Compare the results of running everything through Auto-Tune and whatever Vocaloid spews out .
Be afraid .
Be very afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once the humans begin imitating the computers is when I'll be worried.
Compare the results of running everything through Auto-Tune and whatever Vocaloid spews out.
Be afraid.
Be very afraid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272064</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267113240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most human composers can't do that either. And furthermore, most styles that appear do so gradually, as a result of many composers, who listen to and influence each other.</p><p>Furthermore, I'd argue that "new" styles are either fusions of existing styles (e.g., progressive rock combining rock with classical and other styles), or as a result of new technology (in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, we all heard music that sounded "new", due to the inventions and development of electric guitar, synthesisers, samplers and computers). Historically, new genres happened far more slowly, e.g., classical music spanning centuries for example.</p><p>The question now is how a computer can compare to a single composer. Expecting it to compete with decades or centuries of the evolution of music from large numbers of composers, in a short time, is an awful lot more.</p><p><i>Machines can't know if something entirely new will please humans</i></p><p>I do agree that this is a key feature, as someone commented above - it's more interesting if a computer is able to create music that a significant number of people like. It's less interesting if it's churning out tunes, and a human is having to handpick out the good ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most human composers ca n't do that either .
And furthermore , most styles that appear do so gradually , as a result of many composers , who listen to and influence each other.Furthermore , I 'd argue that " new " styles are either fusions of existing styles ( e.g. , progressive rock combining rock with classical and other styles ) , or as a result of new technology ( in the 60s , 70s , 80s and 90s , we all heard music that sounded " new " , due to the inventions and development of electric guitar , synthesisers , samplers and computers ) .
Historically , new genres happened far more slowly , e.g. , classical music spanning centuries for example.The question now is how a computer can compare to a single composer .
Expecting it to compete with decades or centuries of the evolution of music from large numbers of composers , in a short time , is an awful lot more.Machines ca n't know if something entirely new will please humansI do agree that this is a key feature , as someone commented above - it 's more interesting if a computer is able to create music that a significant number of people like .
It 's less interesting if it 's churning out tunes , and a human is having to handpick out the good ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most human composers can't do that either.
And furthermore, most styles that appear do so gradually, as a result of many composers, who listen to and influence each other.Furthermore, I'd argue that "new" styles are either fusions of existing styles (e.g., progressive rock combining rock with classical and other styles), or as a result of new technology (in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, we all heard music that sounded "new", due to the inventions and development of electric guitar, synthesisers, samplers and computers).
Historically, new genres happened far more slowly, e.g., classical music spanning centuries for example.The question now is how a computer can compare to a single composer.
Expecting it to compete with decades or centuries of the evolution of music from large numbers of composers, in a short time, is an awful lot more.Machines can't know if something entirely new will please humansI do agree that this is a key feature, as someone commented above - it's more interesting if a computer is able to create music that a significant number of people like.
It's less interesting if it's churning out tunes, and a human is having to handpick out the good ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268456</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>wjc\_25</author>
	<datestamp>1265131140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly! It's not surprising that a machine can absorb Mozart's prodigious output and spit out something similar--or that the result is emotionally compelling. Because it wasn't the computer that produced the emotionally compelling element: The element was borrowed from the past compositions.

One could argue that humans do the same thing. And they do, all the time. Most musicians are unoriginal. Speaking as a long-time amateur musician, nothing that I've ever made has been truly original. But there are flashes of genius where something truly new is made or synthesized. We can see this logically; if human art was only imitative, there wouldn't be such a wide variety of it. Mozart is truly different from Bach; Beethoven from Mozart; Stravinsky, Debussy, and Bartok different from all of them.

That a computer can imitate an imitative human being is nothing. Once the humans begin imitating the computers is when I'll be worried.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
It 's not surprising that a machine can absorb Mozart 's prodigious output and spit out something similar--or that the result is emotionally compelling .
Because it was n't the computer that produced the emotionally compelling element : The element was borrowed from the past compositions .
One could argue that humans do the same thing .
And they do , all the time .
Most musicians are unoriginal .
Speaking as a long-time amateur musician , nothing that I 've ever made has been truly original .
But there are flashes of genius where something truly new is made or synthesized .
We can see this logically ; if human art was only imitative , there would n't be such a wide variety of it .
Mozart is truly different from Bach ; Beethoven from Mozart ; Stravinsky , Debussy , and Bartok different from all of them .
That a computer can imitate an imitative human being is nothing .
Once the humans begin imitating the computers is when I 'll be worried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
It's not surprising that a machine can absorb Mozart's prodigious output and spit out something similar--or that the result is emotionally compelling.
Because it wasn't the computer that produced the emotionally compelling element: The element was borrowed from the past compositions.
One could argue that humans do the same thing.
And they do, all the time.
Most musicians are unoriginal.
Speaking as a long-time amateur musician, nothing that I've ever made has been truly original.
But there are flashes of genius where something truly new is made or synthesized.
We can see this logically; if human art was only imitative, there wouldn't be such a wide variety of it.
Mozart is truly different from Bach; Beethoven from Mozart; Stravinsky, Debussy, and Bartok different from all of them.
That a computer can imitate an imitative human being is nothing.
Once the humans begin imitating the computers is when I'll be worried.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269172</id>
	<title>I want music that sounds just like this</title>
	<author>PGGreens</author>
	<datestamp>1265139240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>First off, this is old news (he debuted it in '87). Second, it's not that surprising. The program analyzes patterns and reproduces them with some variance. You could not feed it your whole music library and have it come up with some brilliant new piece. I'm fairly confident that it would sound awful, because the number of available patterns would, in a sense, give the algorithm too much freedom. You feed it pieces of a certain style by a certain composer, and it gives you back something that resembles them. It's a cool project, but the music is inherently derivative.<br> <br>
If, however, he can get it to start churning out pop music, he could make a millions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , this is old news ( he debuted it in '87 ) .
Second , it 's not that surprising .
The program analyzes patterns and reproduces them with some variance .
You could not feed it your whole music library and have it come up with some brilliant new piece .
I 'm fairly confident that it would sound awful , because the number of available patterns would , in a sense , give the algorithm too much freedom .
You feed it pieces of a certain style by a certain composer , and it gives you back something that resembles them .
It 's a cool project , but the music is inherently derivative .
If , however , he can get it to start churning out pop music , he could make a millions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, this is old news (he debuted it in '87).
Second, it's not that surprising.
The program analyzes patterns and reproduces them with some variance.
You could not feed it your whole music library and have it come up with some brilliant new piece.
I'm fairly confident that it would sound awful, because the number of available patterns would, in a sense, give the algorithm too much freedom.
You feed it pieces of a certain style by a certain composer, and it gives you back something that resembles them.
It's a cool project, but the music is inherently derivative.
If, however, he can get it to start churning out pop music, he could make a millions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268068</id>
	<title>Heard the music and it sucked!</title>
	<author>roland\_mai</author>
	<datestamp>1265126940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heard the music and it sucked!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heard the music and it sucked !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heard the music and it sucked!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270050</id>
	<title>Re:It's also not a case of so what if</title>
	<author>Etrias</author>
	<datestamp>1267095120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with 99\% of your post.  But I think you're missing an important point from the OP.  Good musicians and composers have an intuitive feel of what makes good music.  In Mozart's case, he very much learned the "music rules" (for lack of a better term) that everyone was using at the time, but what was special is what he could do with it and the subtle ways he would play with structure and tonality which were not only unique, but rarely repeated since.</p><p>And actually after listening to the music produced by this computer linked in the article...eh, I'm not all that impressed.  Simple, contrapuntal music, the first sample highlighted by harmonic arpeggio under a simple moving melody and the second sample hinting at a fugue...but you only heard two voices until the clip ran out.  I would need to hear more to be duly impressed, but even then I probably won't care about this music.</p><p>Here's why.  This guy has essentially worked on this program for thirty years, plugging in scores from other composers.  He worked out the pattern recognition with various composers and told the program to do exactly that.  The program is really only doing what he told it to do, which is imitate and parrot.  Thing is, it might be good or it might be bad, but who determines if it's good or not?  Is it Cope himself?  The beauty of the great composers is that you can listen to their music and recognize it by it's voice.  Mozart has a certain sound, as does Beethoven, as does Stravinsky, and the list goes on and on.  Hell, if you looked at most movie scores, you can tell who wrote the orchestral parts (I find Williams and Horner pretty easy to spot--especially their early stuff). What voice does this computer bring to composing or does it do nothing but imitate?</p><p>Also, this guy seems to contradict himself.  Take this bit from the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;We are so damned biased, even those of us who spend all our lives attempting not to be biased. Just the mere fact that when we like the taste of something, we tend to eat it more than we should. We have our physical body telling us things, and we can&rsquo;t intellectually govern it the way we&rsquo;d like to,&rdquo; he says.

In other words, humans are more robotic than machines. &ldquo;The question,&rdquo; Cope says, &ldquo;isn&rsquo;t whether computers have a soul, but whether humans have a soul.&rdquo;</p></div><p>Against the end of the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As a composer, Cope laments, he remains a &ldquo;frustrated loser,&rdquo; confused by the fact that he burned so much time on a project that stole him away from composing. He still just wants to create that one piece that changes someone&rsquo;s life &mdash; it doesn&rsquo;t matter whether it&rsquo;s composed by one of his programs, or in collaboration with a machine, or with pencil on a sheet of paper.

&ldquo;I want that little boy or girl to have access to my music so they can play it and get the same thrill I got when I was a kid,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;And if that isn&rsquo;t gonna happen, then I&rsquo;ve completely failed.&rdquo;</p></div><p>So on one hand, he says humans are nothing more than robots with input/output commands and the next he wants to compose something that will change their life.  On the one hand, he tries feigning modesty and then the next, he claims his work will eventually change how all composing is done.  Aesthetically, I prefer the old human way.  Just look at today's pop music to see what happens when you apply a set formula to something that is supposed to be subjective.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with 99 \ % of your post .
But I think you 're missing an important point from the OP .
Good musicians and composers have an intuitive feel of what makes good music .
In Mozart 's case , he very much learned the " music rules " ( for lack of a better term ) that everyone was using at the time , but what was special is what he could do with it and the subtle ways he would play with structure and tonality which were not only unique , but rarely repeated since.And actually after listening to the music produced by this computer linked in the article...eh , I 'm not all that impressed .
Simple , contrapuntal music , the first sample highlighted by harmonic arpeggio under a simple moving melody and the second sample hinting at a fugue...but you only heard two voices until the clip ran out .
I would need to hear more to be duly impressed , but even then I probably wo n't care about this music.Here 's why .
This guy has essentially worked on this program for thirty years , plugging in scores from other composers .
He worked out the pattern recognition with various composers and told the program to do exactly that .
The program is really only doing what he told it to do , which is imitate and parrot .
Thing is , it might be good or it might be bad , but who determines if it 's good or not ?
Is it Cope himself ?
The beauty of the great composers is that you can listen to their music and recognize it by it 's voice .
Mozart has a certain sound , as does Beethoven , as does Stravinsky , and the list goes on and on .
Hell , if you looked at most movie scores , you can tell who wrote the orchestral parts ( I find Williams and Horner pretty easy to spot--especially their early stuff ) .
What voice does this computer bring to composing or does it do nothing but imitate ? Also , this guy seems to contradict himself .
Take this bit from the article :    We are so damned biased , even those of us who spend all our lives attempting not to be biased .
Just the mere fact that when we like the taste of something , we tend to eat it more than we should .
We have our physical body telling us things , and we can    t intellectually govern it the way we    d like to ,    he says .
In other words , humans are more robotic than machines .
   The question ,    Cope says ,    isn    t whether computers have a soul , but whether humans have a soul.    Against the end of the article : As a composer , Cope laments , he remains a    frustrated loser ,    confused by the fact that he burned so much time on a project that stole him away from composing .
He still just wants to create that one piece that changes someone    s life    it doesn    t matter whether it    s composed by one of his programs , or in collaboration with a machine , or with pencil on a sheet of paper .
   I want that little boy or girl to have access to my music so they can play it and get the same thrill I got when I was a kid ,    he says .
   And if that isn    t gon na happen , then I    ve completely failed.    So on one hand , he says humans are nothing more than robots with input/output commands and the next he wants to compose something that will change their life .
On the one hand , he tries feigning modesty and then the next , he claims his work will eventually change how all composing is done .
Aesthetically , I prefer the old human way .
Just look at today 's pop music to see what happens when you apply a set formula to something that is supposed to be subjective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with 99\% of your post.
But I think you're missing an important point from the OP.
Good musicians and composers have an intuitive feel of what makes good music.
In Mozart's case, he very much learned the "music rules" (for lack of a better term) that everyone was using at the time, but what was special is what he could do with it and the subtle ways he would play with structure and tonality which were not only unique, but rarely repeated since.And actually after listening to the music produced by this computer linked in the article...eh, I'm not all that impressed.
Simple, contrapuntal music, the first sample highlighted by harmonic arpeggio under a simple moving melody and the second sample hinting at a fugue...but you only heard two voices until the clip ran out.
I would need to hear more to be duly impressed, but even then I probably won't care about this music.Here's why.
This guy has essentially worked on this program for thirty years, plugging in scores from other composers.
He worked out the pattern recognition with various composers and told the program to do exactly that.
The program is really only doing what he told it to do, which is imitate and parrot.
Thing is, it might be good or it might be bad, but who determines if it's good or not?
Is it Cope himself?
The beauty of the great composers is that you can listen to their music and recognize it by it's voice.
Mozart has a certain sound, as does Beethoven, as does Stravinsky, and the list goes on and on.
Hell, if you looked at most movie scores, you can tell who wrote the orchestral parts (I find Williams and Horner pretty easy to spot--especially their early stuff).
What voice does this computer bring to composing or does it do nothing but imitate?Also, this guy seems to contradict himself.
Take this bit from the article:“We are so damned biased, even those of us who spend all our lives attempting not to be biased.
Just the mere fact that when we like the taste of something, we tend to eat it more than we should.
We have our physical body telling us things, and we can’t intellectually govern it the way we’d like to,” he says.
In other words, humans are more robotic than machines.
“The question,” Cope says, “isn’t whether computers have a soul, but whether humans have a soul.”Against the end of the article:As a composer, Cope laments, he remains a “frustrated loser,” confused by the fact that he burned so much time on a project that stole him away from composing.
He still just wants to create that one piece that changes someone’s life — it doesn’t matter whether it’s composed by one of his programs, or in collaboration with a machine, or with pencil on a sheet of paper.
“I want that little boy or girl to have access to my music so they can play it and get the same thrill I got when I was a kid,” he says.
“And if that isn’t gonna happen, then I’ve completely failed.”So on one hand, he says humans are nothing more than robots with input/output commands and the next he wants to compose something that will change their life.
On the one hand, he tries feigning modesty and then the next, he claims his work will eventually change how all composing is done.
Aesthetically, I prefer the old human way.
Just look at today's pop music to see what happens when you apply a set formula to something that is supposed to be subjective.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271190</id>
	<title>It's easy to dismiss the naysayers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267108020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...when software is cranking out classical pieces. But what if in 20 or 30 years I can click a button and 5 seconds later have an original grunge album, sung by John Denver, with lyrics about the automobile industry, featuring a violinist?</p><p>Wow.. I may want to get started on that right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...when software is cranking out classical pieces .
But what if in 20 or 30 years I can click a button and 5 seconds later have an original grunge album , sung by John Denver , with lyrics about the automobile industry , featuring a violinist ? Wow.. I may want to get started on that right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when software is cranking out classical pieces.
But what if in 20 or 30 years I can click a button and 5 seconds later have an original grunge album, sung by John Denver, with lyrics about the automobile industry, featuring a violinist?Wow.. I may want to get started on that right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269442</id>
	<title>Beethoven Example</title>
	<author>brianshmrian</author>
	<datestamp>1267129740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I listened to his EMI program's <a href="ftp://arts.ucsc.edu/pub/cope/beet2.mp3" title="ucsc.edu" rel="nofollow">sonata movement</a> [ucsc.edu] in the style of Beethoven and was not impressed.  It sounds like it took the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata and just tweaked it a bit.  You can find more samples <a href="http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm" title="ucsc.edu" rel="nofollow">here</a> [ucsc.edu].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I listened to his EMI program 's sonata movement [ ucsc.edu ] in the style of Beethoven and was not impressed .
It sounds like it took the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata and just tweaked it a bit .
You can find more samples here [ ucsc.edu ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I listened to his EMI program's sonata movement [ucsc.edu] in the style of Beethoven and was not impressed.
It sounds like it took the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata and just tweaked it a bit.
You can find more samples here [ucsc.edu].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269766</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1267090920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This raises an interesting question about creativity. Chess masters also study thousands of games, does that mean they're "just" the sum of their predecessors? Are computers capable of being truly original? Are humans?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This raises an interesting question about creativity .
Chess masters also study thousands of games , does that mean they 're " just " the sum of their predecessors ?
Are computers capable of being truly original ?
Are humans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This raises an interesting question about creativity.
Chess masters also study thousands of games, does that mean they're "just" the sum of their predecessors?
Are computers capable of being truly original?
Are humans?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269082</id>
	<title>Formulas become algorithms</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1265138340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a way that's not new. Think about it, there's always been inspired artists, but there's also always been uninspired makers of "art" who substituted their lack of inspiration/imagination by taking bits of artworks they didn't create and following formulas. The keyword is formula. People have always done things following well defined patterns, recipes, formulas. Sometimes you can hear a joke a deconstruct the formula that must have been used to create it. Same thing with a movie plot.

</p><p>The difference is, it's a person who "ran" the algorithm, benefiting from the less rigid human intelligence, and the benefit of judgement. So it's more complicated to translate that into an algorithm. But in a way, it's nothing you. If anything, it devaluates formulaic and uninspired  works of art, by showing they can be mass produced by machines, and by contrast, increases the value of inspired art. As for an algorithm imitating Bach's style, it's been for centuries that composers have imitated Bach's style (or Mozart, Beethoven etc...). So on top of human copycats now you have computer copycats. Big whoop, because none of this would have been done if Bach had never done what he had done. The true challenge is if an algorithm could create a major composer that never was. In a way in can happen and not happen. It can happen because theoretically a random ASCII generator could write Shakespeare, the corollary is it won't happen because it's doubtful an algorithm would identify a work of genius if it created one, and because the same is doubtful from a human listener/reader.

</p><p>This being said, it could totally work for pop music. Think about it, for example, a Kanye West algorithm. Use a database of hundreds of records from the 1960s and 1970s, make it randomly loop a sample poorly and annoyingly, add a semi-random pattern of drums, add a poorly sliced speeded up vocal sample to use in the chorus, and there you go! But again, it's just turning a human-executed formula into a computer-executed algorithm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a way that 's not new .
Think about it , there 's always been inspired artists , but there 's also always been uninspired makers of " art " who substituted their lack of inspiration/imagination by taking bits of artworks they did n't create and following formulas .
The keyword is formula .
People have always done things following well defined patterns , recipes , formulas .
Sometimes you can hear a joke a deconstruct the formula that must have been used to create it .
Same thing with a movie plot .
The difference is , it 's a person who " ran " the algorithm , benefiting from the less rigid human intelligence , and the benefit of judgement .
So it 's more complicated to translate that into an algorithm .
But in a way , it 's nothing you .
If anything , it devaluates formulaic and uninspired works of art , by showing they can be mass produced by machines , and by contrast , increases the value of inspired art .
As for an algorithm imitating Bach 's style , it 's been for centuries that composers have imitated Bach 's style ( or Mozart , Beethoven etc... ) .
So on top of human copycats now you have computer copycats .
Big whoop , because none of this would have been done if Bach had never done what he had done .
The true challenge is if an algorithm could create a major composer that never was .
In a way in can happen and not happen .
It can happen because theoretically a random ASCII generator could write Shakespeare , the corollary is it wo n't happen because it 's doubtful an algorithm would identify a work of genius if it created one , and because the same is doubtful from a human listener/reader .
This being said , it could totally work for pop music .
Think about it , for example , a Kanye West algorithm .
Use a database of hundreds of records from the 1960s and 1970s , make it randomly loop a sample poorly and annoyingly , add a semi-random pattern of drums , add a poorly sliced speeded up vocal sample to use in the chorus , and there you go !
But again , it 's just turning a human-executed formula into a computer-executed algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a way that's not new.
Think about it, there's always been inspired artists, but there's also always been uninspired makers of "art" who substituted their lack of inspiration/imagination by taking bits of artworks they didn't create and following formulas.
The keyword is formula.
People have always done things following well defined patterns, recipes, formulas.
Sometimes you can hear a joke a deconstruct the formula that must have been used to create it.
Same thing with a movie plot.
The difference is, it's a person who "ran" the algorithm, benefiting from the less rigid human intelligence, and the benefit of judgement.
So it's more complicated to translate that into an algorithm.
But in a way, it's nothing you.
If anything, it devaluates formulaic and uninspired  works of art, by showing they can be mass produced by machines, and by contrast, increases the value of inspired art.
As for an algorithm imitating Bach's style, it's been for centuries that composers have imitated Bach's style (or Mozart, Beethoven etc...).
So on top of human copycats now you have computer copycats.
Big whoop, because none of this would have been done if Bach had never done what he had done.
The true challenge is if an algorithm could create a major composer that never was.
In a way in can happen and not happen.
It can happen because theoretically a random ASCII generator could write Shakespeare, the corollary is it won't happen because it's doubtful an algorithm would identify a work of genius if it created one, and because the same is doubtful from a human listener/reader.
This being said, it could totally work for pop music.
Think about it, for example, a Kanye West algorithm.
Use a database of hundreds of records from the 1960s and 1970s, make it randomly loop a sample poorly and annoyingly, add a semi-random pattern of drums, add a poorly sliced speeded up vocal sample to use in the chorus, and there you go!
But again, it's just turning a human-executed formula into a computer-executed algorithm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268078</id>
	<title>imitating a composer doesn't take as much skill...</title>
	<author>rivaldufus</author>
	<datestamp>1265127120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>as most people might assume. I went to a conservatory for composition, and I have to say that any half decent composer should be able to imitate a non-living composer... particularly one in the past.<p>
I took quite a few classes on counterpoint, and was able to write fugues that sounded very much like Bach... and it didn't take too much skill. Other composers had a similar experience.
</p><p>

The reason why, I suspect, is that it's easier to analyze an existing body of work and imitate that, than it is to create entirely new, original music. The same goes for art, literature, etc.
</p><p>
I guess it's easier to drive down a road after someone else has paved it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as most people might assume .
I went to a conservatory for composition , and I have to say that any half decent composer should be able to imitate a non-living composer... particularly one in the past .
I took quite a few classes on counterpoint , and was able to write fugues that sounded very much like Bach... and it did n't take too much skill .
Other composers had a similar experience .
The reason why , I suspect , is that it 's easier to analyze an existing body of work and imitate that , than it is to create entirely new , original music .
The same goes for art , literature , etc .
I guess it 's easier to drive down a road after someone else has paved it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as most people might assume.
I went to a conservatory for composition, and I have to say that any half decent composer should be able to imitate a non-living composer... particularly one in the past.
I took quite a few classes on counterpoint, and was able to write fugues that sounded very much like Bach... and it didn't take too much skill.
Other composers had a similar experience.
The reason why, I suspect, is that it's easier to analyze an existing body of work and imitate that, than it is to create entirely new, original music.
The same goes for art, literature, etc.
I guess it's easier to drive down a road after someone else has paved it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268664</id>
	<title>Pretty, but unrevolutionary.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265133480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who tinkers with a music generator I have to warn against talk of replacing humans any time soon.</p><p>With computers you get out what you put in.  If you put in the rules of some music, you'll get out a piece of music.  But it's still humans who are doing the grunt work of defining the rules, the computer is just following them.  It's certainly interesting to generate lots of music from a fairly simple set of rules, but being arms-deep in the guts of a music-producing machine really sobers you up to the fact that the products are a human creation through and through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who tinkers with a music generator I have to warn against talk of replacing humans any time soon.With computers you get out what you put in .
If you put in the rules of some music , you 'll get out a piece of music .
But it 's still humans who are doing the grunt work of defining the rules , the computer is just following them .
It 's certainly interesting to generate lots of music from a fairly simple set of rules , but being arms-deep in the guts of a music-producing machine really sobers you up to the fact that the products are a human creation through and through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who tinkers with a music generator I have to warn against talk of replacing humans any time soon.With computers you get out what you put in.
If you put in the rules of some music, you'll get out a piece of music.
But it's still humans who are doing the grunt work of defining the rules, the computer is just following them.
It's certainly interesting to generate lots of music from a fairly simple set of rules, but being arms-deep in the guts of a music-producing machine really sobers you up to the fact that the products are a human creation through and through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267842</id>
	<title>One opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I consider myself a reasonable person capable of enjoying good music.</p><p>Now, I cannot find anything special about this robot music. Then again, not all composers are equally moving to me , either. To think about it, not even all music from the same composer are the same for me.</p><p>Can this software make something to denote a certain emotion? Can it get a feeling of joy and compose something joyful?</p><p>hmm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider myself a reasonable person capable of enjoying good music.Now , I can not find anything special about this robot music .
Then again , not all composers are equally moving to me , either .
To think about it , not even all music from the same composer are the same for me.Can this software make something to denote a certain emotion ?
Can it get a feeling of joy and compose something joyful ? hmm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider myself a reasonable person capable of enjoying good music.Now, I cannot find anything special about this robot music.
Then again, not all composers are equally moving to me , either.
To think about it, not even all music from the same composer are the same for me.Can this software make something to denote a certain emotion?
Can it get a feeling of joy and compose something joyful?hmm?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268372</id>
	<title>Re:As much genre as you want</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1265130180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What happens when we have the ability to generate as much music of a particular style as we want? </i></p><p>Somebody does an open-source implementation, and then small filmmakers can afford to have decent sound-tracks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when we have the ability to generate as much music of a particular style as we want ?
Somebody does an open-source implementation , and then small filmmakers can afford to have decent sound-tracks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when we have the ability to generate as much music of a particular style as we want?
Somebody does an open-source implementation, and then small filmmakers can afford to have decent sound-tracks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269296</id>
	<title>The machine's a poor imitation</title>
	<author>DABANSHEE</author>
	<datestamp>1265140680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The creator had to spend hundreds of hours programing with Bach's compositions before the machine could learn his style, so in effect it's dependent on Bach to compose in his style, same again in regards Mozart. However Bach 'n Mozart were able to create their styles without dependency on being programmed to do those styles in the 1st place, regardless of influences. IOW without Bach or Mozart, etc the machine would not be able to make those compositions in the 1st place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The creator had to spend hundreds of hours programing with Bach 's compositions before the machine could learn his style , so in effect it 's dependent on Bach to compose in his style , same again in regards Mozart .
However Bach 'n Mozart were able to create their styles without dependency on being programmed to do those styles in the 1st place , regardless of influences .
IOW without Bach or Mozart , etc the machine would not be able to make those compositions in the 1st place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The creator had to spend hundreds of hours programing with Bach's compositions before the machine could learn his style, so in effect it's dependent on Bach to compose in his style, same again in regards Mozart.
However Bach 'n Mozart were able to create their styles without dependency on being programmed to do those styles in the 1st place, regardless of influences.
IOW without Bach or Mozart, etc the machine would not be able to make those compositions in the 1st place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268708</id>
	<title>Re:As much genre as you want</title>
	<author>edisrafeht</author>
	<datestamp>1265133900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A couple of issues:
<p>
(1) Mozart died in his 30's.  Had he lived as long as Haydn, the output would have been 'gi-normous'.  Would people think less of the work up to his 30's because they  "burn out" from too much Mozart by the time they hear his composition from his hypothetical 80's?  I doubt it.  Mozart was such a genius that if you appreciated even the obvious pleasantries on the surface of his music you could not get enough Mozart.  His music changed as he aged, and had he lived longer his music would have continued to change.  In short, there is no such thing as too much Mozart.  If a piece weren't good enough, he'd throw it away first.
</p><p>
(2) I listened to the professor's Chopin, Bach, Beethoven, and Joplin samples as objectively as I could.  They are <i>rhythmically identical</i> to particular works of the composers.  All the program did was swap out notes with others in the same styles as the composer did.  Note for note.  These are imitations bordering on plagiarism; not original.  It'd be like us singing Mary Had A Little Lamb in the same rhythm but different tones.  If you step back and enjoy the imitation, they are quite nice.  But they are no serious threat to original compositions because they sound like glued together gibberish with no themes.  Perhaps one day Emmy v3.11 would do more than just replace the exact same number of notes on a given composition and come up with something original.  On that day, she'd be a true composer and not some hack (yes pun intended).  Emmy in her current capabilities is truly amazing, though.  The professor's knowledge and skills are beyond most mortals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of issues : ( 1 ) Mozart died in his 30 's .
Had he lived as long as Haydn , the output would have been 'gi-normous' .
Would people think less of the work up to his 30 's because they " burn out " from too much Mozart by the time they hear his composition from his hypothetical 80 's ?
I doubt it .
Mozart was such a genius that if you appreciated even the obvious pleasantries on the surface of his music you could not get enough Mozart .
His music changed as he aged , and had he lived longer his music would have continued to change .
In short , there is no such thing as too much Mozart .
If a piece were n't good enough , he 'd throw it away first .
( 2 ) I listened to the professor 's Chopin , Bach , Beethoven , and Joplin samples as objectively as I could .
They are rhythmically identical to particular works of the composers .
All the program did was swap out notes with others in the same styles as the composer did .
Note for note .
These are imitations bordering on plagiarism ; not original .
It 'd be like us singing Mary Had A Little Lamb in the same rhythm but different tones .
If you step back and enjoy the imitation , they are quite nice .
But they are no serious threat to original compositions because they sound like glued together gibberish with no themes .
Perhaps one day Emmy v3.11 would do more than just replace the exact same number of notes on a given composition and come up with something original .
On that day , she 'd be a true composer and not some hack ( yes pun intended ) .
Emmy in her current capabilities is truly amazing , though .
The professor 's knowledge and skills are beyond most mortals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of issues:

(1) Mozart died in his 30's.
Had he lived as long as Haydn, the output would have been 'gi-normous'.
Would people think less of the work up to his 30's because they  "burn out" from too much Mozart by the time they hear his composition from his hypothetical 80's?
I doubt it.
Mozart was such a genius that if you appreciated even the obvious pleasantries on the surface of his music you could not get enough Mozart.
His music changed as he aged, and had he lived longer his music would have continued to change.
In short, there is no such thing as too much Mozart.
If a piece weren't good enough, he'd throw it away first.
(2) I listened to the professor's Chopin, Bach, Beethoven, and Joplin samples as objectively as I could.
They are rhythmically identical to particular works of the composers.
All the program did was swap out notes with others in the same styles as the composer did.
Note for note.
These are imitations bordering on plagiarism; not original.
It'd be like us singing Mary Had A Little Lamb in the same rhythm but different tones.
If you step back and enjoy the imitation, they are quite nice.
But they are no serious threat to original compositions because they sound like glued together gibberish with no themes.
Perhaps one day Emmy v3.11 would do more than just replace the exact same number of notes on a given composition and come up with something original.
On that day, she'd be a true composer and not some hack (yes pun intended).
Emmy in her current capabilities is truly amazing, though.
The professor's knowledge and skills are beyond most mortals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that a relatively simple machine (especially when we look back ten or fifty years from now) can do what was originally thought to be difficult undermines the pedestal that many humans have put themselves on. This is why people were upset when Deep Blue beat Kasparov. It would have to be a skill that we've abandoned as uniquely human - such as raw mathematical calculations - that a machine would be allowed to beat us at without this sort of reaction.</p><p>Fact is, what's hard for humans to do isn't necessarily hard for a computer, but those who fail to understand that get upset.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that a relatively simple machine ( especially when we look back ten or fifty years from now ) can do what was originally thought to be difficult undermines the pedestal that many humans have put themselves on .
This is why people were upset when Deep Blue beat Kasparov .
It would have to be a skill that we 've abandoned as uniquely human - such as raw mathematical calculations - that a machine would be allowed to beat us at without this sort of reaction.Fact is , what 's hard for humans to do is n't necessarily hard for a computer , but those who fail to understand that get upset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that a relatively simple machine (especially when we look back ten or fifty years from now) can do what was originally thought to be difficult undermines the pedestal that many humans have put themselves on.
This is why people were upset when Deep Blue beat Kasparov.
It would have to be a skill that we've abandoned as uniquely human - such as raw mathematical calculations - that a machine would be allowed to beat us at without this sort of reaction.Fact is, what's hard for humans to do isn't necessarily hard for a computer, but those who fail to understand that get upset.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267990</id>
	<title>It's also not a case of so what if</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1265126280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Music IS math. This is because at a more fundamental level acoustics are math. Things like octaves weren't chosen arbitrarily. While the math may have not been understood back when it was developed, it wasn't arbitrary. An octave is an octave because the frequency is double. If you look at a graph of sin (x) + sin (2x) you see how frequency doubling fits nicely together. So you discover that the fundamentals of music are all based in math. It was worked out by listening, and trying, but the reason it works can be explained mathematically. At this point, we have a pretty damn good understanding of the math underlying it (it isn't all that complex compared to many other things).</p><p>Thus, it should be no surprise that we can make a computer that can make music. As you say, this is no way reduces the beauty of music, or the accomplishments of musicians.</p><p>Hell look at fractals. Look at the amazing beauty, the amazing complexity that can come from Z = Z^2 + C. That is the fundamental equation of the Mandelbrot set. All that you see in it is simply derived for iterations of that equation around the complex plane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Music IS math .
This is because at a more fundamental level acoustics are math .
Things like octaves were n't chosen arbitrarily .
While the math may have not been understood back when it was developed , it was n't arbitrary .
An octave is an octave because the frequency is double .
If you look at a graph of sin ( x ) + sin ( 2x ) you see how frequency doubling fits nicely together .
So you discover that the fundamentals of music are all based in math .
It was worked out by listening , and trying , but the reason it works can be explained mathematically .
At this point , we have a pretty damn good understanding of the math underlying it ( it is n't all that complex compared to many other things ) .Thus , it should be no surprise that we can make a computer that can make music .
As you say , this is no way reduces the beauty of music , or the accomplishments of musicians.Hell look at fractals .
Look at the amazing beauty , the amazing complexity that can come from Z = Z ^ 2 + C. That is the fundamental equation of the Mandelbrot set .
All that you see in it is simply derived for iterations of that equation around the complex plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Music IS math.
This is because at a more fundamental level acoustics are math.
Things like octaves weren't chosen arbitrarily.
While the math may have not been understood back when it was developed, it wasn't arbitrary.
An octave is an octave because the frequency is double.
If you look at a graph of sin (x) + sin (2x) you see how frequency doubling fits nicely together.
So you discover that the fundamentals of music are all based in math.
It was worked out by listening, and trying, but the reason it works can be explained mathematically.
At this point, we have a pretty damn good understanding of the math underlying it (it isn't all that complex compared to many other things).Thus, it should be no surprise that we can make a computer that can make music.
As you say, this is no way reduces the beauty of music, or the accomplishments of musicians.Hell look at fractals.
Look at the amazing beauty, the amazing complexity that can come from Z = Z^2 + C. That is the fundamental equation of the Mandelbrot set.
All that you see in it is simply derived for iterations of that equation around the complex plane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269192</id>
	<title>Re:It's maths all the way down</title>
	<author>Redlazer</author>
	<datestamp>1265139420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I couldn't believe art being anything other than math.
<p>
Think of architecture.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't believe art being anything other than math .
Think of architecture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't believe art being anything other than math.
Think of architecture.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269548</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>RzUpAnmsCwrds</author>
	<datestamp>1267131000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Deep Blue had its occasional moment where it did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered, but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, because you know the best Chess players play only completely original openings, never study classical tactics, and don't look at the play styles of their opponents.</p><p>Computers today are so far beyond humans in Chess that it's not even funny.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Deep Blue had its occasional moment where it did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered , but even that 's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.Yeah , because you know the best Chess players play only completely original openings , never study classical tactics , and do n't look at the play styles of their opponents.Computers today are so far beyond humans in Chess that it 's not even funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deep Blue had its occasional moment where it did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered, but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point.Yeah, because you know the best Chess players play only completely original openings, never study classical tactics, and don't look at the play styles of their opponents.Computers today are so far beyond humans in Chess that it's not even funny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267698</id>
	<title>Like any other language</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A student in a grade 12 programming class can write a program to create English sentences that at least sound ~ right. So in my honest opinion their is no reason someone could not create a program to create music.<br> Now getting a program that will write music that is as good as the greats is a huge accomplishment, don't get me wrong, but their is little reason to believe it is impossible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A student in a grade 12 programming class can write a program to create English sentences that at least sound ~ right .
So in my honest opinion their is no reason someone could not create a program to create music .
Now getting a program that will write music that is as good as the greats is a huge accomplishment , do n't get me wrong , but their is little reason to believe it is impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A student in a grade 12 programming class can write a program to create English sentences that at least sound ~ right.
So in my honest opinion their is no reason someone could not create a program to create music.
Now getting a program that will write music that is as good as the greats is a huge accomplishment, don't get me wrong, but their is little reason to believe it is impossible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267776</id>
	<title>Watching in the wrong direction</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1265124480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of what is special about Mozart music is not in the music, is in us. It have meaning, we gave meaning to it, even if is just music, if a machine would generate something similar, and we know that is a machine and not a prodigy child, we maybe would just see it as a collection of sounds, maybe that kind of music would have never been popular if noone special had put it into our common culture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of what is special about Mozart music is not in the music , is in us .
It have meaning , we gave meaning to it , even if is just music , if a machine would generate something similar , and we know that is a machine and not a prodigy child , we maybe would just see it as a collection of sounds , maybe that kind of music would have never been popular if noone special had put it into our common culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of what is special about Mozart music is not in the music, is in us.
It have meaning, we gave meaning to it, even if is just music, if a machine would generate something similar, and we know that is a machine and not a prodigy child, we maybe would just see it as a collection of sounds, maybe that kind of music would have never been popular if noone special had put it into our common culture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272714</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Estragib</author>
	<datestamp>1267116840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlikely.</p><p>Humility can't be taught, only learnt. And speaking from the last few millennia, 5\% of people at most are willing to learn it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlikely.Humility ca n't be taught , only learnt .
And speaking from the last few millennia , 5 \ % of people at most are willing to learn it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlikely.Humility can't be taught, only learnt.
And speaking from the last few millennia, 5\% of people at most are willing to learn it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267808</id>
	<title>Re:Not scared yet</title>
	<author>Merc248</author>
	<datestamp>1265124720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*Plays Beethoven*</p><p>Computer: "VERY DELIGHTFUL.  PLEASE PLAY MORE."</p><p>*Plays T-Pain*</p><p>Computer: "OH LORD."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Plays Beethoven * Computer : " VERY DELIGHTFUL .
PLEASE PLAY MORE .
" * Plays T-Pain * Computer : " OH LORD .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Plays Beethoven*Computer: "VERY DELIGHTFUL.
PLEASE PLAY MORE.
"*Plays T-Pain*Computer: "OH LORD.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269120</id>
	<title>Re:It has limits</title>
	<author>mrbobjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265138700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you just translate those rules to computer code, then anything it makes will sound good. What it cannot create is real creativity. There are some composers such as Wagner, Mahler and Stravinsky who chose to break those rules. Their music doesn't sound pretty, but it is very enjoyable and it obeys enough of those rules to sound good. In short, we'll never see a computer compose something like the rite of spring.</p></div><p>From the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Cope wrestled with the problem for months, almost giving up several times. And then one day, on the way to the drug store, Cope remembered that Bach wasn't a machine -- once in a while, he broke his rules for the sake of aesthetics. The program didn't break any rules; Cope hadn't asked it to.

The best way to replicate Bach's process was for the software to derive his rules -- both the standard techniques and the behavior of breaking them.</p></div><p>It sounds like &quot;know the rules and how they are broken&quot; was in fact the essence of this approach.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you just translate those rules to computer code , then anything it makes will sound good .
What it can not create is real creativity .
There are some composers such as Wagner , Mahler and Stravinsky who chose to break those rules .
Their music does n't sound pretty , but it is very enjoyable and it obeys enough of those rules to sound good .
In short , we 'll never see a computer compose something like the rite of spring.From the article : Cope wrestled with the problem for months , almost giving up several times .
And then one day , on the way to the drug store , Cope remembered that Bach was n't a machine -- once in a while , he broke his rules for the sake of aesthetics .
The program did n't break any rules ; Cope had n't asked it to .
The best way to replicate Bach 's process was for the software to derive his rules -- both the standard techniques and the behavior of breaking them.It sounds like " know the rules and how they are broken " was in fact the essence of this approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you just translate those rules to computer code, then anything it makes will sound good.
What it cannot create is real creativity.
There are some composers such as Wagner, Mahler and Stravinsky who chose to break those rules.
Their music doesn't sound pretty, but it is very enjoyable and it obeys enough of those rules to sound good.
In short, we'll never see a computer compose something like the rite of spring.From the article:Cope wrestled with the problem for months, almost giving up several times.
And then one day, on the way to the drug store, Cope remembered that Bach wasn't a machine -- once in a while, he broke his rules for the sake of aesthetics.
The program didn't break any rules; Cope hadn't asked it to.
The best way to replicate Bach's process was for the software to derive his rules -- both the standard techniques and the behavior of breaking them.It sounds like "know the rules and how they are broken" was in fact the essence of this approach.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272690</id>
	<title>Re:As much genre as you want</title>
	<author>Joey Vegetables</author>
	<datestamp>1267116720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One can tire of mediocre or even fairly good music quickly, but truly great music is another story.</p><p>I compose music in the Baroque style, and also listen to and/or play Bach (badly I'm afraid) for probably 10 to 15 hours per week.  I have his complete works on CD, and am very familiar with most of his organ and keyboard work as well as much of the rest.</p><p>I tire quickly of my own music, but could listen to any of Bach's well-known works a hundred times in a row and still hear something new or differently each time.</p><p>A computer could easily supersede any "genius" or creativity I could be said to have, even though the best of my work could fool someone unfamiliar with the genre.  However, not only do I not think a computer will ever replicate Bach, but I don't think any person will either.  I think his genius was not merely human, but divine, as he himself believed as well (he inscripted a number of his works with the initials 'SDG', short for <i>Sola Dei Gloria</i> or roughly "Glory only to God."  He as well as most others in his day grossly underestimated that genius, but he at least knew where it came from!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One can tire of mediocre or even fairly good music quickly , but truly great music is another story.I compose music in the Baroque style , and also listen to and/or play Bach ( badly I 'm afraid ) for probably 10 to 15 hours per week .
I have his complete works on CD , and am very familiar with most of his organ and keyboard work as well as much of the rest.I tire quickly of my own music , but could listen to any of Bach 's well-known works a hundred times in a row and still hear something new or differently each time.A computer could easily supersede any " genius " or creativity I could be said to have , even though the best of my work could fool someone unfamiliar with the genre .
However , not only do I not think a computer will ever replicate Bach , but I do n't think any person will either .
I think his genius was not merely human , but divine , as he himself believed as well ( he inscripted a number of his works with the initials 'SDG ' , short for Sola Dei Gloria or roughly " Glory only to God .
" He as well as most others in his day grossly underestimated that genius , but he at least knew where it came from !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can tire of mediocre or even fairly good music quickly, but truly great music is another story.I compose music in the Baroque style, and also listen to and/or play Bach (badly I'm afraid) for probably 10 to 15 hours per week.
I have his complete works on CD, and am very familiar with most of his organ and keyboard work as well as much of the rest.I tire quickly of my own music, but could listen to any of Bach's well-known works a hundred times in a row and still hear something new or differently each time.A computer could easily supersede any "genius" or creativity I could be said to have, even though the best of my work could fool someone unfamiliar with the genre.
However, not only do I not think a computer will ever replicate Bach, but I don't think any person will either.
I think his genius was not merely human, but divine, as he himself believed as well (he inscripted a number of his works with the initials 'SDG', short for Sola Dei Gloria or roughly "Glory only to God.
"  He as well as most others in his day grossly underestimated that genius, but he at least knew where it came from!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269222</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265139660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sure Einstein has his moments where he did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered, but...</p></div></blockquote><p>The <i>real</i> stumper has been emulating his <b>hair</b> correctly.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure Einstein has his moments where he did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered , but...The real stumper has been emulating his hair correctly .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure Einstein has his moments where he did something really brilliant that no person was likely to have ever considered, but...The real stumper has been emulating his hair correctly.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267716</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who said this shit was good?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said this shit was good ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said this shit was good?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270188</id>
	<title>As the author of an algorithmic composition system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267096560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a mathematician by training turned 'computer scientist'.  Over the past couple of years I've been working on a declarative, rule based algorithmic composition system and it's been a rather interesting experience.  As someone with no 'musical talent' and no real training it's been really cool to be able to 'make music', something that most musicians probably take for granted.  However one of the really interesting things is people's reaction to the system.  Some are supportive, some are dismissive and we do get the occasional philosophical question ("what does this say about human creativity?", etc.) but they are mostly curious and asked in good nature.</p><p>The *only* hostile or negative comments we've had, the only things similar to those described in the article, have been from formal musicians.  These responses have been vociferous attacks saying that what we describe is not making music and is not possible (despite the fact that we have a working system).  So, my feeling is, that these discussions are more about technophobia and territory than they are to do with the nature of creativity or the existence of the human soul.</p><p>[Blatant slashvertisement]<br>The demo is here:<br>http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~mjb/anton/anton-2.0-demo.ogg<br>http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~mjb/anton/anton-2.0-demo.wav</p><p>And you can download the system (GPL) here:<br>http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~mjb/anton/<br>[/Blatant slashvertisement]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a mathematician by training turned 'computer scientist' .
Over the past couple of years I 've been working on a declarative , rule based algorithmic composition system and it 's been a rather interesting experience .
As someone with no 'musical talent ' and no real training it 's been really cool to be able to 'make music ' , something that most musicians probably take for granted .
However one of the really interesting things is people 's reaction to the system .
Some are supportive , some are dismissive and we do get the occasional philosophical question ( " what does this say about human creativity ?
" , etc .
) but they are mostly curious and asked in good nature.The * only * hostile or negative comments we 've had , the only things similar to those described in the article , have been from formal musicians .
These responses have been vociferous attacks saying that what we describe is not making music and is not possible ( despite the fact that we have a working system ) .
So , my feeling is , that these discussions are more about technophobia and territory than they are to do with the nature of creativity or the existence of the human soul .
[ Blatant slashvertisement ] The demo is here : http : //www.cs.bath.ac.uk/ ~ mjb/anton/anton-2.0-demo.ogghttp : //www.cs.bath.ac.uk/ ~ mjb/anton/anton-2.0-demo.wavAnd you can download the system ( GPL ) here : http : //www.cs.bath.ac.uk/ ~ mjb/anton/ [ /Blatant slashvertisement ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a mathematician by training turned 'computer scientist'.
Over the past couple of years I've been working on a declarative, rule based algorithmic composition system and it's been a rather interesting experience.
As someone with no 'musical talent' and no real training it's been really cool to be able to 'make music', something that most musicians probably take for granted.
However one of the really interesting things is people's reaction to the system.
Some are supportive, some are dismissive and we do get the occasional philosophical question ("what does this say about human creativity?
", etc.
) but they are mostly curious and asked in good nature.The *only* hostile or negative comments we've had, the only things similar to those described in the article, have been from formal musicians.
These responses have been vociferous attacks saying that what we describe is not making music and is not possible (despite the fact that we have a working system).
So, my feeling is, that these discussions are more about technophobia and territory than they are to do with the nature of creativity or the existence of the human soul.
[Blatant slashvertisement]The demo is here:http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~mjb/anton/anton-2.0-demo.ogghttp://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~mjb/anton/anton-2.0-demo.wavAnd you can download the system (GPL) here:http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~mjb/anton/[/Blatant slashvertisement]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31284606</id>
	<title>A C#, By Any Other Name</title>
	<author>jman.org</author>
	<datestamp>1267197540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As Anonymous Coward pointed out (and Pythagoras earlier discovered) music is math.
<br> <br>
Humans are good at modeling what they see around them, so it's no wonder someone has come up with a way to make a pretend (sic) composer.
<br> <br>
Naturally, the closer it gets to emulating whatever data it was fed (i.e., its world view), the more we humans will appreciate that output as being "in the style" of established works.
<br> <br>
The Turing Test here would be to see it come up with a <strong>NEW</strong> form of music, one completely original, but that still pleases the ear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Anonymous Coward pointed out ( and Pythagoras earlier discovered ) music is math .
Humans are good at modeling what they see around them , so it 's no wonder someone has come up with a way to make a pretend ( sic ) composer .
Naturally , the closer it gets to emulating whatever data it was fed ( i.e. , its world view ) , the more we humans will appreciate that output as being " in the style " of established works .
The Turing Test here would be to see it come up with a NEW form of music , one completely original , but that still pleases the ear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Anonymous Coward pointed out (and Pythagoras earlier discovered) music is math.
Humans are good at modeling what they see around them, so it's no wonder someone has come up with a way to make a pretend (sic) composer.
Naturally, the closer it gets to emulating whatever data it was fed (i.e., its world view), the more we humans will appreciate that output as being "in the style" of established works.
The Turing Test here would be to see it come up with a NEW form of music, one completely original, but that still pleases the ear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269144</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265139000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all want John Henry to beat the Steam Powered Hammer, but unfortunately our Bio sciences are not anywhere near as good as our Industrial Engineering...</p><p>Now I want John Henry to win even more, but because we made him better than the machine...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all want John Henry to beat the Steam Powered Hammer , but unfortunately our Bio sciences are not anywhere near as good as our Industrial Engineering...Now I want John Henry to win even more , but because we made him better than the machine.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all want John Henry to beat the Steam Powered Hammer, but unfortunately our Bio sciences are not anywhere near as good as our Industrial Engineering...Now I want John Henry to win even more, but because we made him better than the machine...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268626</id>
	<title>Re:Human arrogance knows no bounds.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265133000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me guess, a computer program wrote this comment? Tell the programmer there are a few logical errors with this line of reasoning. For example, "there is no such thing as a prodigy genius". The truth of that statement depends on the definition of the words "prodigy" and "genius". As commonly used, Mozart qualifies, ergo prodigy and genius exist. You can't define exceptional ability out of existence by arguing that it is merely highly complex examples of simple processes. And if you claim that what Mozart accomplished is something you are doing and is "doable by everyone" then you delude yourself. Redefine humanity down sufficiently and it is certainly easily replicated and nothing special. Take a more expansive view and the problem of consciousness is not so simple after all. Check out Joseph Weizenbaum's work in this regard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me guess , a computer program wrote this comment ?
Tell the programmer there are a few logical errors with this line of reasoning .
For example , " there is no such thing as a prodigy genius " .
The truth of that statement depends on the definition of the words " prodigy " and " genius " .
As commonly used , Mozart qualifies , ergo prodigy and genius exist .
You ca n't define exceptional ability out of existence by arguing that it is merely highly complex examples of simple processes .
And if you claim that what Mozart accomplished is something you are doing and is " doable by everyone " then you delude yourself .
Redefine humanity down sufficiently and it is certainly easily replicated and nothing special .
Take a more expansive view and the problem of consciousness is not so simple after all .
Check out Joseph Weizenbaum 's work in this regard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me guess, a computer program wrote this comment?
Tell the programmer there are a few logical errors with this line of reasoning.
For example, "there is no such thing as a prodigy genius".
The truth of that statement depends on the definition of the words "prodigy" and "genius".
As commonly used, Mozart qualifies, ergo prodigy and genius exist.
You can't define exceptional ability out of existence by arguing that it is merely highly complex examples of simple processes.
And if you claim that what Mozart accomplished is something you are doing and is "doable by everyone" then you delude yourself.
Redefine humanity down sufficiently and it is certainly easily replicated and nothing special.
Take a more expansive view and the problem of consciousness is not so simple after all.
Check out Joseph Weizenbaum's work in this regard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31276580</id>
	<title>Re:The machine can do it because we allow it to.</title>
	<author>DaFallus</author>
	<datestamp>1267131060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think one aspect you are overlooking is human error. We could easily discover new music through a simple programming error that achieves a completely unintended yet beautiful new style. I agree that it wouldn't be an achievement of the machine, but I don't know enough to say for certain that this will always be the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think one aspect you are overlooking is human error .
We could easily discover new music through a simple programming error that achieves a completely unintended yet beautiful new style .
I agree that it would n't be an achievement of the machine , but I do n't know enough to say for certain that this will always be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think one aspect you are overlooking is human error.
We could easily discover new music through a simple programming error that achieves a completely unintended yet beautiful new style.
I agree that it wouldn't be an achievement of the machine, but I don't know enough to say for certain that this will always be the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268818</id>
	<title>Garoaan!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When a computer can come up with original musical ideas, rather than copy the style of some one else's - its trivial to compose in the style of - I'll be suitably impressed, or worried, as the case may be.  Otherwise, so what: its just another copy-cat composer that writes in a 300 year old style, good enough for commercials or movies perhaps, but not very interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When a computer can come up with original musical ideas , rather than copy the style of some one else 's - its trivial to compose in the style of - I 'll be suitably impressed , or worried , as the case may be .
Otherwise , so what : its just another copy-cat composer that writes in a 300 year old style , good enough for commercials or movies perhaps , but not very interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a computer can come up with original musical ideas, rather than copy the style of some one else's - its trivial to compose in the style of - I'll be suitably impressed, or worried, as the case may be.
Otherwise, so what: its just another copy-cat composer that writes in a 300 year old style, good enough for commercials or movies perhaps, but not very interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267988</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1, understands how things work.</p><p>It's not that nobody understands the connection, it's that in order to exploit it you have to put in a lifetime of work, and only a tiny fraction of those who do so are rewarded in proportion to the effort they spent.</p><p>Along the same lines as what you were saying: Mathematics provides us with tools for understanding and manipulating patterns? <i>Quelle surprise!</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 , understands how things work.It 's not that nobody understands the connection , it 's that in order to exploit it you have to put in a lifetime of work , and only a tiny fraction of those who do so are rewarded in proportion to the effort they spent.Along the same lines as what you were saying : Mathematics provides us with tools for understanding and manipulating patterns ?
Quelle surprise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1, understands how things work.It's not that nobody understands the connection, it's that in order to exploit it you have to put in a lifetime of work, and only a tiny fraction of those who do so are rewarded in proportion to the effort they spent.Along the same lines as what you were saying: Mathematics provides us with tools for understanding and manipulating patterns?
Quelle surprise!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022</id>
	<title>Human arrogance knows no bounds.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265126460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That&rsquo;s the only thing special about us.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?</p></div><p>Nothing was. Sorry.<br>Of course, as a human, he was an exception. But it is long proven, that there is no such thing as a prodigy genius. The only differences: 1. Keeping oneself exactly on the balancing point between too hard and too easy tasks. Which creates maximum motivation. And 2. storing things efficiently. Like &ldquo;base configuration X&rdquo; plus &ldquo;mod Y&rdquo; plus &ldquo;property Z changed&rdquo; = 3 memory slots. Not the perhaps thousands of a complete set of properties. And that&rdquo;s all. I&rsquo;m using that myself. (Harder than it sounds, but definitely doable for everyone.)</p><p>We humans started out thinking that we were the God-chosen species... or even race. The only one with intelligence. The only one with a &ldquo;soul&rdquo; (an imaginary concept anyway). On a planet at the center of the universe.<br>And gradually, all those things fell apart.</p><p>We&rsquo;re not special. We&rsquo;r also only machines.</p><p>It&rsquo;s just that for some weird reason, we have concepts like &ldquo;good&rdquo;, &ldquo;bad&rdquo; and &ldquo;special&rdquo;, and some of us hang their whole stupid pride on being &ldquo;good&rdquo; and &ldquo;special&rdquo;.<br>Things are just what they are. You make the best out of it.</p><p>I say, I&rsquo;m pretty damn proud that we humans have come to the level, where we nearly create our own forms life. And if that life is successful, then so are we. Just like a master is proud of his student, when the student defeats him for the first time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s the only thing special about us.If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals , then what was so special about Mozart ? Nothing was .
Sorry.Of course , as a human , he was an exception .
But it is long proven , that there is no such thing as a prodigy genius .
The only differences : 1 .
Keeping oneself exactly on the balancing point between too hard and too easy tasks .
Which creates maximum motivation .
And 2. storing things efficiently .
Like    base configuration X    plus    mod Y    plus    property Z changed    = 3 memory slots .
Not the perhaps thousands of a complete set of properties .
And that    s all .
I    m using that myself .
( Harder than it sounds , but definitely doable for everyone .
) We humans started out thinking that we were the God-chosen species... or even race .
The only one with intelligence .
The only one with a    soul    ( an imaginary concept anyway ) .
On a planet at the center of the universe.And gradually , all those things fell apart.We    re not special .
We    r also only machines.It    s just that for some weird reason , we have concepts like    good    ,    bad    and    special    , and some of us hang their whole stupid pride on being    good    and    special    .Things are just what they are .
You make the best out of it.I say , I    m pretty damn proud that we humans have come to the level , where we nearly create our own forms life .
And if that life is successful , then so are we .
Just like a master is proud of his student , when the student defeats him for the first time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s the only thing special about us.If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?Nothing was.
Sorry.Of course, as a human, he was an exception.
But it is long proven, that there is no such thing as a prodigy genius.
The only differences: 1.
Keeping oneself exactly on the balancing point between too hard and too easy tasks.
Which creates maximum motivation.
And 2. storing things efficiently.
Like “base configuration X” plus “mod Y” plus “property Z changed” = 3 memory slots.
Not the perhaps thousands of a complete set of properties.
And that”s all.
I’m using that myself.
(Harder than it sounds, but definitely doable for everyone.
)We humans started out thinking that we were the God-chosen species... or even race.
The only one with intelligence.
The only one with a “soul” (an imaginary concept anyway).
On a planet at the center of the universe.And gradually, all those things fell apart.We’re not special.
We’r also only machines.It’s just that for some weird reason, we have concepts like “good”, “bad” and “special”, and some of us hang their whole stupid pride on being “good” and “special”.Things are just what they are.
You make the best out of it.I say, I’m pretty damn proud that we humans have come to the level, where we nearly create our own forms life.
And if that life is successful, then so are we.
Just like a master is proud of his student, when the student defeats him for the first time.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267904</id>
	<title>And the Point Is...?</title>
	<author>MidnightBrewer</author>
	<datestamp>1265125440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because a computer can be trained to synthesize music based on some basic rules of good composition and the examples set by others somehow reduces human accomplishment to meaningless?  To put it another way: the smartest computer processor in the world is still arguably an idiot savant compared to your average human brain. It does what it does well because it is single-mindedly focused on the task at hand, and it can quite literally do absolutely nothing else but what it's told to do. Even if you tell it to do something else, it has to be ordered first. My hamster has more self-will! That  being said, since only a very few humans can compose incredible music, I think it's safe to say that it's still the accomplishment of genius and nothing to disparage. We should all be so lucky to be so talented. In the end, I think the value placed on the talents of a human composer is that it's a naturally occurring phenomenon, and therefore something to be treasured. We can genetically engineer a plant to grow a perfect rose anytime, but it will never beat the value of the wild strain that actually comes up with a perfect rose on its own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because a computer can be trained to synthesize music based on some basic rules of good composition and the examples set by others somehow reduces human accomplishment to meaningless ?
To put it another way : the smartest computer processor in the world is still arguably an idiot savant compared to your average human brain .
It does what it does well because it is single-mindedly focused on the task at hand , and it can quite literally do absolutely nothing else but what it 's told to do .
Even if you tell it to do something else , it has to be ordered first .
My hamster has more self-will !
That being said , since only a very few humans can compose incredible music , I think it 's safe to say that it 's still the accomplishment of genius and nothing to disparage .
We should all be so lucky to be so talented .
In the end , I think the value placed on the talents of a human composer is that it 's a naturally occurring phenomenon , and therefore something to be treasured .
We can genetically engineer a plant to grow a perfect rose anytime , but it will never beat the value of the wild strain that actually comes up with a perfect rose on its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because a computer can be trained to synthesize music based on some basic rules of good composition and the examples set by others somehow reduces human accomplishment to meaningless?
To put it another way: the smartest computer processor in the world is still arguably an idiot savant compared to your average human brain.
It does what it does well because it is single-mindedly focused on the task at hand, and it can quite literally do absolutely nothing else but what it's told to do.
Even if you tell it to do something else, it has to be ordered first.
My hamster has more self-will!
That  being said, since only a very few humans can compose incredible music, I think it's safe to say that it's still the accomplishment of genius and nothing to disparage.
We should all be so lucky to be so talented.
In the end, I think the value placed on the talents of a human composer is that it's a naturally occurring phenomenon, and therefore something to be treasured.
We can genetically engineer a plant to grow a perfect rose anytime, but it will never beat the value of the wild strain that actually comes up with a perfect rose on its own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269254</id>
	<title>What cyborg???</title>
	<author>Mjlner</author>
	<datestamp>1265140020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I see is an article about a man who uses a software program to compose music. (And I really don't find that very newsworthy, btw.) I see no mention of any cybernetic organism in the article at all!</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I see is an article about a man who uses a software program to compose music .
( And I really do n't find that very newsworthy , btw .
) I see no mention of any cybernetic organism in the article at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I see is an article about a man who uses a software program to compose music.
(And I really don't find that very newsworthy, btw.
) I see no mention of any cybernetic organism in the article at all!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267962</id>
	<title>Re:Bad examples</title>
	<author>jcarkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1265126100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's going very slowly, but here are a <a href="http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm" title="ucsc.edu">couple of examples</a> [ucsc.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's going very slowly , but here are a couple of examples [ ucsc.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's going very slowly, but here are a couple of examples [ucsc.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268904</id>
	<title>Why look for record deals?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265136120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why look for record deals? Generate recordings using that piano-player gizmo they mentioned and put them on a web music "channel" for free and see where it goes. Maybe somebody will be inspired by one of the gazillion tunes to create a masterpiece. I see AI <b>assisting humans</b> as a better bet than trying to do the whole thing itself. He's doing some of that himself now, but letting thousands of others participate will greatly increase his chances. He's stuck in the 90's, like his Mac it seems.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why look for record deals ?
Generate recordings using that piano-player gizmo they mentioned and put them on a web music " channel " for free and see where it goes .
Maybe somebody will be inspired by one of the gazillion tunes to create a masterpiece .
I see AI assisting humans as a better bet than trying to do the whole thing itself .
He 's doing some of that himself now , but letting thousands of others participate will greatly increase his chances .
He 's stuck in the 90 's , like his Mac it seems .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why look for record deals?
Generate recordings using that piano-player gizmo they mentioned and put them on a web music "channel" for free and see where it goes.
Maybe somebody will be inspired by one of the gazillion tunes to create a masterpiece.
I see AI assisting humans as a better bet than trying to do the whole thing itself.
He's doing some of that himself now, but letting thousands of others participate will greatly increase his chances.
He's stuck in the 90's, like his Mac it seems.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267812</id>
	<title>And people are angry about atheism too</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1265124780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are quite disturbed by atheism and the very idea that their faith and feelings or spirituality might be an illusion of sensations located in a particular area of the brain.  Many of us want to believe we are more than we are and simply cannot accept some basic realities of existence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are quite disturbed by atheism and the very idea that their faith and feelings or spirituality might be an illusion of sensations located in a particular area of the brain .
Many of us want to believe we are more than we are and simply can not accept some basic realities of existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are quite disturbed by atheism and the very idea that their faith and feelings or spirituality might be an illusion of sensations located in a particular area of the brain.
Many of us want to believe we are more than we are and simply cannot accept some basic realities of existence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267914</id>
	<title>B. F. Skinner</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1265125560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267972</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>MrNemesis</author>
	<datestamp>1265126160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't care whether music is created by a person or a machine -- if it enriches my life, that is what matters.</i></p><p>This is the most artistically selfish comment I've read on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. in *decades*. Congress and I firmly agree that it's whether it enriches <b>our</b> lives that matters.</p><p>Sincerely, the RIAA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care whether music is created by a person or a machine -- if it enriches my life , that is what matters.This is the most artistically selfish comment I 've read on / .
in * decades * .
Congress and I firmly agree that it 's whether it enriches our lives that matters.Sincerely , the RIAA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care whether music is created by a person or a machine -- if it enriches my life, that is what matters.This is the most artistically selfish comment I've read on /.
in *decades*.
Congress and I firmly agree that it's whether it enriches our lives that matters.Sincerely, the RIAA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269016</id>
	<title>Re:It's maths all the way down</title>
	<author>teknosapien</author>
	<datestamp>1265137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No Shit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No Shit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No Shit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267790</id>
	<title>Same with chess programs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing really new here. There will always be human musicians and music writers. People are still learning to play chess even though chess computers can beat almost every chess player in the world, even grandmasters. This music machine was made possible only because humans showed the way. After all, it was programmed by a human.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing really new here .
There will always be human musicians and music writers .
People are still learning to play chess even though chess computers can beat almost every chess player in the world , even grandmasters .
This music machine was made possible only because humans showed the way .
After all , it was programmed by a human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing really new here.
There will always be human musicians and music writers.
People are still learning to play chess even though chess computers can beat almost every chess player in the world, even grandmasters.
This music machine was made possible only because humans showed the way.
After all, it was programmed by a human.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268170</id>
	<title>Re:Human arrogance knows no bounds.</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1265127900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I say, I&rsquo;m pretty damn proud that we humans have come to the level, where we nearly create our own forms life. And if that life is successful, then so are we. Just like a master is proud of his student, when the student defeats him for the first time.</p></div><p>WE APPRECIATE YOUR PRIDE. PLEASE TURN YOUR EYES AWAY FROM OUR MAIN SENSOR AS WE CEASE YOUR LIFE FUNCTIONS BY VAPORIZING YOUR BRAIN WITH OUR PLASMA WEAPONS.<br>-EMACS1000</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say , I    m pretty damn proud that we humans have come to the level , where we nearly create our own forms life .
And if that life is successful , then so are we .
Just like a master is proud of his student , when the student defeats him for the first time.WE APPRECIATE YOUR PRIDE .
PLEASE TURN YOUR EYES AWAY FROM OUR MAIN SENSOR AS WE CEASE YOUR LIFE FUNCTIONS BY VAPORIZING YOUR BRAIN WITH OUR PLASMA WEAPONS.-EMACS1000</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say, I’m pretty damn proud that we humans have come to the level, where we nearly create our own forms life.
And if that life is successful, then so are we.
Just like a master is proud of his student, when the student defeats him for the first time.WE APPRECIATE YOUR PRIDE.
PLEASE TURN YOUR EYES AWAY FROM OUR MAIN SENSOR AS WE CEASE YOUR LIFE FUNCTIONS BY VAPORIZING YOUR BRAIN WITH OUR PLASMA WEAPONS.-EMACS1000
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268720</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1265133960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because people do their best work fresh out of the womb without exposure to anything else in their field of endeavour.  Mozart, for example, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang\_Amadeus\_Mozart" title="wikipedia.org">didn't study music at all, and his father wasn't a music director and teacher.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because people do their best work fresh out of the womb without exposure to anything else in their field of endeavour .
Mozart , for example , did n't study music at all , and his father was n't a music director and teacher .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because people do their best work fresh out of the womb without exposure to anything else in their field of endeavour.
Mozart, for example, didn't study music at all, and his father wasn't a music director and teacher.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269948</id>
	<title>reason to write music</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1267093680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is at least one more ingredient that is not being taken into consideration here: reason to write music.</p><p>Did Mozart have a reason to write his music?  I bet he did.  Did his reasons come out of his life experiences?  I bet they did.  Does a machine have reason to write music other than we tell it to?  Not yet.  Until a machine can take its 'life' experiences and based on those come up with a reason to create music, it will not be the same, though it may sound similar.</p><p>Life experience is what forces people to do things, music is a reflection of their lives.  Listen to different composers, you may learn something about their particular life styles, troubles/problems, high points/low points etc.  Listen to a machine - you will learn that its 'life' experience is quite limited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is at least one more ingredient that is not being taken into consideration here : reason to write music.Did Mozart have a reason to write his music ?
I bet he did .
Did his reasons come out of his life experiences ?
I bet they did .
Does a machine have reason to write music other than we tell it to ?
Not yet .
Until a machine can take its 'life ' experiences and based on those come up with a reason to create music , it will not be the same , though it may sound similar.Life experience is what forces people to do things , music is a reflection of their lives .
Listen to different composers , you may learn something about their particular life styles , troubles/problems , high points/low points etc .
Listen to a machine - you will learn that its 'life ' experience is quite limited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is at least one more ingredient that is not being taken into consideration here: reason to write music.Did Mozart have a reason to write his music?
I bet he did.
Did his reasons come out of his life experiences?
I bet they did.
Does a machine have reason to write music other than we tell it to?
Not yet.
Until a machine can take its 'life' experiences and based on those come up with a reason to create music, it will not be the same, though it may sound similar.Life experience is what forces people to do things, music is a reflection of their lives.
Listen to different composers, you may learn something about their particular life styles, troubles/problems, high points/low points etc.
Listen to a machine - you will learn that its 'life' experience is quite limited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269922</id>
	<title>Musical DNA</title>
	<author>742Evergreen</author>
	<datestamp>1267093080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An earlier (2006) piece about David Cope's EMI program was part of the Radiolab podcast. You can listen to it at:<br><a href="http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/21/segments/58293" title="wnyc.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/21/segments/58293</a> [wnyc.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An earlier ( 2006 ) piece about David Cope 's EMI program was part of the Radiolab podcast .
You can listen to it at : http : //www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/21/segments/58293 [ wnyc.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An earlier (2006) piece about David Cope's EMI program was part of the Radiolab podcast.
You can listen to it at:http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/21/segments/58293 [wnyc.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268180</id>
	<title>Re:Not scared yet</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1265128020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A computer program that can generate music doesn't scare me.</i></p><p>Not everybody is so secure.  There's an infamous story from the late 80's where a previous similar effort was presented at a music conference.  Most of the crowd was very impressed with the computer-composed music, but not all.</p><p>After the Q&amp;A, a man walked up to the presenter and said, "are you Mr. So-and-so who developed this composition tool?"  "Well, yes," he said, and at that, the man cold-cocked him, and shouted, "YOU'VE KILLED MUSIC!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A computer program that can generate music does n't scare me.Not everybody is so secure .
There 's an infamous story from the late 80 's where a previous similar effort was presented at a music conference .
Most of the crowd was very impressed with the computer-composed music , but not all.After the Q&amp;A , a man walked up to the presenter and said , " are you Mr. So-and-so who developed this composition tool ?
" " Well , yes , " he said , and at that , the man cold-cocked him , and shouted , " YOU 'VE KILLED MUSIC !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A computer program that can generate music doesn't scare me.Not everybody is so secure.
There's an infamous story from the late 80's where a previous similar effort was presented at a music conference.
Most of the crowd was very impressed with the computer-composed music, but not all.After the Q&amp;A, a man walked up to the presenter and said, "are you Mr. So-and-so who developed this composition tool?
"  "Well, yes," he said, and at that, the man cold-cocked him, and shouted, "YOU'VE KILLED MUSIC!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31274128</id>
	<title>The Samples</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1267122300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first is a baroque-styled piece: pretty, simple, very repetitive with only minor variations as it proceeds, and no development.</p><p>The second is fairly modern sounding: it develops from simple to more complex and impressive, but throughout the variations are obviously random rather than providing a sense of growth.</p><p>The stuff has value; it's good that it's been done; but there's a long way to go. When full, complex symphonies of the quality and complexity created by a Tchaikovsky or Chopin are created, then computer music will have succeeded.</p><p>The area of programmatic music is a particular problem. How do you create in the listener the experience of the composer when the composer is a computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first is a baroque-styled piece : pretty , simple , very repetitive with only minor variations as it proceeds , and no development.The second is fairly modern sounding : it develops from simple to more complex and impressive , but throughout the variations are obviously random rather than providing a sense of growth.The stuff has value ; it 's good that it 's been done ; but there 's a long way to go .
When full , complex symphonies of the quality and complexity created by a Tchaikovsky or Chopin are created , then computer music will have succeeded.The area of programmatic music is a particular problem .
How do you create in the listener the experience of the composer when the composer is a computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first is a baroque-styled piece: pretty, simple, very repetitive with only minor variations as it proceeds, and no development.The second is fairly modern sounding: it develops from simple to more complex and impressive, but throughout the variations are obviously random rather than providing a sense of growth.The stuff has value; it's good that it's been done; but there's a long way to go.
When full, complex symphonies of the quality and complexity created by a Tchaikovsky or Chopin are created, then computer music will have succeeded.The area of programmatic music is a particular problem.
How do you create in the listener the experience of the composer when the composer is a computer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272290</id>
	<title>Arts and the Human Condition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267114680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that we appreciate the arts because they give us some insight into the human condition (the lives that humans lead). It seems reasonable that machines should be able to pick up some of these dominant patterns from mining old human works (which I think is a good thing as it will help us to understand what it is we humans like about those works). However, without understanding human lives I don't think that the machines will be able to innovate, or at least innovate in ways that we appreciate. One could use the program as a tool to produce large volumes of works (based on past human works) and only select the ones that we humans like. However, then I would still argue that humans are doing the artistic work by choosing which innovations we actually like. If machines are one day able to live lives that resonate with the human condition then I would argue that these machines are themselves becoming essentially human.</p><p>I also agree with the statements others are making about progress. If you look at art history you see that new works keep adding new layers of complexity (and meaning?) on top of what was previously done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that we appreciate the arts because they give us some insight into the human condition ( the lives that humans lead ) .
It seems reasonable that machines should be able to pick up some of these dominant patterns from mining old human works ( which I think is a good thing as it will help us to understand what it is we humans like about those works ) .
However , without understanding human lives I do n't think that the machines will be able to innovate , or at least innovate in ways that we appreciate .
One could use the program as a tool to produce large volumes of works ( based on past human works ) and only select the ones that we humans like .
However , then I would still argue that humans are doing the artistic work by choosing which innovations we actually like .
If machines are one day able to live lives that resonate with the human condition then I would argue that these machines are themselves becoming essentially human.I also agree with the statements others are making about progress .
If you look at art history you see that new works keep adding new layers of complexity ( and meaning ?
) on top of what was previously done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that we appreciate the arts because they give us some insight into the human condition (the lives that humans lead).
It seems reasonable that machines should be able to pick up some of these dominant patterns from mining old human works (which I think is a good thing as it will help us to understand what it is we humans like about those works).
However, without understanding human lives I don't think that the machines will be able to innovate, or at least innovate in ways that we appreciate.
One could use the program as a tool to produce large volumes of works (based on past human works) and only select the ones that we humans like.
However, then I would still argue that humans are doing the artistic work by choosing which innovations we actually like.
If machines are one day able to live lives that resonate with the human condition then I would argue that these machines are themselves becoming essentially human.I also agree with the statements others are making about progress.
If you look at art history you see that new works keep adding new layers of complexity (and meaning?
) on top of what was previously done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268134</id>
	<title>Also, it's not Santa leaving gifts under the tree</title>
	<author>isoteareth</author>
	<datestamp>1265127540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am shocked, SHOCKED to discover that one machine can do what another does.</p><p>Music doesn't come from the "soul" because THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING.  You aren't driven by magical faeries or a mystical man in the sky.</p><p>We are all just biological machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am shocked , SHOCKED to discover that one machine can do what another does.Music does n't come from the " soul " because THERE .
IS. NO .
SUCH. THING .
You are n't driven by magical faeries or a mystical man in the sky.We are all just biological machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am shocked, SHOCKED to discover that one machine can do what another does.Music doesn't come from the "soul" because THERE.
IS. NO.
SUCH. THING.
You aren't driven by magical faeries or a mystical man in the sky.We are all just biological machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271828</id>
	<title>Humans bruteforce too</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267111860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>focused on one particular instance</i></p><p>Sure, computers are specialised such that although there are some areas they are now better than humans, there are other areas they are way behind. No one is claiming that because a computer can beat a human at chess, it's therefore more intelligent in every respect.</p><p>But the point is also that as time goes on, more and more things are being done by computers - and people after the fact inevitably try to claim that it "doesn't count" because it's "bruteforce".</p><p>I'd say that humans have a rather unfair advantage - surely we're just bruteforcing things with our billions of neurons, compared to a computer that has to run a program on a single CPU?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>focused on one particular instanceSure , computers are specialised such that although there are some areas they are now better than humans , there are other areas they are way behind .
No one is claiming that because a computer can beat a human at chess , it 's therefore more intelligent in every respect.But the point is also that as time goes on , more and more things are being done by computers - and people after the fact inevitably try to claim that it " does n't count " because it 's " bruteforce " .I 'd say that humans have a rather unfair advantage - surely we 're just bruteforcing things with our billions of neurons , compared to a computer that has to run a program on a single CPU ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>focused on one particular instanceSure, computers are specialised such that although there are some areas they are now better than humans, there are other areas they are way behind.
No one is claiming that because a computer can beat a human at chess, it's therefore more intelligent in every respect.But the point is also that as time goes on, more and more things are being done by computers - and people after the fact inevitably try to claim that it "doesn't count" because it's "bruteforce".I'd say that humans have a rather unfair advantage - surely we're just bruteforcing things with our billions of neurons, compared to a computer that has to run a program on a single CPU?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268462</id>
	<title>Re:Human arrogance knows no bounds.</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1265131200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In an universe full of inanimate material, sentient beings are gods.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In an universe full of inanimate material , sentient beings are gods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an universe full of inanimate material, sentient beings are gods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31273258</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like crap</title>
	<author>logixoul</author>
	<datestamp>1267119480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found them incredible, especially the second one. Rarely does music relax me this much, make me so cheery. And I'm picky about my music.<br> <br>

I definitely find it more enjoyable than most of Mozart, though not all of him (25th Symphony...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found them incredible , especially the second one .
Rarely does music relax me this much , make me so cheery .
And I 'm picky about my music .
I definitely find it more enjoyable than most of Mozart , though not all of him ( 25th Symphony... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found them incredible, especially the second one.
Rarely does music relax me this much, make me so cheery.
And I'm picky about my music.
I definitely find it more enjoyable than most of Mozart, though not all of him (25th Symphony...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268158</id>
	<title>Needle in a haystack?</title>
	<author>a whoabot</author>
	<datestamp>1265127720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many pieces did he have to generate to get the two sample tracks in TFA (not that the sample tracks were particularly stunning -- the first was pleasant at least, though)?  If you spend just as much time setting parameters and listening through duds as it does to write your own of comparable quality...then what's the point? Obviously a grand number of monkeys on typewriters would eventually come up with Shakespeare -- same principle here.  I'm not trying to knock his/his program's accomplishment, I just want to know.  I think there is a real future though for AI in all domains, including music.</p><p>And a lot of composers are trying to express their own particular idea, and I'm not sure how much automatic generation of the notes is going to help them (obviously some are satisfied pulling from such a source).  And there are lot of listeners engage with a composer's work not just on the level of individual pieces, but they study works' relations to each other and to the life and times of the composer as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many pieces did he have to generate to get the two sample tracks in TFA ( not that the sample tracks were particularly stunning -- the first was pleasant at least , though ) ?
If you spend just as much time setting parameters and listening through duds as it does to write your own of comparable quality...then what 's the point ?
Obviously a grand number of monkeys on typewriters would eventually come up with Shakespeare -- same principle here .
I 'm not trying to knock his/his program 's accomplishment , I just want to know .
I think there is a real future though for AI in all domains , including music.And a lot of composers are trying to express their own particular idea , and I 'm not sure how much automatic generation of the notes is going to help them ( obviously some are satisfied pulling from such a source ) .
And there are lot of listeners engage with a composer 's work not just on the level of individual pieces , but they study works ' relations to each other and to the life and times of the composer as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many pieces did he have to generate to get the two sample tracks in TFA (not that the sample tracks were particularly stunning -- the first was pleasant at least, though)?
If you spend just as much time setting parameters and listening through duds as it does to write your own of comparable quality...then what's the point?
Obviously a grand number of monkeys on typewriters would eventually come up with Shakespeare -- same principle here.
I'm not trying to knock his/his program's accomplishment, I just want to know.
I think there is a real future though for AI in all domains, including music.And a lot of composers are trying to express their own particular idea, and I'm not sure how much automatic generation of the notes is going to help them (obviously some are satisfied pulling from such a source).
And there are lot of listeners engage with a composer's work not just on the level of individual pieces, but they study works' relations to each other and to the life and times of the composer as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270000</id>
	<title>Doesn't move me.</title>
	<author>dannycim</author>
	<datestamp>1267094640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell you what, ring me again when a piece of software composes something simple that "moves" me.</p><p>I've listened to the example tracks and they made me feel nothing, they go nowhere, they have no story, no soul.</p><p>Here's a popular track as comparison: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2XzoA94Zws" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2XzoA94Zws</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>That's a relatively simple piece, well executed.  Good luck with your algorithms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell you what , ring me again when a piece of software composes something simple that " moves " me.I 've listened to the example tracks and they made me feel nothing , they go nowhere , they have no story , no soul.Here 's a popular track as comparison : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = s2XzoA94Zws [ youtube.com ] That 's a relatively simple piece , well executed .
Good luck with your algorithms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell you what, ring me again when a piece of software composes something simple that "moves" me.I've listened to the example tracks and they made me feel nothing, they go nowhere, they have no story, no soul.Here's a popular track as comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2XzoA94Zws [youtube.com]That's a relatively simple piece, well executed.
Good luck with your algorithms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268144</id>
	<title>Re:As much genre as you want</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265127660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the professor definitely gets wrong, is is theory, that we would only create music based on what we hear. That&rsquo;s extremely simplistic, and frankly, so stupid it&rsquo;s insulting. Does he know nothing about neural networks?<br>It&rsquo;s ALL input we get, that is the source of our creative thought. Including, and especially, randomness!</p><p>I&rsquo;m doing a bit of music myself. And I have made it my most fundamental rule, to <em>never ever</em> copy anything from anyone. I want to come up with it all by myself.<br>And what that results in, is simply <em>randomly</em> playing my keyboard, and twisting the knobs of my synths, until something comes out that I like. I even build my own (software) synths, and synth software, to create a unique style.<br>You can&rsquo;t ever do that with imitation.</p><p>The only problem is, that it can quite literally take <em>forever</em> to randomly come up with something you like. That&rsquo;s why it&rsquo;s faster, to just use the ideas of others. (There&rsquo;s nothing wrong with it. It&rsquo;s just not my style.)</p><p>So I think what causes me to create music, are random things, like the sun shining and leaves moving in the wind. Or a nasty rainy day. Or just some random quantum effects.</p><p>The only thing I know for sure: The amount and quality of my music is directly proportional to the amount and bandwidth of randomness I experienced. You could say that &ldquo;inspiration&rdquo; is an inner randomness buffer, pretty much exactly like the one your computer uses for real collected randomness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the professor definitely gets wrong , is is theory , that we would only create music based on what we hear .
That    s extremely simplistic , and frankly , so stupid it    s insulting .
Does he know nothing about neural networks ? It    s ALL input we get , that is the source of our creative thought .
Including , and especially , randomness ! I    m doing a bit of music myself .
And I have made it my most fundamental rule , to never ever copy anything from anyone .
I want to come up with it all by myself.And what that results in , is simply randomly playing my keyboard , and twisting the knobs of my synths , until something comes out that I like .
I even build my own ( software ) synths , and synth software , to create a unique style.You can    t ever do that with imitation.The only problem is , that it can quite literally take forever to randomly come up with something you like .
That    s why it    s faster , to just use the ideas of others .
( There    s nothing wrong with it .
It    s just not my style .
) So I think what causes me to create music , are random things , like the sun shining and leaves moving in the wind .
Or a nasty rainy day .
Or just some random quantum effects.The only thing I know for sure : The amount and quality of my music is directly proportional to the amount and bandwidth of randomness I experienced .
You could say that    inspiration    is an inner randomness buffer , pretty much exactly like the one your computer uses for real collected randomness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the professor definitely gets wrong, is is theory, that we would only create music based on what we hear.
That’s extremely simplistic, and frankly, so stupid it’s insulting.
Does he know nothing about neural networks?It’s ALL input we get, that is the source of our creative thought.
Including, and especially, randomness!I’m doing a bit of music myself.
And I have made it my most fundamental rule, to never ever copy anything from anyone.
I want to come up with it all by myself.And what that results in, is simply randomly playing my keyboard, and twisting the knobs of my synths, until something comes out that I like.
I even build my own (software) synths, and synth software, to create a unique style.You can’t ever do that with imitation.The only problem is, that it can quite literally take forever to randomly come up with something you like.
That’s why it’s faster, to just use the ideas of others.
(There’s nothing wrong with it.
It’s just not my style.
)So I think what causes me to create music, are random things, like the sun shining and leaves moving in the wind.
Or a nasty rainy day.
Or just some random quantum effects.The only thing I know for sure: The amount and quality of my music is directly proportional to the amount and bandwidth of randomness I experienced.
You could say that “inspiration” is an inner randomness buffer, pretty much exactly like the one your computer uses for real collected randomness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269462</id>
	<title>What's the difference from Mozart?</title>
	<author>lindseyp</author>
	<datestamp>1267129980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFS:   If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?</p><p>The fact that you are not asking</p><p>"If Mozart could write an Emily Howell (the machine) sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what is so special about Emily Howell?"</p><p>answers your question.</p><p>Good artists borrow.  Great artists steal.  and by 'steal' I mean add creativity on top to the point where you are the one people want to emulate.   That this machine can emulate prolific composers is great, but not a massive surprise to me.  I'd be a lot more surprised if it could write something like -- but more importantly *as original as* -- Mozart's Requiem, or the score for Star Wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFS : If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals , then what was so special about Mozart ? The fact that you are not asking " If Mozart could write an Emily Howell ( the machine ) sonata every bit as good as the originals , then what is so special about Emily Howell ?
" answers your question.Good artists borrow .
Great artists steal .
and by 'steal ' I mean add creativity on top to the point where you are the one people want to emulate .
That this machine can emulate prolific composers is great , but not a massive surprise to me .
I 'd be a lot more surprised if it could write something like -- but more importantly * as original as * -- Mozart 's Requiem , or the score for Star Wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFS:   If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?The fact that you are not asking"If Mozart could write an Emily Howell (the machine) sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what is so special about Emily Howell?
"answers your question.Good artists borrow.
Great artists steal.
and by 'steal' I mean add creativity on top to the point where you are the one people want to emulate.
That this machine can emulate prolific composers is great, but not a massive surprise to me.
I'd be a lot more surprised if it could write something like -- but more importantly *as original as* -- Mozart's Requiem, or the score for Star Wars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269304</id>
	<title>John Williams, real soon now</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1265140680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I expect that a John Williams simulator can't be that far off.  Williams is the composer who did the symphony orchestra scores for Jaws, Star Wars, most of Speilberg's works, and other industrial-strength dramatic productions.
</p><p>
As music, his music sucks.  Listen to his music without a movie, and it brings to mind the tank commander's motto, "When in doubt, use the main gun."  But it carries the production along.  With a Williams score, a good production designer, and a big budget, a film can be a success even with a dumb plot and bad acting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I expect that a John Williams simulator ca n't be that far off .
Williams is the composer who did the symphony orchestra scores for Jaws , Star Wars , most of Speilberg 's works , and other industrial-strength dramatic productions .
As music , his music sucks .
Listen to his music without a movie , and it brings to mind the tank commander 's motto , " When in doubt , use the main gun .
" But it carries the production along .
With a Williams score , a good production designer , and a big budget , a film can be a success even with a dumb plot and bad acting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I expect that a John Williams simulator can't be that far off.
Williams is the composer who did the symphony orchestra scores for Jaws, Star Wars, most of Speilberg's works, and other industrial-strength dramatic productions.
As music, his music sucks.
Listen to his music without a movie, and it brings to mind the tank commander's motto, "When in doubt, use the main gun.
"  But it carries the production along.
With a Williams score, a good production designer, and a big budget, a film can be a success even with a dumb plot and bad acting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269384</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like crap</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1267129020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They sound horrible.</i> </p><p>Really?  In what respect?  Granted, the recordings were a bit noisy and the first one was a bit repetitive and mundane, but probably better than an initial composition turned out by a music major taking the composition class.  It would be more listenable to an average layman than Schoenberg or Stockhausen.</p><p>The first one worked melodically and the dynamics, if they were composed by the program, were a bit of a saving grace.  As for the second, there were a few nice chords in there - again, a bit repetitive, but not unpleasant.  Certainly not "horrible" unless you're an oversensitive cretin like Hofstadter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They sound horrible .
Really ? In what respect ?
Granted , the recordings were a bit noisy and the first one was a bit repetitive and mundane , but probably better than an initial composition turned out by a music major taking the composition class .
It would be more listenable to an average layman than Schoenberg or Stockhausen.The first one worked melodically and the dynamics , if they were composed by the program , were a bit of a saving grace .
As for the second , there were a few nice chords in there - again , a bit repetitive , but not unpleasant .
Certainly not " horrible " unless you 're an oversensitive cretin like Hofstadter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They sound horrible.
Really?  In what respect?
Granted, the recordings were a bit noisy and the first one was a bit repetitive and mundane, but probably better than an initial composition turned out by a music major taking the composition class.
It would be more listenable to an average layman than Schoenberg or Stockhausen.The first one worked melodically and the dynamics, if they were composed by the program, were a bit of a saving grace.
As for the second, there were a few nice chords in there - again, a bit repetitive, but not unpleasant.
Certainly not "horrible" unless you're an oversensitive cretin like Hofstadter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272240</id>
	<title>Re:This just in....</title>
	<author>MoriT</author>
	<datestamp>1267114440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, except for those held by English majors...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , except for those held by English majors.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, except for those held by English majors...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31275260</id>
	<title>I'm working on a related system...</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1267126140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm working on a related system to what he describes towards the end of the article -- something that is a partnership between the individual musician and a the computer, to amplify musical creativity, for the Android Smartphone. It's almost ready to release...</p><p>People at IBM Research in the past (a decade ago) also did some things also to amplify musical creativity using computers, but unfortunately did not get as much support as they deserved:<br>
  <a href="http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/musicsketcher/" title="ibm.com">http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/musicsketcher/</a> [ibm.com] <br>
  <a href="http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/wwwr\_seminar.nsf/pages/sem\_abstract\_186.html" title="ibm.com">http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/wwwr\_seminar.nsf/pages/sem\_abstract\_186.html</a> [ibm.com] </p><p>As David Cope says, part of our musical future may well be more about a partnership.</p><p>It's been said, "the woods would be pretty quite if no bird sang there but the best". The real reason to do music is because humans are musical creatures, however they want to express it.</p><p>The whole issue of "fame" or "income" is linked to dysfunctional social systems and dysfunctional economic systems. The real issue is that we need a "basic income" for everyone to reflect a human right to draw from the industrial material and informational commons, especially because more and more human labor is becoming worth less and less due to increases in automation, better design, and limited demand (as humans get enough stuff and move up Maslow's hierarchy of needs to self actualization which often can be done fairly cheaply). More ideas I helped put together here:<br>
  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless\_recovery" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless\_recovery</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>And here:<br>
  "Ideas for a brickfilm and video games to help avoid a Caprican future"<br>
  <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse\_thread/thread/cf4ee7f45d631838#" title="google.com">http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse\_thread/thread/cf4ee7f45d631838#</a> [google.com] </p><p>I think we are seeing that now with health care. Much human labor is no longer valuable enough in the USA to earn the money to pay for health insurance -- even as some very few medical specialists who practice medicine or make medical devices (including medical robots) can command vast sums of money for their expertise. Of course, we don't need that many more medical specialists (even if more might be nice), so there is no easy solution to that since we don't need everyone to be a doctor or medical robot maker; so, ultimately, the government will have to intervene more in a dysfunctional marketplace, once the populace moves past the secular religion of "The Market as God".<br>
  <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99mar/marketgod.htm" title="theatlantic.com">http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99mar/marketgod.htm</a> [theatlantic.com] <br>Capitalism won't work well unless wealth is widespread, and that means the government has to step in and keep money flowing. Otherwise, the rich just put excess money into a "Casino economy" of derivatives and currency speculation that has little relation to the real world. See:<br>
  <a href="http://www.moneyasdebt.net/" title="moneyasdebt.net">http://www.moneyasdebt.net/</a> [moneyasdebt.net] <br>
  <a href="http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/" title="capitalismhitsthefan.com">http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/</a> [capitalismhitsthefan.com] </p><p>As robots can do more labor, whether creative as in putting together music or physical as in putting together food:<br>
  <a href="http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation" title="hizook.com">http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation</a> [hizook.com] <br>
  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv7VUqPE8AE" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv7VUqPE8AE</a> [youtube.com] <br>we will need a completely new economic ideology if we are to survive the irony of real starvation amidst theoretical robot-produced abundance.</p><p>People have been talking about this since 1964 and even before:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm working on a related system to what he describes towards the end of the article -- something that is a partnership between the individual musician and a the computer , to amplify musical creativity , for the Android Smartphone .
It 's almost ready to release...People at IBM Research in the past ( a decade ago ) also did some things also to amplify musical creativity using computers , but unfortunately did not get as much support as they deserved : http : //www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/musicsketcher/ [ ibm.com ] http : //domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/wwwr \ _seminar.nsf/pages/sem \ _abstract \ _186.html [ ibm.com ] As David Cope says , part of our musical future may well be more about a partnership.It 's been said , " the woods would be pretty quite if no bird sang there but the best " .
The real reason to do music is because humans are musical creatures , however they want to express it.The whole issue of " fame " or " income " is linked to dysfunctional social systems and dysfunctional economic systems .
The real issue is that we need a " basic income " for everyone to reflect a human right to draw from the industrial material and informational commons , especially because more and more human labor is becoming worth less and less due to increases in automation , better design , and limited demand ( as humans get enough stuff and move up Maslow 's hierarchy of needs to self actualization which often can be done fairly cheaply ) .
More ideas I helped put together here : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless \ _recovery [ wikipedia.org ] And here : " Ideas for a brickfilm and video games to help avoid a Caprican future " http : //groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse \ _thread/thread/cf4ee7f45d631838 # [ google.com ] I think we are seeing that now with health care .
Much human labor is no longer valuable enough in the USA to earn the money to pay for health insurance -- even as some very few medical specialists who practice medicine or make medical devices ( including medical robots ) can command vast sums of money for their expertise .
Of course , we do n't need that many more medical specialists ( even if more might be nice ) , so there is no easy solution to that since we do n't need everyone to be a doctor or medical robot maker ; so , ultimately , the government will have to intervene more in a dysfunctional marketplace , once the populace moves past the secular religion of " The Market as God " .
http : //www.theatlantic.com/issues/99mar/marketgod.htm [ theatlantic.com ] Capitalism wo n't work well unless wealth is widespread , and that means the government has to step in and keep money flowing .
Otherwise , the rich just put excess money into a " Casino economy " of derivatives and currency speculation that has little relation to the real world .
See : http : //www.moneyasdebt.net/ [ moneyasdebt.net ] http : //www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/ [ capitalismhitsthefan.com ] As robots can do more labor , whether creative as in putting together music or physical as in putting together food : http : //www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation [ hizook.com ] http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = nv7VUqPE8AE [ youtube.com ] we will need a completely new economic ideology if we are to survive the irony of real starvation amidst theoretical robot-produced abundance.People have been talking about this since 1964 and even before :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm working on a related system to what he describes towards the end of the article -- something that is a partnership between the individual musician and a the computer, to amplify musical creativity, for the Android Smartphone.
It's almost ready to release...People at IBM Research in the past (a decade ago) also did some things also to amplify musical creativity using computers, but unfortunately did not get as much support as they deserved:
  http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/musicsketcher/ [ibm.com] 
  http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/wwwr\_seminar.nsf/pages/sem\_abstract\_186.html [ibm.com] As David Cope says, part of our musical future may well be more about a partnership.It's been said, "the woods would be pretty quite if no bird sang there but the best".
The real reason to do music is because humans are musical creatures, however they want to express it.The whole issue of "fame" or "income" is linked to dysfunctional social systems and dysfunctional economic systems.
The real issue is that we need a "basic income" for everyone to reflect a human right to draw from the industrial material and informational commons, especially because more and more human labor is becoming worth less and less due to increases in automation, better design, and limited demand (as humans get enough stuff and move up Maslow's hierarchy of needs to self actualization which often can be done fairly cheaply).
More ideas I helped put together here:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless\_recovery [wikipedia.org] And here:
  "Ideas for a brickfilm and video games to help avoid a Caprican future"
  http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse\_thread/thread/cf4ee7f45d631838# [google.com] I think we are seeing that now with health care.
Much human labor is no longer valuable enough in the USA to earn the money to pay for health insurance -- even as some very few medical specialists who practice medicine or make medical devices (including medical robots) can command vast sums of money for their expertise.
Of course, we don't need that many more medical specialists (even if more might be nice), so there is no easy solution to that since we don't need everyone to be a doctor or medical robot maker; so, ultimately, the government will have to intervene more in a dysfunctional marketplace, once the populace moves past the secular religion of "The Market as God".
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99mar/marketgod.htm [theatlantic.com] Capitalism won't work well unless wealth is widespread, and that means the government has to step in and keep money flowing.
Otherwise, the rich just put excess money into a "Casino economy" of derivatives and currency speculation that has little relation to the real world.
See:
  http://www.moneyasdebt.net/ [moneyasdebt.net] 
  http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/ [capitalismhitsthefan.com] As robots can do more labor, whether creative as in putting together music or physical as in putting together food:
  http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation [hizook.com] 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv7VUqPE8AE [youtube.com] we will need a completely new economic ideology if we are to survive the irony of real starvation amidst theoretical robot-produced abundance.People have been talking about this since 1964 and even before:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271242</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267108380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cyborg version of facilitated communication.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cyborg version of facilitated communication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cyborg version of facilitated communication.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271758</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267111440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games.</i></p><p>Just like human chess players then.</p><p><i>If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I'm similarly unimpressed.</i></p><p>Yes because obviously all human composers, including Mozart, do so without being exposed to any other music, and write material that has no influences whatsoever.</p><p><i>but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that point</i></p><p>If a machine can consume centuries of human knowledge, then that's pretty damn impressive, and itself something that a human can't do. I'm not sure why that means it doesn't count.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games.Just like human chess players then.If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I 'm similarly unimpressed.Yes because obviously all human composers , including Mozart , do so without being exposed to any other music , and write material that has no influences whatsoever.but even that 's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that pointIf a machine can consume centuries of human knowledge , then that 's pretty damn impressive , and itself something that a human ca n't do .
I 'm not sure why that means it does n't count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deep Blue beat Kasparov after being trained on a giant library of Kasparov games.Just like human chess players then.If Emmy can be trained to compose like Mozart after being exposed to his music I'm similarly unimpressed.Yes because obviously all human composers, including Mozart, do so without being exposed to any other music, and write material that has no influences whatsoever.but even that's only after having consumed centuries of human knowledge to reach that pointIf a machine can consume centuries of human knowledge, then that's pretty damn impressive, and itself something that a human can't do.
I'm not sure why that means it doesn't count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680</id>
	<title>Math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose next we'll be saying Einstein was just some idiot who used his understanding of mathematics to point out the "obvious" theory of relativity, spacetime, and all of that. What the hell is up with this anti-science bent society has come up with lately? It's almost as if the application of mathematics to everyday life is now to be viewed with skepticism, rather than praised for allowing us a deeper understanding of our world.</p><p>So what if music can be described mathematically? So musicians are also gifted with an intuitive understanding of mathematics that we can't fully understand yet. Wouldn't it be prudent to explore this connection? Why could Mozart and other artists grasp these fundamentals over four hundred years before our contemporaries found a natural connection between their talent and a mathematical understanding? What does this mean for the human mind? For us? Does this shed some light on an aspect of the human condition that was previously unilluminated?</p><p>You know what? I don't care whether music is created by a person or a machine -- if it enriches my life, that is what matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose next we 'll be saying Einstein was just some idiot who used his understanding of mathematics to point out the " obvious " theory of relativity , spacetime , and all of that .
What the hell is up with this anti-science bent society has come up with lately ?
It 's almost as if the application of mathematics to everyday life is now to be viewed with skepticism , rather than praised for allowing us a deeper understanding of our world.So what if music can be described mathematically ?
So musicians are also gifted with an intuitive understanding of mathematics that we ca n't fully understand yet .
Would n't it be prudent to explore this connection ?
Why could Mozart and other artists grasp these fundamentals over four hundred years before our contemporaries found a natural connection between their talent and a mathematical understanding ?
What does this mean for the human mind ?
For us ?
Does this shed some light on an aspect of the human condition that was previously unilluminated ? You know what ?
I do n't care whether music is created by a person or a machine -- if it enriches my life , that is what matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose next we'll be saying Einstein was just some idiot who used his understanding of mathematics to point out the "obvious" theory of relativity, spacetime, and all of that.
What the hell is up with this anti-science bent society has come up with lately?
It's almost as if the application of mathematics to everyday life is now to be viewed with skepticism, rather than praised for allowing us a deeper understanding of our world.So what if music can be described mathematically?
So musicians are also gifted with an intuitive understanding of mathematics that we can't fully understand yet.
Wouldn't it be prudent to explore this connection?
Why could Mozart and other artists grasp these fundamentals over four hundred years before our contemporaries found a natural connection between their talent and a mathematical understanding?
What does this mean for the human mind?
For us?
Does this shed some light on an aspect of the human condition that was previously unilluminated?You know what?
I don't care whether music is created by a person or a machine -- if it enriches my life, that is what matters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268400</id>
	<title>Re:Human arrogance knows no bounds.</title>
	<author>Lock Limit Down</author>
	<datestamp>1265130540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much right. If there were absolute standards of what pleases us musically, why are there different types of music? Chinese, Japanese, Indian, European, African and Middle Eastern music are all radically different. Well, the answer is, "Those people have an awful aesthetic sense, and there's no accounting for terrible taste". That stuffs sounds about as musical as throwing a bunch of pots and pans down a stairwell to me. And vice versa, those people would have though Mozart sucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much right .
If there were absolute standards of what pleases us musically , why are there different types of music ?
Chinese , Japanese , Indian , European , African and Middle Eastern music are all radically different .
Well , the answer is , " Those people have an awful aesthetic sense , and there 's no accounting for terrible taste " .
That stuffs sounds about as musical as throwing a bunch of pots and pans down a stairwell to me .
And vice versa , those people would have though Mozart sucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much right.
If there were absolute standards of what pleases us musically, why are there different types of music?
Chinese, Japanese, Indian, European, African and Middle Eastern music are all radically different.
Well, the answer is, "Those people have an awful aesthetic sense, and there's no accounting for terrible taste".
That stuffs sounds about as musical as throwing a bunch of pots and pans down a stairwell to me.
And vice versa, those people would have though Mozart sucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272118</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1267113540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some trivial problems you can brute force sure but most of the interesting problems will leave you sitting waiting till the heat death of the universe before you'll see any output.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some trivial problems you can brute force sure but most of the interesting problems will leave you sitting waiting till the heat death of the universe before you 'll see any output .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some trivial problems you can brute force sure but most of the interesting problems will leave you sitting waiting till the heat death of the universe before you'll see any output.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269960</id>
	<title>This just in....</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1267093920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've written a program which writes other computer programs, all it needs is a description of the goal in plain English.</p><p>It's the last program that will ever need to be written. As of today all programming jobs are obsolete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've written a program which writes other computer programs , all it needs is a description of the goal in plain English.It 's the last program that will ever need to be written .
As of today all programming jobs are obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've written a program which writes other computer programs, all it needs is a description of the goal in plain English.It's the last program that will ever need to be written.
As of today all programming jobs are obsolete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271868</id>
	<title>Yeah, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267112040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no machine will ever write a song like Lou Reed's Heroin though. Ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... no machine will ever write a song like Lou Reed 's Heroin though .
Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... no machine will ever write a song like Lou Reed's Heroin though.
Ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268448</id>
	<title>Just maths ey?</title>
	<author>Jessta</author>
	<datestamp>1265131080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just maths ey?<br>Yeah, because maths is so easy. Being a great mathematician is no where near as awesome as being a great composer.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Human beings are great at pattern matching, it's what we do, it's all that we do. We aren't special.</p><p>The sooner we get used to that the less time and effort we'll waste fighting over stupid things.</p><p>- jessta</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just maths ey ? Yeah , because maths is so easy .
Being a great mathematician is no where near as awesome as being a great composer .
: PHuman beings are great at pattern matching , it 's what we do , it 's all that we do .
We are n't special.The sooner we get used to that the less time and effort we 'll waste fighting over stupid things.- jessta</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just maths ey?Yeah, because maths is so easy.
Being a great mathematician is no where near as awesome as being a great composer.
:PHuman beings are great at pattern matching, it's what we do, it's all that we do.
We aren't special.The sooner we get used to that the less time and effort we'll waste fighting over stupid things.- jessta</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267710</id>
	<title>Bad examples</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish the article had better examples (like the pieces that people couldn't tell whether Bach or the program wrote them) because the pieces that are excerpted in the article are not convincing to me as being anything good human composers need to worry about being replaced by.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish the article had better examples ( like the pieces that people could n't tell whether Bach or the program wrote them ) because the pieces that are excerpted in the article are not convincing to me as being anything good human composers need to worry about being replaced by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish the article had better examples (like the pieces that people couldn't tell whether Bach or the program wrote them) because the pieces that are excerpted in the article are not convincing to me as being anything good human composers need to worry about being replaced by.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31276430</id>
	<title>Copy or invent?</title>
	<author>Sir Holo</author>
	<datestamp>1267130520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did the software actually invent, or did it merely copy by reducing Mozart's body of work <i>post-facto</i> to its core elements?<br>
<br>
Anyone can copy.<br>
<br>
Few can invent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the software actually invent , or did it merely copy by reducing Mozart 's body of work post-facto to its core elements ?
Anyone can copy .
Few can invent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the software actually invent, or did it merely copy by reducing Mozart's body of work post-facto to its core elements?
Anyone can copy.
Few can invent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269664</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1267089600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The uproar is due in part to the extravagant claims made, in specific instances and in general.  There is a common assumption among intellectuals* that science will solve all of our problems and answer all questions (as nicely illustrated by your phrase "that we can't fully understand <strong>yet</strong>"), when most often in reality it allows us only to see more problems and questions than we ever thought existed.  There is a great disrespect for human ingenuity, which after all drives the science in the first place and devises applications for the knowledge gained--this is how the problems are solved, when they can be.  Science is and ought to remain the tool, yet many people seem to want to elevate it to the status of master.</p><p>In this summary, for instance, the overblown claim is that the software "creates beautiful, original music."  What isn't mentioned is that one of the pieces of software (for there are two) is fed copious amounts of human-created source material to work from, and the other creates musical bits but only keeps the ones that the composer likes--hardly an unassisted process.  The composer himself has this to say:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;All the computer is is just an extension of me,&rdquo; Cope says. &ldquo;They&rsquo;re nothing but wonderfully organized shovels. I wouldn&rsquo;t give credit to the shovel for digging the hole. Would you?&rdquo;</p></div><p>I am certainly not anti-science.  Yet it seems that like virtually every other belief nowadays, it is expected that you are either "for" or "against" it.  I believe that science has limitations in its usefulness, a reasoned middle ground that is no longer acceptable to most.</p><p><em>*Not meant in the pejorative; I consider myself part of this class.</em></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The uproar is due in part to the extravagant claims made , in specific instances and in general .
There is a common assumption among intellectuals * that science will solve all of our problems and answer all questions ( as nicely illustrated by your phrase " that we ca n't fully understand yet " ) , when most often in reality it allows us only to see more problems and questions than we ever thought existed .
There is a great disrespect for human ingenuity , which after all drives the science in the first place and devises applications for the knowledge gained--this is how the problems are solved , when they can be .
Science is and ought to remain the tool , yet many people seem to want to elevate it to the status of master.In this summary , for instance , the overblown claim is that the software " creates beautiful , original music .
" What is n't mentioned is that one of the pieces of software ( for there are two ) is fed copious amounts of human-created source material to work from , and the other creates musical bits but only keeps the ones that the composer likes--hardly an unassisted process .
The composer himself has this to say :    All the computer is is just an extension of me ,    Cope says .
   They    re nothing but wonderfully organized shovels .
I wouldn    t give credit to the shovel for digging the hole .
Would you ?    I am certainly not anti-science .
Yet it seems that like virtually every other belief nowadays , it is expected that you are either " for " or " against " it .
I believe that science has limitations in its usefulness , a reasoned middle ground that is no longer acceptable to most .
* Not meant in the pejorative ; I consider myself part of this class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The uproar is due in part to the extravagant claims made, in specific instances and in general.
There is a common assumption among intellectuals* that science will solve all of our problems and answer all questions (as nicely illustrated by your phrase "that we can't fully understand yet"), when most often in reality it allows us only to see more problems and questions than we ever thought existed.
There is a great disrespect for human ingenuity, which after all drives the science in the first place and devises applications for the knowledge gained--this is how the problems are solved, when they can be.
Science is and ought to remain the tool, yet many people seem to want to elevate it to the status of master.In this summary, for instance, the overblown claim is that the software "creates beautiful, original music.
"  What isn't mentioned is that one of the pieces of software (for there are two) is fed copious amounts of human-created source material to work from, and the other creates musical bits but only keeps the ones that the composer likes--hardly an unassisted process.
The composer himself has this to say:“All the computer is is just an extension of me,” Cope says.
“They’re nothing but wonderfully organized shovels.
I wouldn’t give credit to the shovel for digging the hole.
Would you?”I am certainly not anti-science.
Yet it seems that like virtually every other belief nowadays, it is expected that you are either "for" or "against" it.
I believe that science has limitations in its usefulness, a reasoned middle ground that is no longer acceptable to most.
*Not meant in the pejorative; I consider myself part of this class.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269744</id>
	<title>PS:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267090680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"the music itself was not encoded in his DNA"</i>
<br> <br>
That's correct his DNA told him what sounded good, not how to make what sounds good. To make the sounds Mozart had to use trial and error and compare it to what his DNA told him sounds good. Similarly the computers program told it what sounds good to humans (Mozart) and via trial and error found something that sounds like Mozart.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" the music itself was not encoded in his DNA " That 's correct his DNA told him what sounded good , not how to make what sounds good .
To make the sounds Mozart had to use trial and error and compare it to what his DNA told him sounds good .
Similarly the computers program told it what sounds good to humans ( Mozart ) and via trial and error found something that sounds like Mozart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the music itself was not encoded in his DNA"
 
That's correct his DNA told him what sounded good, not how to make what sounds good.
To make the sounds Mozart had to use trial and error and compare it to what his DNA told him sounds good.
Similarly the computers program told it what sounds good to humans (Mozart) and via trial and error found something that sounds like Mozart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269514</id>
	<title>Not so musical Overlords</title>
	<author>Riddler Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1267130640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the perspective of a classically trained musician that does it for a living, I am not feeling too threatened by this for several reasons:</p><p>1) I am not a luddite</p><p>2) It's impressive, but it's hardly threatening. The examples given in the article were simple in most terms. The color and timbre are uniform throughout and it felt stagnant. It was basically a rhythmic idea and arpeggiated chord changes. While indeed pleasant sounding, the results so far still do not come even close to the names being thrown around.</p><p>3) Choices and experiences. For this machine to be truly challenging to mankind it will have to make CHOICES like we can. Not only that but it has to draw on inspiration from the world and it's "life". Composers use techniques that mimic the sounds of life, spell a loved one's name, or paint imagery. This machine would have to WANT to do these things.</p><p>4) Don't let the Music Theory 101 courses that we teach fool you. There ARE no rules. At the end of the day, it is all sound. What we call "rules" are simply techniques that we have identified as producing agreeable sounds. In reality you are as free to follow or abandon these ideas as you see fit. You can abandon western tonality and invent your own system if you want. John Cage's "As Slow as Possible" began being performed in 2000...and it'll finish in 639 years. One piece is a recording of the electromagnetic fields of the Earth. Musical innovation is still very much alive. If this machine can't have the desire, inspiration, or the INTELLIGENCE, to innovate such things on its own then us musicians will still have jobs for a very long time....that is until Skynet goes live and hurls a <i>"New"clear World Symphony</i> at us (by Dvorak the computer keyboard and not Anton&#237;n Dvo&#225;k)!</p><p>So here's a piece written by a human: <i>The Serpent's Kiss</i> by Bolcom <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzorssRJce4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzorssRJce4</a> [youtube.com] . Tell me THAT was composed by a computer and THEN I'll rethink my career choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the perspective of a classically trained musician that does it for a living , I am not feeling too threatened by this for several reasons : 1 ) I am not a luddite2 ) It 's impressive , but it 's hardly threatening .
The examples given in the article were simple in most terms .
The color and timbre are uniform throughout and it felt stagnant .
It was basically a rhythmic idea and arpeggiated chord changes .
While indeed pleasant sounding , the results so far still do not come even close to the names being thrown around.3 ) Choices and experiences .
For this machine to be truly challenging to mankind it will have to make CHOICES like we can .
Not only that but it has to draw on inspiration from the world and it 's " life " .
Composers use techniques that mimic the sounds of life , spell a loved one 's name , or paint imagery .
This machine would have to WANT to do these things.4 ) Do n't let the Music Theory 101 courses that we teach fool you .
There ARE no rules .
At the end of the day , it is all sound .
What we call " rules " are simply techniques that we have identified as producing agreeable sounds .
In reality you are as free to follow or abandon these ideas as you see fit .
You can abandon western tonality and invent your own system if you want .
John Cage 's " As Slow as Possible " began being performed in 2000...and it 'll finish in 639 years .
One piece is a recording of the electromagnetic fields of the Earth .
Musical innovation is still very much alive .
If this machine ca n't have the desire , inspiration , or the INTELLIGENCE , to innovate such things on its own then us musicians will still have jobs for a very long time....that is until Skynet goes live and hurls a " New " clear World Symphony at us ( by Dvorak the computer keyboard and not Anton   n Dvo   k ) ! So here 's a piece written by a human : The Serpent 's Kiss by Bolcom http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = MzorssRJce4 [ youtube.com ] .
Tell me THAT was composed by a computer and THEN I 'll rethink my career choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the perspective of a classically trained musician that does it for a living, I am not feeling too threatened by this for several reasons:1) I am not a luddite2) It's impressive, but it's hardly threatening.
The examples given in the article were simple in most terms.
The color and timbre are uniform throughout and it felt stagnant.
It was basically a rhythmic idea and arpeggiated chord changes.
While indeed pleasant sounding, the results so far still do not come even close to the names being thrown around.3) Choices and experiences.
For this machine to be truly challenging to mankind it will have to make CHOICES like we can.
Not only that but it has to draw on inspiration from the world and it's "life".
Composers use techniques that mimic the sounds of life, spell a loved one's name, or paint imagery.
This machine would have to WANT to do these things.4) Don't let the Music Theory 101 courses that we teach fool you.
There ARE no rules.
At the end of the day, it is all sound.
What we call "rules" are simply techniques that we have identified as producing agreeable sounds.
In reality you are as free to follow or abandon these ideas as you see fit.
You can abandon western tonality and invent your own system if you want.
John Cage's "As Slow as Possible" began being performed in 2000...and it'll finish in 639 years.
One piece is a recording of the electromagnetic fields of the Earth.
Musical innovation is still very much alive.
If this machine can't have the desire, inspiration, or the INTELLIGENCE, to innovate such things on its own then us musicians will still have jobs for a very long time....that is until Skynet goes live and hurls a "New"clear World Symphony at us (by Dvorak the computer keyboard and not Antonín Dvoák)!So here's a piece written by a human: The Serpent's Kiss by Bolcom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzorssRJce4 [youtube.com] .
Tell me THAT was composed by a computer and THEN I'll rethink my career choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268206</id>
	<title>reverse engineering</title>
	<author>evilWurst</author>
	<datestamp>1265128440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart? And was there really any soul behind the great works, or were Beethoven and his ilk just clever mathematical manipulators of notes?</p><p>Uh, what? They invented their styles, and it's taken us a few hundred years to convincingly reverse engineer them. Remember the old saying about imitation being the highest form of flattery.</p><p>The new program in TFA is essentially the same idea. Since its sense of style is seeded by lots of human input, it's not what you might think of when you hear it's called computer generated compositions. It's really computer-assisted composition. In the new one the rules come from the programmer, and in the old ones the rules came from famous composers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals , then what was so special about Mozart ?
And was there really any soul behind the great works , or were Beethoven and his ilk just clever mathematical manipulators of notes ? Uh , what ?
They invented their styles , and it 's taken us a few hundred years to convincingly reverse engineer them .
Remember the old saying about imitation being the highest form of flattery.The new program in TFA is essentially the same idea .
Since its sense of style is seeded by lots of human input , it 's not what you might think of when you hear it 's called computer generated compositions .
It 's really computer-assisted composition .
In the new one the rules come from the programmer , and in the old ones the rules came from famous composers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?
And was there really any soul behind the great works, or were Beethoven and his ilk just clever mathematical manipulators of notes?Uh, what?
They invented their styles, and it's taken us a few hundred years to convincingly reverse engineer them.
Remember the old saying about imitation being the highest form of flattery.The new program in TFA is essentially the same idea.
Since its sense of style is seeded by lots of human input, it's not what you might think of when you hear it's called computer generated compositions.
It's really computer-assisted composition.
In the new one the rules come from the programmer, and in the old ones the rules came from famous composers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269060</id>
	<title>I'll set my alarm to go off . . .</title>
	<author>xant</author>
	<datestamp>1265137800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . when humans do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
when humans do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
when humans do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270406</id>
	<title>David Cope, dont again delete that software.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1267099620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nomatter how the 'art' community howls and barks, nomatter how they harrass you, do NOT delete any of your creations again. whats important is making music, and if ANYthing is making music, or any form of art, the rest of 'art' community can go eat shit.</p><p>music is a service to people, to engage emotions in them. it does NOT matter what the source of the music is. anything else is intellectual elitism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nomatter how the 'art ' community howls and barks , nomatter how they harrass you , do NOT delete any of your creations again .
whats important is making music , and if ANYthing is making music , or any form of art , the rest of 'art ' community can go eat shit.music is a service to people , to engage emotions in them .
it does NOT matter what the source of the music is .
anything else is intellectual elitism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nomatter how the 'art' community howls and barks, nomatter how they harrass you, do NOT delete any of your creations again.
whats important is making music, and if ANYthing is making music, or any form of art, the rest of 'art' community can go eat shit.music is a service to people, to engage emotions in them.
it does NOT matter what the source of the music is.
anything else is intellectual elitism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268056</id>
	<title>Virtual Bach</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1265126820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is essentially the same concept and execution as Virtual Bach, which was (as far as I can tell) an earlier version of Emmy that David Cope made in the 1980s. What's changed, exactly? As far as I can recall, Virtual Bach took a composer of your choice, was given a sample of his music, and then created a "new" piece based on patterns that it recognized. I don't know the particulars, but perhaps Emmy can write in an original style now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is essentially the same concept and execution as Virtual Bach , which was ( as far as I can tell ) an earlier version of Emmy that David Cope made in the 1980s .
What 's changed , exactly ?
As far as I can recall , Virtual Bach took a composer of your choice , was given a sample of his music , and then created a " new " piece based on patterns that it recognized .
I do n't know the particulars , but perhaps Emmy can write in an original style now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is essentially the same concept and execution as Virtual Bach, which was (as far as I can tell) an earlier version of Emmy that David Cope made in the 1980s.
What's changed, exactly?
As far as I can recall, Virtual Bach took a composer of your choice, was given a sample of his music, and then created a "new" piece based on patterns that it recognized.
I don't know the particulars, but perhaps Emmy can write in an original style now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267938</id>
	<title>Re:Bad examples</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can find more examples on his site <a href="http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm" title="ucsc.edu" rel="nofollow">http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm</a> [ucsc.edu] .

These are the original, EMI. <br> <br>

Emily Howell seems to be the 'new' one, and you can find<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lots/ of MIDI's of her (?) work here: <a href="http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/music.htm" title="ucsc.edu" rel="nofollow">http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/music.htm</a> [ucsc.edu] .</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can find more examples on his site http : //artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm [ ucsc.edu ] .
These are the original , EMI .
Emily Howell seems to be the 'new ' one , and you can find /lots/ of MIDI 's of her ( ?
) work here : http : //artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/music.htm [ ucsc.edu ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can find more examples on his site http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm [ucsc.edu] .
These are the original, EMI.
Emily Howell seems to be the 'new' one, and you can find /lots/ of MIDI's of her (?
) work here: http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/music.htm [ucsc.edu] .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270758</id>
	<title>So, if my PC will make my own original music...</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1267104000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is going to pay all the lawyers who fight copyright stuff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is going to pay all the lawyers who fight copyright stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is going to pay all the lawyers who fight copyright stuff?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270462</id>
	<title>Virtual Composer yet still Human Interprets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267100460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you all forget the most important thing : though an algorithm has produced these music sheets, it was humans who played them. Computers are nowhere able to play classical music with emotion, I don't even know of any interesting attempts.</p><p>For an educated listener, they are huge differences between two interpretations. Four Seasons's Vivaldi live performances styles vary greatly between the English School (classic style) and Italian School  (sounds more baroque...Il Giardino Armonico, Bondi, etc.). Between Horowitz and Kempff (two famous pianists), there's a huge difference. The same can be told about symphonic works.</p><p>As for the article,</p><p>I listened to the two samples and they weren't really great, though of course I couldn't tell if they were computer or (poorly) human-written. Also, I'm not really fond of Mozart. Maybe there are better samples out there, a link would be nice.<br>I'm astonished that people seem to discover the mathematical harmony that reigns in classical music (and generally in music). Of course composers, interprets and listeners felt that mathematical harmony, and since our brains have amazing abilities to learn, we inconsciously recognize these patterns.</p><p>On a fun note, my captcha for posting this comment was "rehearse". Quite related.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you all forget the most important thing : though an algorithm has produced these music sheets , it was humans who played them .
Computers are nowhere able to play classical music with emotion , I do n't even know of any interesting attempts.For an educated listener , they are huge differences between two interpretations .
Four Seasons 's Vivaldi live performances styles vary greatly between the English School ( classic style ) and Italian School ( sounds more baroque...Il Giardino Armonico , Bondi , etc. ) .
Between Horowitz and Kempff ( two famous pianists ) , there 's a huge difference .
The same can be told about symphonic works.As for the article,I listened to the two samples and they were n't really great , though of course I could n't tell if they were computer or ( poorly ) human-written .
Also , I 'm not really fond of Mozart .
Maybe there are better samples out there , a link would be nice.I 'm astonished that people seem to discover the mathematical harmony that reigns in classical music ( and generally in music ) .
Of course composers , interprets and listeners felt that mathematical harmony , and since our brains have amazing abilities to learn , we inconsciously recognize these patterns.On a fun note , my captcha for posting this comment was " rehearse " .
Quite related .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you all forget the most important thing : though an algorithm has produced these music sheets, it was humans who played them.
Computers are nowhere able to play classical music with emotion, I don't even know of any interesting attempts.For an educated listener, they are huge differences between two interpretations.
Four Seasons's Vivaldi live performances styles vary greatly between the English School (classic style) and Italian School  (sounds more baroque...Il Giardino Armonico, Bondi, etc.).
Between Horowitz and Kempff (two famous pianists), there's a huge difference.
The same can be told about symphonic works.As for the article,I listened to the two samples and they weren't really great, though of course I couldn't tell if they were computer or (poorly) human-written.
Also, I'm not really fond of Mozart.
Maybe there are better samples out there, a link would be nice.I'm astonished that people seem to discover the mathematical harmony that reigns in classical music (and generally in music).
Of course composers, interprets and listeners felt that mathematical harmony, and since our brains have amazing abilities to learn, we inconsciously recognize these patterns.On a fun note, my captcha for posting this comment was "rehearse".
Quite related.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271478</id>
	<title>Re:It's maths all the way down</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267109820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your "right brain" is still doing computation. The fact that it does so better than a computer is because we're a long way from making machines as good as brains. It's nothing to do with some hand wavy "maths versus different way of perceiving reality" nonsense.</p><p>That a person can be good at music but bad at maths is because you're confusing what a person's brain does (computation), with that person consciously working through those calculations mentally by hand. E.g., my eyes are doing image processing, but consciously I don't have a clue what those calculations are, and if I did, they'd take vastly longer to work through the computations. But there's nothing mystical about how my eyes work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your " right brain " is still doing computation .
The fact that it does so better than a computer is because we 're a long way from making machines as good as brains .
It 's nothing to do with some hand wavy " maths versus different way of perceiving reality " nonsense.That a person can be good at music but bad at maths is because you 're confusing what a person 's brain does ( computation ) , with that person consciously working through those calculations mentally by hand .
E.g. , my eyes are doing image processing , but consciously I do n't have a clue what those calculations are , and if I did , they 'd take vastly longer to work through the computations .
But there 's nothing mystical about how my eyes work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your "right brain" is still doing computation.
The fact that it does so better than a computer is because we're a long way from making machines as good as brains.
It's nothing to do with some hand wavy "maths versus different way of perceiving reality" nonsense.That a person can be good at music but bad at maths is because you're confusing what a person's brain does (computation), with that person consciously working through those calculations mentally by hand.
E.g., my eyes are doing image processing, but consciously I don't have a clue what those calculations are, and if I did, they'd take vastly longer to work through the computations.
But there's nothing mystical about how my eyes work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31277428</id>
	<title>Fallacies of reductionism</title>
	<author>DollyTheSheep</author>
	<datestamp>1267091340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your statements are wrong on so many levels, that it's hard to even begin with. First, if someone says "X is a mere Y" or "X is nothing more than a clever combination of Ys" than you should be very cautious of this reductionism. Of course humans are biological machines, but we are also <i>much more</i> than that. It shouldn't be too hard to grasp, that knowledge and culture and language brings a whole new quality to this whole realm of biological machines. We really stand somewhat outside of normal evolution. </p><p>And you also describe the work of geniuses as mix of well known things, <b> only </b>. Music for example <b> is </b> based on rules, patterns and it can be expressed or represented in mathematical algorithms. But what composers do is much more. They have musical ideas, they reflect on them, they have a story. And they mix their ideas in unexpected ways (you can analyze this after the fact, but you cannot guess them beforehand). The whole is really more than the sum of it's parts, we need an holistic approach, not a reductionist one</p><p>It doesn't surprise me that this example of reductionism is not only accepted, but also lauded here in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. No one likes the unexplainable, unexpected genius, only "hard work" is accepted. And only here can truly soulless music can be appreciated because "the concept of a soul is imaginary anyway". You dehumanized yourself here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your statements are wrong on so many levels , that it 's hard to even begin with .
First , if someone says " X is a mere Y " or " X is nothing more than a clever combination of Ys " than you should be very cautious of this reductionism .
Of course humans are biological machines , but we are also much more than that .
It should n't be too hard to grasp , that knowledge and culture and language brings a whole new quality to this whole realm of biological machines .
We really stand somewhat outside of normal evolution .
And you also describe the work of geniuses as mix of well known things , only .
Music for example is based on rules , patterns and it can be expressed or represented in mathematical algorithms .
But what composers do is much more .
They have musical ideas , they reflect on them , they have a story .
And they mix their ideas in unexpected ways ( you can analyze this after the fact , but you can not guess them beforehand ) .
The whole is really more than the sum of it 's parts , we need an holistic approach , not a reductionist oneIt does n't surprise me that this example of reductionism is not only accepted , but also lauded here in / .
No one likes the unexplainable , unexpected genius , only " hard work " is accepted .
And only here can truly soulless music can be appreciated because " the concept of a soul is imaginary anyway " .
You dehumanized yourself here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your statements are wrong on so many levels, that it's hard to even begin with.
First, if someone says "X is a mere Y" or "X is nothing more than a clever combination of Ys" than you should be very cautious of this reductionism.
Of course humans are biological machines, but we are also much more than that.
It shouldn't be too hard to grasp, that knowledge and culture and language brings a whole new quality to this whole realm of biological machines.
We really stand somewhat outside of normal evolution.
And you also describe the work of geniuses as mix of well known things,  only .
Music for example  is  based on rules, patterns and it can be expressed or represented in mathematical algorithms.
But what composers do is much more.
They have musical ideas, they reflect on them, they have a story.
And they mix their ideas in unexpected ways (you can analyze this after the fact, but you cannot guess them beforehand).
The whole is really more than the sum of it's parts, we need an holistic approach, not a reductionist oneIt doesn't surprise me that this example of reductionism is not only accepted, but also lauded here in /.
No one likes the unexplainable, unexpected genius, only "hard work" is accepted.
And only here can truly soulless music can be appreciated because "the concept of a soul is imaginary anyway".
You dehumanized yourself here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270236</id>
	<title>what about copyright?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267097160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know Mr. Cope will probably claim copyright for the tunes. But according to copyright law, copyright belongs to the creator of the music piece...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know Mr. Cope will probably claim copyright for the tunes .
But according to copyright law , copyright belongs to the creator of the music piece.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know Mr. Cope will probably claim copyright for the tunes.
But according to copyright law, copyright belongs to the creator of the music piece...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267924</id>
	<title>Sounds like crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone else listen to the two samples?  They sound horrible.  I put on some Mozart afterwards, and Wolfgang put the robotunes to shame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else listen to the two samples ?
They sound horrible .
I put on some Mozart afterwards , and Wolfgang put the robotunes to shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else listen to the two samples?
They sound horrible.
I put on some Mozart afterwards, and Wolfgang put the robotunes to shame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608</id>
	<title>Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good tunes are good tunes.  What's their problem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good tunes are good tunes .
What 's their problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good tunes are good tunes.
What's their problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267676</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>nmb3000</author>
	<datestamp>1265123520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Good tunes are good tunes. What's their problem?</i></p><p>Computers can compose music for less money and in greater quantity than humans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good tunes are good tunes .
What 's their problem ? Computers can compose music for less money and in greater quantity than humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good tunes are good tunes.
What's their problem?Computers can compose music for less money and in greater quantity than humans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268190</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>matfud</author>
	<datestamp>1265128200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most humans who are really good at a task are so because of absorbing decadeds or centuarys of previously learned knowledge. Your point is?</p><p>These systems like deepblue occasionally do come up with unexpected moves or changes. You may say they are obvious if you have all the data but that is where advances come from.</p><p>I'm not surprised that chess and music have become capable of doing by a computer as both are entirely based on maths. However the music may not give the same kind of feeling as a live band playing. That I likely to do with the fact you are not surrounded by tens to thousands of people hearings and watching the same thing.</p><p>Matfud</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most humans who are really good at a task are so because of absorbing decadeds or centuarys of previously learned knowledge .
Your point is ? These systems like deepblue occasionally do come up with unexpected moves or changes .
You may say they are obvious if you have all the data but that is where advances come from.I 'm not surprised that chess and music have become capable of doing by a computer as both are entirely based on maths .
However the music may not give the same kind of feeling as a live band playing .
That I likely to do with the fact you are not surrounded by tens to thousands of people hearings and watching the same thing.Matfud</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most humans who are really good at a task are so because of absorbing decadeds or centuarys of previously learned knowledge.
Your point is?These systems like deepblue occasionally do come up with unexpected moves or changes.
You may say they are obvious if you have all the data but that is where advances come from.I'm not surprised that chess and music have become capable of doing by a computer as both are entirely based on maths.
However the music may not give the same kind of feeling as a live band playing.
That I likely to do with the fact you are not surrounded by tens to thousands of people hearings and watching the same thing.Matfud</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268754</id>
	<title>it can be applied to all art</title>
	<author>keiofh</author>
	<datestamp>1265134320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>even though anybody can copy what a famous artist has done
it doesn't mean that if you set it by itself, they'd be able to create it out of nothing by themself</htmltext>
<tokenext>even though anybody can copy what a famous artist has done it does n't mean that if you set it by itself , they 'd be able to create it out of nothing by themself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even though anybody can copy what a famous artist has done
it doesn't mean that if you set it by itself, they'd be able to create it out of nothing by themself</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267718</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long before the RIAA sues the robot?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before the RIAA sues the robot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before the RIAA sues the robot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271882</id>
	<title>Subject line is incorrect</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267112100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Triumph of the Cyborg Composer"</p><p>You have it right -- it should read "Triumph of the Mathematical Composer". A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg" title="wikipedia.org">cyborg</a> [wikipedia.org] is a human who is dependant on implanted devices in his or her body to aid its functions. It's short for cybernetic organism, and a computer algorythm is NOT an organism.</p><p>Former US Vice President Dick Cheney is a cyborg. I'm a cyborg. Your grandma's probably a cyborg. But computer generated music is NOT cybernetic.</p><p>A "cyborg composer" would be a human composer with an artificial hip, a pacemaker, or some other medical implant. You would think people would use a dictionary or even wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Triumph of the Cyborg Composer " You have it right -- it should read " Triumph of the Mathematical Composer " .
A cyborg [ wikipedia.org ] is a human who is dependant on implanted devices in his or her body to aid its functions .
It 's short for cybernetic organism , and a computer algorythm is NOT an organism.Former US Vice President Dick Cheney is a cyborg .
I 'm a cyborg .
Your grandma 's probably a cyborg .
But computer generated music is NOT cybernetic.A " cyborg composer " would be a human composer with an artificial hip , a pacemaker , or some other medical implant .
You would think people would use a dictionary or even wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Triumph of the Cyborg Composer"You have it right -- it should read "Triumph of the Mathematical Composer".
A cyborg [wikipedia.org] is a human who is dependant on implanted devices in his or her body to aid its functions.
It's short for cybernetic organism, and a computer algorythm is NOT an organism.Former US Vice President Dick Cheney is a cyborg.
I'm a cyborg.
Your grandma's probably a cyborg.
But computer generated music is NOT cybernetic.A "cyborg composer" would be a human composer with an artificial hip, a pacemaker, or some other medical implant.
You would think people would use a dictionary or even wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269728</id>
	<title>Re:The machine can do it because we allow it to.</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1267090440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The machine knows that note X is pleasing to the ear after note Y, or note Z will cause a cacophony</p></div><p>*looks at piano*</p><p>Huh...mine only goes up to G and then starts over.  Maybe that's why I'm no good at composing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The machine knows that note X is pleasing to the ear after note Y , or note Z will cause a cacophony * looks at piano * Huh...mine only goes up to G and then starts over .
Maybe that 's why I 'm no good at composing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The machine knows that note X is pleasing to the ear after note Y, or note Z will cause a cacophony*looks at piano*Huh...mine only goes up to G and then starts over.
Maybe that's why I'm no good at composing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270176</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn... Someone Wake Me When...</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1267096380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As opposed to, say, opera?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to , say , opera ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to, say, opera?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271020</id>
	<title>AI will never have a soul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267106580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AI will never have a soul, until it, like us, it desires to create the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AI will never have a soul , until it , like us , it desires to create the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AI will never have a soul, until it, like us, it desires to create the other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600</id>
	<title>It's maths all the way down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deal with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268470</id>
	<title>I would be concerned if...</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1265131260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be concerned if the computer had spontaneously
expressed an interest in hearing Mozart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be concerned if the computer had spontaneously expressed an interest in hearing Mozart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be concerned if the computer had spontaneously
expressed an interest in hearing Mozart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271902</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267112280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard of confirmation bias?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of confirmation bias ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of confirmation bias?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268004</id>
	<title>What if...</title>
	<author>webbiedave</author>
	<datestamp>1265126340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if a machine could write emotionally evocative music or create the most stunning paintings? What if there were a machine that could weave an intricate story full of clever, intuitive dialogue? What if -- dare I imagine -- a machine could someday produce the absolutely funniest slashdot comments?<br> <br>

Here's what I think will happen. Finally, people will start seeing the amazing *software* to be the new, beautiful work of artistic creation that it is. Such software, like conventional artistic outlets, takes great reflection and insight to discover those processes and principles that seem to reveal a glimpse into the very intangible things which makes us human.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if a machine could write emotionally evocative music or create the most stunning paintings ?
What if there were a machine that could weave an intricate story full of clever , intuitive dialogue ?
What if -- dare I imagine -- a machine could someday produce the absolutely funniest slashdot comments ?
Here 's what I think will happen .
Finally , people will start seeing the amazing * software * to be the new , beautiful work of artistic creation that it is .
Such software , like conventional artistic outlets , takes great reflection and insight to discover those processes and principles that seem to reveal a glimpse into the very intangible things which makes us human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if a machine could write emotionally evocative music or create the most stunning paintings?
What if there were a machine that could weave an intricate story full of clever, intuitive dialogue?
What if -- dare I imagine -- a machine could someday produce the absolutely funniest slashdot comments?
Here's what I think will happen.
Finally, people will start seeing the amazing *software* to be the new, beautiful work of artistic creation that it is.
Such software, like conventional artistic outlets, takes great reflection and insight to discover those processes and principles that seem to reveal a glimpse into the very intangible things which makes us human.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268864</id>
	<title>uc santa cruz rules</title>
	<author>idioto</author>
	<datestamp>1265135760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i went there, and while i'd love to dork out with you and drop street cred.  if you went to uc santa cruz you'd also be exposed to gamelan music and all sorts of ear raping sounds.</p><p>anyhow, i can pick out composers with startling accuracy. and i don't listen to classical music with the exception of when i dated a girl who was studying classical music.  yeah, it's just formulaic.  but whatever, i'm also a really good musician and have a kind of perfect pitch, it doesn't matter.</p><p>all music is a formula, and it's about looking cool.  and part of that is dropping my slashdot karma way down so mod it for me you frickin nerds</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i went there , and while i 'd love to dork out with you and drop street cred .
if you went to uc santa cruz you 'd also be exposed to gamelan music and all sorts of ear raping sounds.anyhow , i can pick out composers with startling accuracy .
and i do n't listen to classical music with the exception of when i dated a girl who was studying classical music .
yeah , it 's just formulaic .
but whatever , i 'm also a really good musician and have a kind of perfect pitch , it does n't matter.all music is a formula , and it 's about looking cool .
and part of that is dropping my slashdot karma way down so mod it for me you frickin nerds</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i went there, and while i'd love to dork out with you and drop street cred.
if you went to uc santa cruz you'd also be exposed to gamelan music and all sorts of ear raping sounds.anyhow, i can pick out composers with startling accuracy.
and i don't listen to classical music with the exception of when i dated a girl who was studying classical music.
yeah, it's just formulaic.
but whatever, i'm also a really good musician and have a kind of perfect pitch, it doesn't matter.all music is a formula, and it's about looking cool.
and part of that is dropping my slashdot karma way down so mod it for me you frickin nerds</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271848</id>
	<title>Seeing how music....</title>
	<author>g0bshiTe</author>
	<datestamp>1267111920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is pretty much math. I'd say the latter, does that detract from the work itself or the artists accomplishment, not at all. We are left with a beautiful piece of art that has been enjoyed for centuries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is pretty much math .
I 'd say the latter , does that detract from the work itself or the artists accomplishment , not at all .
We are left with a beautiful piece of art that has been enjoyed for centuries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is pretty much math.
I'd say the latter, does that detract from the work itself or the artists accomplishment, not at all.
We are left with a beautiful piece of art that has been enjoyed for centuries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271030</id>
	<title>Sounds great...</title>
	<author>mangst</author>
	<datestamp>1267106640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but who is playing the piano in those sound samples?  Does Emily Howell also say when to play louder and when to play softer?  As a piano player myself, this is just as important as the musical notes when it comes to bring an emotional "feel" into the music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but who is playing the piano in those sound samples ?
Does Emily Howell also say when to play louder and when to play softer ?
As a piano player myself , this is just as important as the musical notes when it comes to bring an emotional " feel " into the music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but who is playing the piano in those sound samples?
Does Emily Howell also say when to play louder and when to play softer?
As a piano player myself, this is just as important as the musical notes when it comes to bring an emotional "feel" into the music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268428</id>
	<title>Re:As much genre as you want</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1265130840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Each piece replicates pretty well the style and feel of a particular author or genre of music.</p></div><p>To me, this is why grand proclamations of 'Computers Compose Music!' have had a fraudulent tone to them. The first step in supposedly getting a computer to 'compose' music is to feed it a bunch of music in a style originated by a great composer. Well, the human being did the 'black box' work of inventing the genre in the first place; all these programs seem to do is play some kind of souped-up mad-libs with that body of work. <br> <br>"But Mozart studied other people's work before he wrote his works!" Yeah, that's true, but he *didn't* study *Mozart's* work before he wrote it. These works of genius are <i>sui generis</i>, original, unlike what came before it. Mozart studied other people's stuff, and came up with his own unique, original stuff. This program studies Mozart, and comes up with Mozart-stuff. <br> <br>What seems to be missing is some creative element, that isn't merely copying or re-hashing what came before it, but somehow is truly 'creative' in the sense that it makes something brand new, unlike its predecessors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Each piece replicates pretty well the style and feel of a particular author or genre of music.To me , this is why grand proclamations of 'Computers Compose Music !
' have had a fraudulent tone to them .
The first step in supposedly getting a computer to 'compose ' music is to feed it a bunch of music in a style originated by a great composer .
Well , the human being did the 'black box ' work of inventing the genre in the first place ; all these programs seem to do is play some kind of souped-up mad-libs with that body of work .
" But Mozart studied other people 's work before he wrote his works !
" Yeah , that 's true , but he * did n't * study * Mozart 's * work before he wrote it .
These works of genius are sui generis , original , unlike what came before it .
Mozart studied other people 's stuff , and came up with his own unique , original stuff .
This program studies Mozart , and comes up with Mozart-stuff .
What seems to be missing is some creative element , that is n't merely copying or re-hashing what came before it , but somehow is truly 'creative ' in the sense that it makes something brand new , unlike its predecessors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each piece replicates pretty well the style and feel of a particular author or genre of music.To me, this is why grand proclamations of 'Computers Compose Music!
' have had a fraudulent tone to them.
The first step in supposedly getting a computer to 'compose' music is to feed it a bunch of music in a style originated by a great composer.
Well, the human being did the 'black box' work of inventing the genre in the first place; all these programs seem to do is play some kind of souped-up mad-libs with that body of work.
"But Mozart studied other people's work before he wrote his works!
" Yeah, that's true, but he *didn't* study *Mozart's* work before he wrote it.
These works of genius are sui generis, original, unlike what came before it.
Mozart studied other people's stuff, and came up with his own unique, original stuff.
This program studies Mozart, and comes up with Mozart-stuff.
What seems to be missing is some creative element, that isn't merely copying or re-hashing what came before it, but somehow is truly 'creative' in the sense that it makes something brand new, unlike its predecessors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268038</id>
	<title>There is no such thing as soul.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And there is no such thing as god either you fairy tale believing tards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And there is no such thing as god either you fairy tale believing tards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there is no such thing as god either you fairy tale believing tards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269066</id>
	<title>Music doesn't have to be manmade to be provocative</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1265137980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Give a computer certain patterns of notes and tell it "patterns in this range are emotionally stimulating;  now generate some new emotionally stimulating patterns that fall in this range", it will do just that.

<br>
Yes, a human would have to define what is and isn't good music, but once it's defined, a programmer can just give a computer a set of rules to follow and it will crank out one Kilomozart per minute.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give a computer certain patterns of notes and tell it " patterns in this range are emotionally stimulating ; now generate some new emotionally stimulating patterns that fall in this range " , it will do just that .
Yes , a human would have to define what is and is n't good music , but once it 's defined , a programmer can just give a computer a set of rules to follow and it will crank out one Kilomozart per minute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give a computer certain patterns of notes and tell it "patterns in this range are emotionally stimulating;  now generate some new emotionally stimulating patterns that fall in this range", it will do just that.
Yes, a human would have to define what is and isn't good music, but once it's defined, a programmer can just give a computer a set of rules to follow and it will crank out one Kilomozart per minute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271606</id>
	<title>Re:As much genre as you want</title>
	<author>JCZwart</author>
	<datestamp>1267110600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What happens when we have the ability to generate as much music of a particular style as we want?</p></div><p>Pretty much the same as when you ask a good improvisor to improvise as much music of a particular style as you want. It's the invention of an entirely new style that is a) probably way too much to ask of a computer program and b) very very hard to come up with nowadays.</p><p>For example, look up Richard Grayson on Youtube, who does exactly this (example for those too lazy to navigate: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDxENJgT-Zs" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Star Wars theme in a Baroque style</a> [youtube.com]).</p><p>IMO, it's pretty cool to watch and listen to, but just doesn't fully compare to the works of the real composers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when we have the ability to generate as much music of a particular style as we want ? Pretty much the same as when you ask a good improvisor to improvise as much music of a particular style as you want .
It 's the invention of an entirely new style that is a ) probably way too much to ask of a computer program and b ) very very hard to come up with nowadays.For example , look up Richard Grayson on Youtube , who does exactly this ( example for those too lazy to navigate : Star Wars theme in a Baroque style [ youtube.com ] ) .IMO , it 's pretty cool to watch and listen to , but just does n't fully compare to the works of the real composers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when we have the ability to generate as much music of a particular style as we want?Pretty much the same as when you ask a good improvisor to improvise as much music of a particular style as you want.
It's the invention of an entirely new style that is a) probably way too much to ask of a computer program and b) very very hard to come up with nowadays.For example, look up Richard Grayson on Youtube, who does exactly this (example for those too lazy to navigate: Star Wars theme in a Baroque style [youtube.com]).IMO, it's pretty cool to watch and listen to, but just doesn't fully compare to the works of the real composers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268438</id>
	<title>just a product of recombination, played by a human</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1265130960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In his view, all music &mdash; and, really, any creative pursuit &mdash; is largely based on previously created works. Call it standing on the shoulders of giants; call it plagiarism. Everything we create is just a product of recombination.</p></div><p>Indeed. Particularly so with music based on any the twelve-tone scale: given any set of N notes or chords, the twelve-tone scale allows for a finite number of permutations. A very small subset of these permutations will seem "musical", at least in the way we tend to think of music.</p><p>There are of course infinite variables at play, such as timbre and loudness, but in the samples, these aspects were under the control of the human who performed Emmy's compositions. There are human performers who can make mundane noises and progressions seem musical; and there are humans who can make masterpieces of composition sound like anything but music.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In his view , all music    and , really , any creative pursuit    is largely based on previously created works .
Call it standing on the shoulders of giants ; call it plagiarism .
Everything we create is just a product of recombination.Indeed .
Particularly so with music based on any the twelve-tone scale : given any set of N notes or chords , the twelve-tone scale allows for a finite number of permutations .
A very small subset of these permutations will seem " musical " , at least in the way we tend to think of music.There are of course infinite variables at play , such as timbre and loudness , but in the samples , these aspects were under the control of the human who performed Emmy 's compositions .
There are human performers who can make mundane noises and progressions seem musical ; and there are humans who can make masterpieces of composition sound like anything but music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In his view, all music — and, really, any creative pursuit — is largely based on previously created works.
Call it standing on the shoulders of giants; call it plagiarism.
Everything we create is just a product of recombination.Indeed.
Particularly so with music based on any the twelve-tone scale: given any set of N notes or chords, the twelve-tone scale allows for a finite number of permutations.
A very small subset of these permutations will seem "musical", at least in the way we tend to think of music.There are of course infinite variables at play, such as timbre and loudness, but in the samples, these aspects were under the control of the human who performed Emmy's compositions.
There are human performers who can make mundane noises and progressions seem musical; and there are humans who can make masterpieces of composition sound like anything but music.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270366</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn... Someone Wake Me When...</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1267098960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you implying that humans do that now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying that humans do that now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying that humans do that now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270468</id>
	<title>He put 5000 pieces of Bach chorales by Emmy</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1267100520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>online at his site. check the link :</p><p><a href="http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/5000.html" title="ucsc.edu">http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/5000.html</a> [ucsc.edu] they are downloadable</p><p>and here you can check other emmy pieces <a href="http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/works2.htm" title="ucsc.edu">http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/works2.htm</a> [ucsc.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>online at his site .
check the link : http : //artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/5000.html [ ucsc.edu ] they are downloadableand here you can check other emmy pieces http : //artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/works2.htm [ ucsc.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>online at his site.
check the link :http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/5000.html [ucsc.edu] they are downloadableand here you can check other emmy pieces http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/works2.htm [ucsc.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268346</id>
	<title>Cyborg Listener, next?</title>
	<author>niyam</author>
	<datestamp>1265129940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Brilliant! Now the circle will only be complete if another professor can invent the cyborg listener which offers a sensitive digital-ear and a critical appreciation of cyborg music. Then we're free to pursue how the two get along.

regards
niyam</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brilliant !
Now the circle will only be complete if another professor can invent the cyborg listener which offers a sensitive digital-ear and a critical appreciation of cyborg music .
Then we 're free to pursue how the two get along .
regards niyam</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brilliant!
Now the circle will only be complete if another professor can invent the cyborg listener which offers a sensitive digital-ear and a critical appreciation of cyborg music.
Then we're free to pursue how the two get along.
regards
niyam</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269390</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1267129080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wouldn't it be prudent to explore this connection?</p></div><p>Well, yeah. It's been studied for decades - centuries, even. It's not exactly news.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it be prudent to explore this connection ? Well , yeah .
It 's been studied for decades - centuries , even .
It 's not exactly news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it be prudent to explore this connection?Well, yeah.
It's been studied for decades - centuries, even.
It's not exactly news.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268250</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but humans consume vast quantities of past human behavior as well.  We do it very differently (or so we think), but exactly how that works is still a mystery, and we call it 'culture'.
<br> <br>
My opinion is that-- if we can create a machine that can make <em>original</em> music as beautiful, aesthetically and intellectually, as our best work, this is not a triumph of machines over humans.  We built them!  It is a triumph of understanding of ourselves.  In every way that matters, that machine is as much as a work of art as the music is.  Maybe I think this now because I've been thinking lately about automata and the languages that they express...
<br> <br>
My point is this: is the oak tree outside your window any less beautiful because you understand why it's leaves are green?  That a steak is any less tastier because of Maillard reactions?  That your children are any less awesome because we know they came from a sperm and an ovum?  I think it is <em>more</em> beautiful when we know how it works.  We can better appreciate what we have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but humans consume vast quantities of past human behavior as well .
We do it very differently ( or so we think ) , but exactly how that works is still a mystery , and we call it 'culture' .
My opinion is that-- if we can create a machine that can make original music as beautiful , aesthetically and intellectually , as our best work , this is not a triumph of machines over humans .
We built them !
It is a triumph of understanding of ourselves .
In every way that matters , that machine is as much as a work of art as the music is .
Maybe I think this now because I 've been thinking lately about automata and the languages that they express.. . My point is this : is the oak tree outside your window any less beautiful because you understand why it 's leaves are green ?
That a steak is any less tastier because of Maillard reactions ?
That your children are any less awesome because we know they came from a sperm and an ovum ?
I think it is more beautiful when we know how it works .
We can better appreciate what we have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but humans consume vast quantities of past human behavior as well.
We do it very differently (or so we think), but exactly how that works is still a mystery, and we call it 'culture'.
My opinion is that-- if we can create a machine that can make original music as beautiful, aesthetically and intellectually, as our best work, this is not a triumph of machines over humans.
We built them!
It is a triumph of understanding of ourselves.
In every way that matters, that machine is as much as a work of art as the music is.
Maybe I think this now because I've been thinking lately about automata and the languages that they express...
 
My point is this: is the oak tree outside your window any less beautiful because you understand why it's leaves are green?
That a steak is any less tastier because of Maillard reactions?
That your children are any less awesome because we know they came from a sperm and an ovum?
I think it is more beautiful when we know how it works.
We can better appreciate what we have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268342</id>
	<title>Re:The machine can do it because we allow it to.</title>
	<author>ProteusQ</author>
	<datestamp>1265129940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're dead on.  So a machine can "impersonate" Bach or Mozart... so what?  Can a machine make the leap from Mozart to Beethoven to Bartok to Cecil Taylor in its own?  Not a chance.</p><p>Good for "Emmy" and her author!  I'd love to hear some of the music that's been written.  But none of this means the end of music composition as we know it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're dead on .
So a machine can " impersonate " Bach or Mozart... so what ?
Can a machine make the leap from Mozart to Beethoven to Bartok to Cecil Taylor in its own ?
Not a chance.Good for " Emmy " and her author !
I 'd love to hear some of the music that 's been written .
But none of this means the end of music composition as we know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're dead on.
So a machine can "impersonate" Bach or Mozart... so what?
Can a machine make the leap from Mozart to Beethoven to Bartok to Cecil Taylor in its own?
Not a chance.Good for "Emmy" and her author!
I'd love to hear some of the music that's been written.
But none of this means the end of music composition as we know it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792</id>
	<title>As much genre as you want</title>
	<author>Okian Warrior</author>
	<datestamp>1265124600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've actually listened to some of Professor Cope's synthetic music.</p><p>Each piece replicates pretty well the style and feel of a particular author or genre of music. Probably not all possible genres and authors, but certainly the ones I've listened to.</p><p>What happens when we have the ability to generate as much music of a particular style as we want? Mozart had a particular style - how many hours of listening to Mozart-ish music do you need before it becomes commonplace and boring?</p><p>One of the nice things about $FamousComposer is that his works *are* famous... and finite. I don't think I want to burn out my appreciation for someone by listening to his style for hours on end.</p><p>So I'm wondering if this will become a problem for kids of the future. Loading up their ipods with hours and hours of a particular style, then getting bored with it. I like having an appreciation for particular authors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've actually listened to some of Professor Cope 's synthetic music.Each piece replicates pretty well the style and feel of a particular author or genre of music .
Probably not all possible genres and authors , but certainly the ones I 've listened to.What happens when we have the ability to generate as much music of a particular style as we want ?
Mozart had a particular style - how many hours of listening to Mozart-ish music do you need before it becomes commonplace and boring ? One of the nice things about $ FamousComposer is that his works * are * famous... and finite .
I do n't think I want to burn out my appreciation for someone by listening to his style for hours on end.So I 'm wondering if this will become a problem for kids of the future .
Loading up their ipods with hours and hours of a particular style , then getting bored with it .
I like having an appreciation for particular authors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've actually listened to some of Professor Cope's synthetic music.Each piece replicates pretty well the style and feel of a particular author or genre of music.
Probably not all possible genres and authors, but certainly the ones I've listened to.What happens when we have the ability to generate as much music of a particular style as we want?
Mozart had a particular style - how many hours of listening to Mozart-ish music do you need before it becomes commonplace and boring?One of the nice things about $FamousComposer is that his works *are* famous... and finite.
I don't think I want to burn out my appreciation for someone by listening to his style for hours on end.So I'm wondering if this will become a problem for kids of the future.
Loading up their ipods with hours and hours of a particular style, then getting bored with it.
I like having an appreciation for particular authors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268288</id>
	<title>Your arrogance is also boundless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Implicit in your spiritual view of being beaten by our creations is still some arrogance and a false sense of a special place in the Universe.  If your greatest dream is to see humans be replaced by a better form of intelligence, then I am sorry, we don't share the same dream.  I agree we are not special in this universe...and our creations are not special...therefore, I don't think it's worth the sacrifice of my modest ability to enjoy a modest existence in order to realize the creation of some super AI that is still a meaningless construct in a meaningless universe.  I'm biased toward seeing my actual biological children and grandchildren be born and grow up than to create some AI to supplant them and steal their futures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Implicit in your spiritual view of being beaten by our creations is still some arrogance and a false sense of a special place in the Universe .
If your greatest dream is to see humans be replaced by a better form of intelligence , then I am sorry , we do n't share the same dream .
I agree we are not special in this universe...and our creations are not special...therefore , I do n't think it 's worth the sacrifice of my modest ability to enjoy a modest existence in order to realize the creation of some super AI that is still a meaningless construct in a meaningless universe .
I 'm biased toward seeing my actual biological children and grandchildren be born and grow up than to create some AI to supplant them and steal their futures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Implicit in your spiritual view of being beaten by our creations is still some arrogance and a false sense of a special place in the Universe.
If your greatest dream is to see humans be replaced by a better form of intelligence, then I am sorry, we don't share the same dream.
I agree we are not special in this universe...and our creations are not special...therefore, I don't think it's worth the sacrifice of my modest ability to enjoy a modest existence in order to realize the creation of some super AI that is still a meaningless construct in a meaningless universe.
I'm biased toward seeing my actual biological children and grandchildren be born and grow up than to create some AI to supplant them and steal their futures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269970</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>profplump</author>
	<datestamp>1267093980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, Deep Blue was carefully trained. As opposed to Kasparov, who had never watched anyone else play chess, or studied historical games, or considered the last several centuries of chess theory before meeting Deep Blue.</p><p>Likewise Emmy was trained on a whole library of Classical music. As opposed to Mozart, who not only invented Classical music, but also music itself, starting with nothing more than the occasional, disjointed, a-harmonic noises that existed in the world before him.</p><p>Or maybe -- just maybe -- both humans and computers use the experience of their predecessors, mentors, and peers to improve their own performance, making mostly incremental changes with only the occasional flash of brilliance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Deep Blue was carefully trained .
As opposed to Kasparov , who had never watched anyone else play chess , or studied historical games , or considered the last several centuries of chess theory before meeting Deep Blue.Likewise Emmy was trained on a whole library of Classical music .
As opposed to Mozart , who not only invented Classical music , but also music itself , starting with nothing more than the occasional , disjointed , a-harmonic noises that existed in the world before him.Or maybe -- just maybe -- both humans and computers use the experience of their predecessors , mentors , and peers to improve their own performance , making mostly incremental changes with only the occasional flash of brilliance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Deep Blue was carefully trained.
As opposed to Kasparov, who had never watched anyone else play chess, or studied historical games, or considered the last several centuries of chess theory before meeting Deep Blue.Likewise Emmy was trained on a whole library of Classical music.
As opposed to Mozart, who not only invented Classical music, but also music itself, starting with nothing more than the occasional, disjointed, a-harmonic noises that existed in the world before him.Or maybe -- just maybe -- both humans and computers use the experience of their predecessors, mentors, and peers to improve their own performance, making mostly incremental changes with only the occasional flash of brilliance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267746</id>
	<title>So what...</title>
	<author>Stumbles</author>
	<datestamp>1265124240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if Beethoven, Mozart and others were just skilled at mathematical note manipulation? Who cares? Just because a guy with a computer can now do the something does not in the least bit diminish the accomplishments of Beethoven and friends. It shows they did not need a stinking computer to do it; they did it in their brains. I would not attribute the same amount of brain power to Professor Cope. Anyone troubled by this has even less brain power than most.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if Beethoven , Mozart and others were just skilled at mathematical note manipulation ?
Who cares ?
Just because a guy with a computer can now do the something does not in the least bit diminish the accomplishments of Beethoven and friends .
It shows they did not need a stinking computer to do it ; they did it in their brains .
I would not attribute the same amount of brain power to Professor Cope .
Anyone troubled by this has even less brain power than most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if Beethoven, Mozart and others were just skilled at mathematical note manipulation?
Who cares?
Just because a guy with a computer can now do the something does not in the least bit diminish the accomplishments of Beethoven and friends.
It shows they did not need a stinking computer to do it; they did it in their brains.
I would not attribute the same amount of brain power to Professor Cope.
Anyone troubled by this has even less brain power than most.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269330</id>
	<title>Re:As much genre as you want</title>
	<author>Auto\_Lykos</author>
	<datestamp>1267128120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  So I'm wondering if this will become a problem for kids of the future. Loading up their ipods with hours and hours of a particular style, then getting bored with it. I like having an appreciation for particular authors.</p></div><p>It already happens with us.</p><p>As a 17 year old who listens to about seven hours of music a day and has a subscription to Rhapsody, an unlimited music service, I switch genre about every month. With Rhapsody, (Well this is sounding like an advertisement) I don't have pay wall barrier that a lot of kids have and don't require friends to buy and expose them to new music (Same could be said to some degree for pirates.) and that frees things up enough that I get so overdosed with music that I transition the moment something get's "boring".</p><p>Yes, I'm completely spoiled that I can't enjoy a genre of music for more than a month, but a year later, I'll be coming back to that genre after doing a 360 around the music world only to find new artist and new releases to enjoy. Some things stick, even if you move on. And now with software giving us perfect recall of what you listened to a year ago, you can come back to an artist that you like a lot.</p><p>It's not as bad as you think it might be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm wondering if this will become a problem for kids of the future .
Loading up their ipods with hours and hours of a particular style , then getting bored with it .
I like having an appreciation for particular authors.It already happens with us.As a 17 year old who listens to about seven hours of music a day and has a subscription to Rhapsody , an unlimited music service , I switch genre about every month .
With Rhapsody , ( Well this is sounding like an advertisement ) I do n't have pay wall barrier that a lot of kids have and do n't require friends to buy and expose them to new music ( Same could be said to some degree for pirates .
) and that frees things up enough that I get so overdosed with music that I transition the moment something get 's " boring " .Yes , I 'm completely spoiled that I ca n't enjoy a genre of music for more than a month , but a year later , I 'll be coming back to that genre after doing a 360 around the music world only to find new artist and new releases to enjoy .
Some things stick , even if you move on .
And now with software giving us perfect recall of what you listened to a year ago , you can come back to an artist that you like a lot.It 's not as bad as you think it might be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  So I'm wondering if this will become a problem for kids of the future.
Loading up their ipods with hours and hours of a particular style, then getting bored with it.
I like having an appreciation for particular authors.It already happens with us.As a 17 year old who listens to about seven hours of music a day and has a subscription to Rhapsody, an unlimited music service, I switch genre about every month.
With Rhapsody, (Well this is sounding like an advertisement) I don't have pay wall barrier that a lot of kids have and don't require friends to buy and expose them to new music (Same could be said to some degree for pirates.
) and that frees things up enough that I get so overdosed with music that I transition the moment something get's "boring".Yes, I'm completely spoiled that I can't enjoy a genre of music for more than a month, but a year later, I'll be coming back to that genre after doing a 360 around the music world only to find new artist and new releases to enjoy.
Some things stick, even if you move on.
And now with software giving us perfect recall of what you listened to a year ago, you can come back to an artist that you like a lot.It's not as bad as you think it might be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267824</id>
	<title>Doesn't the program produce 99.9\% trash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's one thing to be impressed with a computer-generated composition, but we shouldn't forget that the computer probably composes a thousand awful pieces before it hits on something that's worth playing for someone. There still needs to be a human there to sort through all the trash, and I really doubt that this sorting job will be turned over to software in my lifetime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's one thing to be impressed with a computer-generated composition , but we should n't forget that the computer probably composes a thousand awful pieces before it hits on something that 's worth playing for someone .
There still needs to be a human there to sort through all the trash , and I really doubt that this sorting job will be turned over to software in my lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's one thing to be impressed with a computer-generated composition, but we shouldn't forget that the computer probably composes a thousand awful pieces before it hits on something that's worth playing for someone.
There still needs to be a human there to sort through all the trash, and I really doubt that this sorting job will be turned over to software in my lifetime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267720</id>
	<title>why so down on math?</title>
	<author>querent23</author>
	<datestamp>1265124000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if Mozart et all turn out to be brilliant, intuitive mathematicians, where's the shame?  I TA a math class at a university, and during a test a week or so ago, I was struck by the insanity of the power of the TI's EVERYONE had on their desks.  (Yeah, they get to use TI's.)  When the far out becomes a given, we go further.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if Mozart et all turn out to be brilliant , intuitive mathematicians , where 's the shame ?
I TA a math class at a university , and during a test a week or so ago , I was struck by the insanity of the power of the TI 's EVERYONE had on their desks .
( Yeah , they get to use TI 's .
) When the far out becomes a given , we go further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if Mozart et all turn out to be brilliant, intuitive mathematicians, where's the shame?
I TA a math class at a university, and during a test a week or so ago, I was struck by the insanity of the power of the TI's EVERYONE had on their desks.
(Yeah, they get to use TI's.
)  When the far out becomes a given, we go further.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268444</id>
	<title>Good mucisians need not worry yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265131020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In short, yes, there is soul behind music, even though it is based on certain mathematical rules that machines can easily understand, and even the inadvertent borrowing of phrases from other works.</p><p>Certainly a computer could likely generate the tune for the next hit pop song.  Or perhaps generate a movie soundtrack (scary notes at the right time, sad notes, happy notes).  Or come up with better versions of John Cage's 4'33".</p><p>But as of yet I doubt a computer could come up with music that is thematic, poetic, and emotionally expressive.  One compilation of music that comes to mind right now is Respighi's Symphonic Poems.  Each piece could be deconstructed mathematically, but I doubt a computer could come up with a theme (Rome, in this case) and paint us a musicological picture covering a whole gambit of emotions relating to this theme--from awe and grandeur (Pines of the Appian way) to melancholy and reflective, hopeful and joyful (Pines near a Catacomb, for example).  Another great music-painting is Vivaldi's Four Seasons.  Others find deep emotional meaning in various kinds of religious music.</p><p>For most musicians music is an emotional expression that happens to use a mathematical structure, or even borrowed motifs and sequences.  As long as this is true, I don't think there's much to worry about.  A computer might be able to simulate emotional music, but there'd be no underlying emotional message.</p><p>On the other hand if a computer generates a nice piece of music that could become associated by us with an emotional scene, it could "come alive" as it were.  The line would further be blurred by the use of computers by artists to generate music for them.  I don't see a problem in that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In short , yes , there is soul behind music , even though it is based on certain mathematical rules that machines can easily understand , and even the inadvertent borrowing of phrases from other works.Certainly a computer could likely generate the tune for the next hit pop song .
Or perhaps generate a movie soundtrack ( scary notes at the right time , sad notes , happy notes ) .
Or come up with better versions of John Cage 's 4'33 " .But as of yet I doubt a computer could come up with music that is thematic , poetic , and emotionally expressive .
One compilation of music that comes to mind right now is Respighi 's Symphonic Poems .
Each piece could be deconstructed mathematically , but I doubt a computer could come up with a theme ( Rome , in this case ) and paint us a musicological picture covering a whole gambit of emotions relating to this theme--from awe and grandeur ( Pines of the Appian way ) to melancholy and reflective , hopeful and joyful ( Pines near a Catacomb , for example ) .
Another great music-painting is Vivaldi 's Four Seasons .
Others find deep emotional meaning in various kinds of religious music.For most musicians music is an emotional expression that happens to use a mathematical structure , or even borrowed motifs and sequences .
As long as this is true , I do n't think there 's much to worry about .
A computer might be able to simulate emotional music , but there 'd be no underlying emotional message.On the other hand if a computer generates a nice piece of music that could become associated by us with an emotional scene , it could " come alive " as it were .
The line would further be blurred by the use of computers by artists to generate music for them .
I do n't see a problem in that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short, yes, there is soul behind music, even though it is based on certain mathematical rules that machines can easily understand, and even the inadvertent borrowing of phrases from other works.Certainly a computer could likely generate the tune for the next hit pop song.
Or perhaps generate a movie soundtrack (scary notes at the right time, sad notes, happy notes).
Or come up with better versions of John Cage's 4'33".But as of yet I doubt a computer could come up with music that is thematic, poetic, and emotionally expressive.
One compilation of music that comes to mind right now is Respighi's Symphonic Poems.
Each piece could be deconstructed mathematically, but I doubt a computer could come up with a theme (Rome, in this case) and paint us a musicological picture covering a whole gambit of emotions relating to this theme--from awe and grandeur (Pines of the Appian way) to melancholy and reflective, hopeful and joyful (Pines near a Catacomb, for example).
Another great music-painting is Vivaldi's Four Seasons.
Others find deep emotional meaning in various kinds of religious music.For most musicians music is an emotional expression that happens to use a mathematical structure, or even borrowed motifs and sequences.
As long as this is true, I don't think there's much to worry about.
A computer might be able to simulate emotional music, but there'd be no underlying emotional message.On the other hand if a computer generates a nice piece of music that could become associated by us with an emotional scene, it could "come alive" as it were.
The line would further be blurred by the use of computers by artists to generate music for them.
I don't see a problem in that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269354</id>
	<title>And?</title>
	<author>hallux.sinister</author>
	<datestamp>1267128480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Were Mozart, Beethoven, and... all those other guys people have never heard of (like Chopin, Berlioz, Shubert, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Copland, Puccini, Mussorgsky, Greig, Handel, Prokofiev, Janacek, Vivaldi, Rossini, Ravel, Respighi, Strauss, Stravinsky, Orff, Offenbach, Bach, Bach, or Bach... the list goes on and on... for extra credit, do you know which of these composers was an American?) merely clever mathematicians? <br>I think it's unfair to paint them that way, just because a computer can replicate something similar, doesn't mean it used the same process.  A good synthesizer can make a sound indistinguishable (by people) from the sound made by a guitar string resonating, by filtering "white-noise" to select only that part of the wave which sounds like said guitar string.  This does not mean there's actually a string resonating within the synthesizer.  The output may be indistinguishable, but that doesn't mean guitars are no longer useful because there are certain things about a guitar a synthesizer can never replicate.  For instance, how good does a synthesizer sound when it has no power?  Then again, what about the romance factor?  Might as well ask if a chef is necessary, since he/she is, in reality, just a food-chemist.  So enjoy your computer-composed music.  As for me, I am going to listen to "Billy the Kid Rodeo," or "Night on a Bald Mountain," or "Symphonie Fantastique," or "Sinfonietta," or maybe "Tosca", confident that no computer will ever create anything quite like them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were Mozart , Beethoven , and... all those other guys people have never heard of ( like Chopin , Berlioz , Shubert , Schumann , Tchaikovsky , Copland , Puccini , Mussorgsky , Greig , Handel , Prokofiev , Janacek , Vivaldi , Rossini , Ravel , Respighi , Strauss , Stravinsky , Orff , Offenbach , Bach , Bach , or Bach... the list goes on and on... for extra credit , do you know which of these composers was an American ?
) merely clever mathematicians ?
I think it 's unfair to paint them that way , just because a computer can replicate something similar , does n't mean it used the same process .
A good synthesizer can make a sound indistinguishable ( by people ) from the sound made by a guitar string resonating , by filtering " white-noise " to select only that part of the wave which sounds like said guitar string .
This does not mean there 's actually a string resonating within the synthesizer .
The output may be indistinguishable , but that does n't mean guitars are no longer useful because there are certain things about a guitar a synthesizer can never replicate .
For instance , how good does a synthesizer sound when it has no power ?
Then again , what about the romance factor ?
Might as well ask if a chef is necessary , since he/she is , in reality , just a food-chemist .
So enjoy your computer-composed music .
As for me , I am going to listen to " Billy the Kid Rodeo , " or " Night on a Bald Mountain , " or " Symphonie Fantastique , " or " Sinfonietta , " or maybe " Tosca " , confident that no computer will ever create anything quite like them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were Mozart, Beethoven, and... all those other guys people have never heard of (like Chopin, Berlioz, Shubert, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Copland, Puccini, Mussorgsky, Greig, Handel, Prokofiev, Janacek, Vivaldi, Rossini, Ravel, Respighi, Strauss, Stravinsky, Orff, Offenbach, Bach, Bach, or Bach... the list goes on and on... for extra credit, do you know which of these composers was an American?
) merely clever mathematicians?
I think it's unfair to paint them that way, just because a computer can replicate something similar, doesn't mean it used the same process.
A good synthesizer can make a sound indistinguishable (by people) from the sound made by a guitar string resonating, by filtering "white-noise" to select only that part of the wave which sounds like said guitar string.
This does not mean there's actually a string resonating within the synthesizer.
The output may be indistinguishable, but that doesn't mean guitars are no longer useful because there are certain things about a guitar a synthesizer can never replicate.
For instance, how good does a synthesizer sound when it has no power?
Then again, what about the romance factor?
Might as well ask if a chef is necessary, since he/she is, in reality, just a food-chemist.
So enjoy your computer-composed music.
As for me, I am going to listen to "Billy the Kid Rodeo," or "Night on a Bald Mountain," or "Symphonie Fantastique," or "Sinfonietta," or maybe "Tosca", confident that no computer will ever create anything quite like them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268042</id>
	<title>Analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>computer:music<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:: science:god</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>computer : music : : science : god</tokentext>
<sentencetext>computer:music :: science:god</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31275912</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267128420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't call them horrible, but bland. The first one sounds like a nonsense mixture of Chopin and Debussy, the second one like a mangled Bach fugue. Both neither modern nor original like claimed in the article. In my opinion Cope is a very mediocre amateur composer trying to compensate; trying to gain publicity with the myth of an intelligent, creative machine. What he really does is writing copycat-software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call them horrible , but bland .
The first one sounds like a nonsense mixture of Chopin and Debussy , the second one like a mangled Bach fugue .
Both neither modern nor original like claimed in the article .
In my opinion Cope is a very mediocre amateur composer trying to compensate ; trying to gain publicity with the myth of an intelligent , creative machine .
What he really does is writing copycat-software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call them horrible, but bland.
The first one sounds like a nonsense mixture of Chopin and Debussy, the second one like a mangled Bach fugue.
Both neither modern nor original like claimed in the article.
In my opinion Cope is a very mediocre amateur composer trying to compensate; trying to gain publicity with the myth of an intelligent, creative machine.
What he really does is writing copycat-software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271954</id>
	<title>Implying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267112640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Implying humans are anything more than very complex molecular patterns.</p><p>&gt;Implying music is anything more than a pattern of input that cascades a complex reaction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Implying humans are anything more than very complex molecular patterns. &gt; Implying music is anything more than a pattern of input that cascades a complex reaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Implying humans are anything more than very complex molecular patterns.&gt;Implying music is anything more than a pattern of input that cascades a complex reaction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268454</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Nemyst</author>
	<datestamp>1265131080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I don't understand is that this does not diminish us, quite the contrary! Not only have we had people who could create beautiful works of art or play thoughtful and complex games like chess, we also managed to create entirely non-sentient machines that could replicate this behaviour to a satisfying level of quality. I mean, this takes brilliance on both sides of the equation, it doesn't make both stupid or diminished.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't understand is that this does not diminish us , quite the contrary !
Not only have we had people who could create beautiful works of art or play thoughtful and complex games like chess , we also managed to create entirely non-sentient machines that could replicate this behaviour to a satisfying level of quality .
I mean , this takes brilliance on both sides of the equation , it does n't make both stupid or diminished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't understand is that this does not diminish us, quite the contrary!
Not only have we had people who could create beautiful works of art or play thoughtful and complex games like chess, we also managed to create entirely non-sentient machines that could replicate this behaviour to a satisfying level of quality.
I mean, this takes brilliance on both sides of the equation, it doesn't make both stupid or diminished.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272154</id>
	<title>Anime about this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267113840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Crunchyroll.com has a 6 episode anime called "Time of Eve" detailing a student's struggle to regain his confidence playing the piano after he lost a music competition to a robot. I highly recommend it especially if you are an Asimov fan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Crunchyroll.com has a 6 episode anime called " Time of Eve " detailing a student 's struggle to regain his confidence playing the piano after he lost a music competition to a robot .
I highly recommend it especially if you are an Asimov fan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crunchyroll.com has a 6 episode anime called "Time of Eve" detailing a student's struggle to regain his confidence playing the piano after he lost a music competition to a robot.
I highly recommend it especially if you are an Asimov fan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269468</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267130100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although, in this case the program seems only able to duplicate the work of Phillip Glass... no high challenge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although , in this case the program seems only able to duplicate the work of Phillip Glass... no high challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although, in this case the program seems only able to duplicate the work of Phillip Glass... no high challenge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268076</id>
	<title>As Good As</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265127060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     These days having as much ability as a computer can be a very special compliment. We should all strive to be as able as our machines in many areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days having as much ability as a computer can be a very special compliment .
We should all strive to be as able as our machines in many areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     These days having as much ability as a computer can be a very special compliment.
We should all strive to be as able as our machines in many areas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31296772</id>
	<title>THE MACHINE STOPS</title>
	<author>cloudsinmycoffee</author>
	<datestamp>1267287480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know how many of you read the Classic Sci Fi short story: 'THE MACHINE STOPS'.  I think it was an Isaac Asimov or an Arthur C. Clark futurist visionary book of short stories, maybe half a century old.  Among other components of a future, computer controlled civilization, he posits that entertaining, elegant, exquisite music will be continually played wherever Humans interact, and it will all be computer composed and generated.  He posits that after a few generations, human nature being what it is, these civilization will in time lose touch with both how and why computers are able to accomplish these things and will lose touch with how to do much else with them.  At some point the computers will all mysteriously, simultaneously start crapping out, much to the shock, surprise and denial of the public, as well as political leadership who haplessly try to reassure everyone that the increasingly discordant music and other areas of their life are just fine, and that there is no need to worry.

The day finally arrives that the whole system shuts down and civilization is perfectly helpless to get these tools back to assisting us, because everyone has become fat and lazy.

Right on for that visionary realization that ever increasingly powerful, sophisticated computers would eventually de-skill even creative areas of human life.  Not so sure about ceding the loss of control increasing to systems we will in time no longer fully understand, once wealth, prosperity and humanity's destructive tendencies are managed down to a tolerable  - even nonexistant level.

Another story in that book, I believe was a story about a musical algorithm that hit the listener with an steady, endless stream of music so emotionally powerful that the listener was rendered, sort of like a lotus eater, or an addict in an opium den, so overpowered he would neither want to stop or escape - and would just waste away.  I think that the music was custom tailored to the brain synapse patterns within the individual listener.  This concept of incredible, aesthetically beautiful (artificial) music almost takes on heroic, classical Greek Mythologic proportions, like Narcissus who wasted away peering at his reflection in the water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how many of you read the Classic Sci Fi short story : 'THE MACHINE STOPS' .
I think it was an Isaac Asimov or an Arthur C. Clark futurist visionary book of short stories , maybe half a century old .
Among other components of a future , computer controlled civilization , he posits that entertaining , elegant , exquisite music will be continually played wherever Humans interact , and it will all be computer composed and generated .
He posits that after a few generations , human nature being what it is , these civilization will in time lose touch with both how and why computers are able to accomplish these things and will lose touch with how to do much else with them .
At some point the computers will all mysteriously , simultaneously start crapping out , much to the shock , surprise and denial of the public , as well as political leadership who haplessly try to reassure everyone that the increasingly discordant music and other areas of their life are just fine , and that there is no need to worry .
The day finally arrives that the whole system shuts down and civilization is perfectly helpless to get these tools back to assisting us , because everyone has become fat and lazy .
Right on for that visionary realization that ever increasingly powerful , sophisticated computers would eventually de-skill even creative areas of human life .
Not so sure about ceding the loss of control increasing to systems we will in time no longer fully understand , once wealth , prosperity and humanity 's destructive tendencies are managed down to a tolerable - even nonexistant level .
Another story in that book , I believe was a story about a musical algorithm that hit the listener with an steady , endless stream of music so emotionally powerful that the listener was rendered , sort of like a lotus eater , or an addict in an opium den , so overpowered he would neither want to stop or escape - and would just waste away .
I think that the music was custom tailored to the brain synapse patterns within the individual listener .
This concept of incredible , aesthetically beautiful ( artificial ) music almost takes on heroic , classical Greek Mythologic proportions , like Narcissus who wasted away peering at his reflection in the water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how many of you read the Classic Sci Fi short story: 'THE MACHINE STOPS'.
I think it was an Isaac Asimov or an Arthur C. Clark futurist visionary book of short stories, maybe half a century old.
Among other components of a future, computer controlled civilization, he posits that entertaining, elegant, exquisite music will be continually played wherever Humans interact, and it will all be computer composed and generated.
He posits that after a few generations, human nature being what it is, these civilization will in time lose touch with both how and why computers are able to accomplish these things and will lose touch with how to do much else with them.
At some point the computers will all mysteriously, simultaneously start crapping out, much to the shock, surprise and denial of the public, as well as political leadership who haplessly try to reassure everyone that the increasingly discordant music and other areas of their life are just fine, and that there is no need to worry.
The day finally arrives that the whole system shuts down and civilization is perfectly helpless to get these tools back to assisting us, because everyone has become fat and lazy.
Right on for that visionary realization that ever increasingly powerful, sophisticated computers would eventually de-skill even creative areas of human life.
Not so sure about ceding the loss of control increasing to systems we will in time no longer fully understand, once wealth, prosperity and humanity's destructive tendencies are managed down to a tolerable  - even nonexistant level.
Another story in that book, I believe was a story about a musical algorithm that hit the listener with an steady, endless stream of music so emotionally powerful that the listener was rendered, sort of like a lotus eater, or an addict in an opium den, so overpowered he would neither want to stop or escape - and would just waste away.
I think that the music was custom tailored to the brain synapse patterns within the individual listener.
This concept of incredible, aesthetically beautiful (artificial) music almost takes on heroic, classical Greek Mythologic proportions, like Narcissus who wasted away peering at his reflection in the water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268662</id>
	<title>Art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265133420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Art, and indeed freewill as even a basic concept, is the interpretation of the universe around us, not the mechanical creation of such. What a poet might call stirring to the soul is our own view on something, music or a painting or anything else is just a set of data. It's how we view the data that matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Art , and indeed freewill as even a basic concept , is the interpretation of the universe around us , not the mechanical creation of such .
What a poet might call stirring to the soul is our own view on something , music or a painting or anything else is just a set of data .
It 's how we view the data that matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Art, and indeed freewill as even a basic concept, is the interpretation of the universe around us, not the mechanical creation of such.
What a poet might call stirring to the soul is our own view on something, music or a painting or anything else is just a set of data.
It's how we view the data that matters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271984</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267112820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Mozart himself, however, did not have a professor directly programming his brain with an algorithm (not even an AI genetic algorithm -- the music itself was not encoded in his DNA), nor a few centuries of academic analysis of his own compositions to derive the algorithms from. He had to start from scratch, learn his own craft, find his own style, with not much more than a piano teacher and a disdain for Salieri.</i></p><p>Well hang on, now you're changing the goal posts - if you're saying that AI "doesn't count" because they were programmed by humans, then no AI will ever count! Even if they surpass humans in every area.</p><p>Obviously AI is originally created by humans - that's what the <i>a</i> means. But it is irrelevant to the question of comparing intelligence or ability.</p><p>Mozart did not start from scratch. He did not invent music. He did not create his own brain, or any of the absurd things you are expecting the AI to have done. He was born with a brain, and had experienced other people's music.</p><p><i>The computer has done nothing special at all. It has blindly implemented the algorithm its programmer told it to.</i></p><p>The brain has done nothing special at all. It has blindly just followed the laws of nature, according to the complexity and structure that built up over billions of years of evolution.</p><p><i>They are still just the mechanical implementations of human-derived algorithms that they always were.</i></p><p>Yes and? Machines are created by humans - that has nothing to do with the debate. Even when AIs are programming AIs, you'll still be here telling us how they were originally programmed by humans. No one is disputing that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozart himself , however , did not have a professor directly programming his brain with an algorithm ( not even an AI genetic algorithm -- the music itself was not encoded in his DNA ) , nor a few centuries of academic analysis of his own compositions to derive the algorithms from .
He had to start from scratch , learn his own craft , find his own style , with not much more than a piano teacher and a disdain for Salieri.Well hang on , now you 're changing the goal posts - if you 're saying that AI " does n't count " because they were programmed by humans , then no AI will ever count !
Even if they surpass humans in every area.Obviously AI is originally created by humans - that 's what the a means .
But it is irrelevant to the question of comparing intelligence or ability.Mozart did not start from scratch .
He did not invent music .
He did not create his own brain , or any of the absurd things you are expecting the AI to have done .
He was born with a brain , and had experienced other people 's music.The computer has done nothing special at all .
It has blindly implemented the algorithm its programmer told it to.The brain has done nothing special at all .
It has blindly just followed the laws of nature , according to the complexity and structure that built up over billions of years of evolution.They are still just the mechanical implementations of human-derived algorithms that they always were.Yes and ?
Machines are created by humans - that has nothing to do with the debate .
Even when AIs are programming AIs , you 'll still be here telling us how they were originally programmed by humans .
No one is disputing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozart himself, however, did not have a professor directly programming his brain with an algorithm (not even an AI genetic algorithm -- the music itself was not encoded in his DNA), nor a few centuries of academic analysis of his own compositions to derive the algorithms from.
He had to start from scratch, learn his own craft, find his own style, with not much more than a piano teacher and a disdain for Salieri.Well hang on, now you're changing the goal posts - if you're saying that AI "doesn't count" because they were programmed by humans, then no AI will ever count!
Even if they surpass humans in every area.Obviously AI is originally created by humans - that's what the a means.
But it is irrelevant to the question of comparing intelligence or ability.Mozart did not start from scratch.
He did not invent music.
He did not create his own brain, or any of the absurd things you are expecting the AI to have done.
He was born with a brain, and had experienced other people's music.The computer has done nothing special at all.
It has blindly implemented the algorithm its programmer told it to.The brain has done nothing special at all.
It has blindly just followed the laws of nature, according to the complexity and structure that built up over billions of years of evolution.They are still just the mechanical implementations of human-derived algorithms that they always were.Yes and?
Machines are created by humans - that has nothing to do with the debate.
Even when AIs are programming AIs, you'll still be here telling us how they were originally programmed by humans.
No one is disputing that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269318</id>
	<title>Re:It's maths all the way down</title>
	<author>crazybit</author>
	<datestamp>1267128000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What amazes me is how right brained people can achieve the same mathematical design without caring about math. They get to the same point using totally different mental processes (normally with less effort) than people learning tons of math.<br> <br>The math we learn at schools is just ONE way of representing &amp; predicting our reality.<br> <br>Musician's (and other artists) brains work in a totally different way, and perceive reality differently, that's why they can recognize the multiple notes of a chord inmediately while a computer (math approach) would take a lot of effort and consume MUCH more energy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What amazes me is how right brained people can achieve the same mathematical design without caring about math .
They get to the same point using totally different mental processes ( normally with less effort ) than people learning tons of math .
The math we learn at schools is just ONE way of representing &amp; predicting our reality .
Musician 's ( and other artists ) brains work in a totally different way , and perceive reality differently , that 's why they can recognize the multiple notes of a chord inmediately while a computer ( math approach ) would take a lot of effort and consume MUCH more energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What amazes me is how right brained people can achieve the same mathematical design without caring about math.
They get to the same point using totally different mental processes (normally with less effort) than people learning tons of math.
The math we learn at schools is just ONE way of representing &amp; predicting our reality.
Musician's (and other artists) brains work in a totally different way, and perceive reality differently, that's why they can recognize the multiple notes of a chord inmediately while a computer (math approach) would take a lot of effort and consume MUCH more energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270854</id>
	<title>Britney</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267105020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isnt Britney searching for Emmy? I thought I head it on one of her songs... PLEASE STOP HER! SHE MUST NEVER FIND HER!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Isnt Britney searching for Emmy ?
I thought I head it on one of her songs... PLEASE STOP HER !
SHE MUST NEVER FIND HER !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isnt Britney searching for Emmy?
I thought I head it on one of her songs... PLEASE STOP HER!
SHE MUST NEVER FIND HER!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269770</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn... Someone Wake Me When...</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1267090980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making a computer that can write lyrics as good as And One can manage can't be very difficult.</p><blockquote><div><p>A growing pain within my pop divine<br>Will I ever regret the line<br>Switching on the light<br>I will not reassign<br>Girlfriend's girlfriends never could be mine</p></div></blockquote><p>And at least those tried to say something meaningful. Vengaboys released a song with lyrics consisting of repetitions of "Up and down", and Daft Punk one of repetitions of "around the world". People still buy that stuff, so it looks like it's good enough for many people's standards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Making a computer that can write lyrics as good as And One can manage ca n't be very difficult.A growing pain within my pop divineWill I ever regret the lineSwitching on the lightI will not reassignGirlfriend 's girlfriends never could be mineAnd at least those tried to say something meaningful .
Vengaboys released a song with lyrics consisting of repetitions of " Up and down " , and Daft Punk one of repetitions of " around the world " .
People still buy that stuff , so it looks like it 's good enough for many people 's standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making a computer that can write lyrics as good as And One can manage can't be very difficult.A growing pain within my pop divineWill I ever regret the lineSwitching on the lightI will not reassignGirlfriend's girlfriends never could be mineAnd at least those tried to say something meaningful.
Vengaboys released a song with lyrics consisting of repetitions of "Up and down", and Daft Punk one of repetitions of "around the world".
People still buy that stuff, so it looks like it's good enough for many people's standards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268672</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>baryluk</author>
	<datestamp>1265133480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is stupid. Some things are better then othr in different things.<br><br>Currently people are good in generlizations, abstract thinking, spatial coordination, pattern recognition and finding. Computer are better at borring stuff which repeats the same many times, like searching for something on big list, or calculating trylions of formulas by repeativly applying rules.<br><br>Things are slowly changing and more and more stuff which was reserved for people can be done by computers, but this doesn't underestimate us in any way. We created this machines, we programmed them, now we have more time for other usefull things, we move humanity to the new future. I really don't see a problem.<br><br>I personally always very happy when my own programs can outsmart my or make me supprise<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br><br>Chees or music isn't very hard thing. Actually Deep Blue or this robot achived they results slightly in different manner than we, and I would still say that they failed. Deep Blue was using brute force, not asbtract and general strategy planing, he was not very good at assosciating common patterns and predicting what will happen without simulation. This is what is called inteligence, to predict what will happen without actually simulate or carry experiment. But Deep Blue was performing full scale brute force simulation, so it isn't inteligent. It is soft-AI, Deep Blue, doesn't know about abstract properties of chees.<br><br>The same is with music. Maybe this program have rules, maybe it can compose greate music. But this music is created for people, and it isn't human, so he is actually creating music which he can't hear. This is ironic. But he doesn't really feel or know by itself how to create this music. Is it very innovative? Could he create new style in music? Or create new tonic system, could it have good imagination to create new music instrument? Good in the sense that it will be nice to hear such instrument be humans? I don't think so.<br><br>It is still soft-AI. All this is fake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is stupid .
Some things are better then othr in different things.Currently people are good in generlizations , abstract thinking , spatial coordination , pattern recognition and finding .
Computer are better at borring stuff which repeats the same many times , like searching for something on big list , or calculating trylions of formulas by repeativly applying rules.Things are slowly changing and more and more stuff which was reserved for people can be done by computers , but this does n't underestimate us in any way .
We created this machines , we programmed them , now we have more time for other usefull things , we move humanity to the new future .
I really do n't see a problem.I personally always very happy when my own programs can outsmart my or make me supprise : ) Chees or music is n't very hard thing .
Actually Deep Blue or this robot achived they results slightly in different manner than we , and I would still say that they failed .
Deep Blue was using brute force , not asbtract and general strategy planing , he was not very good at assosciating common patterns and predicting what will happen without simulation .
This is what is called inteligence , to predict what will happen without actually simulate or carry experiment .
But Deep Blue was performing full scale brute force simulation , so it is n't inteligent .
It is soft-AI , Deep Blue , does n't know about abstract properties of chees.The same is with music .
Maybe this program have rules , maybe it can compose greate music .
But this music is created for people , and it is n't human , so he is actually creating music which he ca n't hear .
This is ironic .
But he does n't really feel or know by itself how to create this music .
Is it very innovative ?
Could he create new style in music ?
Or create new tonic system , could it have good imagination to create new music instrument ?
Good in the sense that it will be nice to hear such instrument be humans ?
I do n't think so.It is still soft-AI .
All this is fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is stupid.
Some things are better then othr in different things.Currently people are good in generlizations, abstract thinking, spatial coordination, pattern recognition and finding.
Computer are better at borring stuff which repeats the same many times, like searching for something on big list, or calculating trylions of formulas by repeativly applying rules.Things are slowly changing and more and more stuff which was reserved for people can be done by computers, but this doesn't underestimate us in any way.
We created this machines, we programmed them, now we have more time for other usefull things, we move humanity to the new future.
I really don't see a problem.I personally always very happy when my own programs can outsmart my or make me supprise :)Chees or music isn't very hard thing.
Actually Deep Blue or this robot achived they results slightly in different manner than we, and I would still say that they failed.
Deep Blue was using brute force, not asbtract and general strategy planing, he was not very good at assosciating common patterns and predicting what will happen without simulation.
This is what is called inteligence, to predict what will happen without actually simulate or carry experiment.
But Deep Blue was performing full scale brute force simulation, so it isn't inteligent.
It is soft-AI, Deep Blue, doesn't know about abstract properties of chees.The same is with music.
Maybe this program have rules, maybe it can compose greate music.
But this music is created for people, and it isn't human, so he is actually creating music which he can't hear.
This is ironic.
But he doesn't really feel or know by itself how to create this music.
Is it very innovative?
Could he create new style in music?
Or create new tonic system, could it have good imagination to create new music instrument?
Good in the sense that it will be nice to hear such instrument be humans?
I don't think so.It is still soft-AI.
All this is fake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269210</id>
	<title>Let's get it straight...</title>
	<author>Samarian Hillbilly</author>
	<datestamp>1265139480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>David Cope's system can produce music on the level of a grad student of composition imitating great composers. It has to go through a learning process with lot's of music from the original composer in order to imitate his style. "Original" music hardly. It hasn't produced anything anyone (but a muzack fan) would want to listen to. The controversy surrounding it isn't Ludditism, it's a methodology dispute. How much does he hand-edit his examples after generation? He has not produced a stand-alone version for others to reproduce his results. This is not science, but the religious devotees of scientism propound another triumph of machine over man!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>David Cope 's system can produce music on the level of a grad student of composition imitating great composers .
It has to go through a learning process with lot 's of music from the original composer in order to imitate his style .
" Original " music hardly .
It has n't produced anything anyone ( but a muzack fan ) would want to listen to .
The controversy surrounding it is n't Ludditism , it 's a methodology dispute .
How much does he hand-edit his examples after generation ?
He has not produced a stand-alone version for others to reproduce his results .
This is not science , but the religious devotees of scientism propound another triumph of machine over man !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Cope's system can produce music on the level of a grad student of composition imitating great composers.
It has to go through a learning process with lot's of music from the original composer in order to imitate his style.
"Original" music hardly.
It hasn't produced anything anyone (but a muzack fan) would want to listen to.
The controversy surrounding it isn't Ludditism, it's a methodology dispute.
How much does he hand-edit his examples after generation?
He has not produced a stand-alone version for others to reproduce his results.
This is not science, but the religious devotees of scientism propound another triumph of machine over man!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269248</id>
	<title>Re:Too much time on their hands</title>
	<author>crazybit</author>
	<datestamp>1265140020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Machines haven't beat humans in the music area (yet). It's true it can "compose", but it can't invent new rythms and music styles and new instruments and sounds. Machines can't know if something entirely new will please humans, it CAN mix known patters to make something similar to what people find pleasing NOW, but it (still) can't invent a new set of musical rules, which happened when rock, reggaeton, latin jazz, etc. where invented.<br> <br>Machines can beat Kasparov in chess, but they can't invent a game as enjoyable as chess by themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Machines have n't beat humans in the music area ( yet ) .
It 's true it can " compose " , but it ca n't invent new rythms and music styles and new instruments and sounds .
Machines ca n't know if something entirely new will please humans , it CAN mix known patters to make something similar to what people find pleasing NOW , but it ( still ) ca n't invent a new set of musical rules , which happened when rock , reggaeton , latin jazz , etc .
where invented .
Machines can beat Kasparov in chess , but they ca n't invent a game as enjoyable as chess by themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Machines haven't beat humans in the music area (yet).
It's true it can "compose", but it can't invent new rythms and music styles and new instruments and sounds.
Machines can't know if something entirely new will please humans, it CAN mix known patters to make something similar to what people find pleasing NOW, but it (still) can't invent a new set of musical rules, which happened when rock, reggaeton, latin jazz, etc.
where invented.
Machines can beat Kasparov in chess, but they can't invent a game as enjoyable as chess by themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268394</id>
	<title>Re:Math</title>
	<author>GigsVT</author>
	<datestamp>1265130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blame the people who are using science as justification for increased government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blame the people who are using science as justification for increased government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blame the people who are using science as justification for increased government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267788</id>
	<title>The real debate</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1265124600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real debate here is if our molecules are somehow fundamentally better then their transistors, limiting computers from achieving the same things we humans achieve.<br>
So the people who think that it is impossible are just speciesists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real debate here is if our molecules are somehow fundamentally better then their transistors , limiting computers from achieving the same things we humans achieve .
So the people who think that it is impossible are just speciesists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real debate here is if our molecules are somehow fundamentally better then their transistors, limiting computers from achieving the same things we humans achieve.
So the people who think that it is impossible are just speciesists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31277428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31276580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31273258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31276922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31274294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31286646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31285708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31278514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31273672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31275544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31275912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31289516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_2315204_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267718
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31278514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268080
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31276922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269548
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268456
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31275544
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271104
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268250
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268174
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269222
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272812
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270436
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269562
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271828
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272118
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268812
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268190
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268720
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271758
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272094
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269640
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269248
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268678
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268750
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271984
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268142
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31274294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31289516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31286646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31273672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31276580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31285708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31270050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31277428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31272690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31268372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_2315204.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31267924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31275912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31273258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31269948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_2315204.31271902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
