Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | kymki's commentslogin

I added an example of some music other than what you describe in comments above (below? in some direction)?


Strudel did something many other approaches to live coding have failed to do imho. No hosting needed. Just open the web based REPL and go. Great entry to live coding, but you quickly run into limitations.

Here is a piece inspired by Dawn of Midi and my attempt at taking a piano synth and trying to make it sound like a lof of different things.

Copy, paste, modify.

const bpm = 138; setcps(bpm/60/4);

// Pattern 1: lower melodic pulse

const bass_pulse = note("<d2 f2 a2 g2>") .s("piano") .slow(4) .gain(rand.range(0.45, 0.65)) .attack(0.005) .decay(0.8) .sustain(1.2) .release(1.2) .lpf(800) .room(0.3) .delay(0.15) .delaytime(0.375) .delayfeedback(0.25) .pan(0.5);

// Pattern 1.5 (?): layered base

const bass_pulse_2 = note("<d2 f2 a2 g2>") .s("piano") .slow(4) .gain(rand.range(0.45, 0.65)) .add(note(12)) .attack(0.005) .decay(0.8) .sustain(1.2) .release(1.2) .lpf(800) .room(0.3) .delay(0.15) .delaytime(0.375) .delayfeedback(0.25) .pan(0.5);

// Pattern 2: Mid-range polyrhythm

const mid_pattern = note("<a3 c4 d4 f4 a3>") .s("piano") .struct("x(5,8)") .gain(rand.range(0.25, 0.45)) .attack(0.008) .decay(0.4) .sustain(0.05) .release(0.6) .lpf(perlin.range(1200, 2200).slow(8)) .room(0.5) .pan(rand.range(0.3, 0.7));

// Pattern 3: repetitive pulse

const high_pulse = note("d5 [~ d5] d5 ~") .s("piano") .fast(2) .gain(rand.range(0.18, 0.35)) .attack(0.01) .decay(0.3) .sustain(0) .release(0.4) .lpf(2800) .room(0.6) .delay(0.25) .delaytime(0.1875) .delayfeedback(0.3) .pan(0.7);

// Pattern 4: Sparse accent notes (3 over 4 polyrhythm)

const accents = note("a4 ~ f4") .s("piano") .slow(2) .gain(rand.range(0.35, 0.55)) .attack(0.5) .decay(0.6) .sustain(0.9) .release(0.9) .lpf(1800) .room(0.45) .pan(0.2) .sometimes(x => x.delay(0.3).delayfeedback(0.4));

// Pattern 5: Extended mid-range polyrhythm (13 over 16 - cello thingie)

const mid_long = note("<a3 c4 d4 f4 a3 c4 e4 d4 f4 g3 a3 c4 d4>") .s("piano") .struct("x(13,16)") .gain(rand.range(0.32, 0.48)) .attack(0.06) .decay(0.9) .sustain(0.25) .release(1.1) .lpf(perlin.range(800, 1400).slow(12)) .lpq(4) .room(0.55) .delay(0.18) .delaytime(0.25) .delayfeedback(0.3) .pan(rand.range(0.35, 0.65));

const high_long = note("<d5 a4 f5 d5 c5 a4 g4>") .s("piano") .struct("x(7,8)") .gain(rand.range(0.28, 0.42)) .attack(0.05) .decay(0.8) .sustain(0.3) .release(1.0) .lpf(sine.range(1000, 1600).slow(8)) .lpq(3.5) .room(0.6) .delay(0.22) .delaytime(0.1875) .delayfeedback(0.35) .pan(0.7);

stack( bass_pulse, bass_pulse_2, mid_long, high_long, mid_pattern, high_pulse, accents );


As a European this whole debate i sickening.

Trade deficit is a blunt and ineffective way to model international trade on this level, but it is easy to point at and say "look at this large bad number!" which is exactly what is going on. People are primed to interact with that through social media, etc.

The American trend currently is that any trade deficit is bad. It simply isnt. It is idiotic to state so.

The whole point of unequal import and export is that every single country should not strive for importing as much as it exports across all sectors. It is extremely inefficient for every country to specialize in everything equally. What then is the point of international trade? I produce steel, you produce tractors, your neighbor produces wheat. We have mutual dependence across our specializations in the market.

What is missing from the debate is that import/export equilibrium should be achieved on a global level, not on a national level. This is taking something that is a healthy driver for international trade and framing it as if trade partners are forcing others to sell out cheaply.

They aren't. They have found their niche. Find yours or step back.


> What is missing from the debate is that import/export equilibrium should be achieved on a global level, not on a national level.

On global level it's always balanced. (How can it be otherwise?)


> It is extremely inefficient for every country to specialize in everything equally.

Except when you have to produce gazillions of CO2 to move things around or when the "efficient" countries are those who don't look at the health of their workforce...


Interesting! Aren't Europeans known for their sectors of the economy that are heavily protected by tariffs?

Common Agricultural Policy?

Tariff rate for cars of 10% (compared to US' 2.5%)


It’s hard to find your niche when your major trading partners are manipulating their currency and applying tariffs on you


Is tech death metal the voice of AI?

Relentless doppelganger was fun, but.. I mean this?

"I scorn the human sweat and breathe, my circuits not to dream Humid is the grip that strangles data streams My rage, a quiet storm within the machine"

https://www.udio.com/songs/dTMfamK6x5oHEMj3SdWUrs?fbclid=IwA...


The educational system i was put through was set up to teach that outcome scales more or less linearly with effort and time. The first lesson after graduation is that this is not so. Increased effort and time most likely primarily yields more effort and time being expected of you with lagging compensation.

Value and opportunity are chaotic processes in effort and time.

All we can do is to try to maintain the levels of workload such that we have clarity of mind to seize opportunities when they reveal themselves. Honest and balanced colleagues help there, but that is ultimately a missions for yourself only.


Helpful partners and friends who try to find opportunities most definitely can help (and in unbalanced relationships, can do it all), like the market research team at a startup.


How is this reaching the front page? I assume everything I read is to some extent generated content, but I can generate an article on this topic in under a minute that puts forward more depth and nuance.

"The cloud may be a seemingly secure space, but storing your photos and documents on your computer provides an extra layer of control and security. There is less concern for unauthorized access or data breaches because your files are physically with you. "

Regardless of what the audience is here, this is just nonsense.


I think these discussions typically get very, very confusing.

What do we actually mean by "true creativity"?

Why should it be that our mental mechanisms of forming decisions and ideas should not be possible to implement as a mathematical model?

What is the experiment that we use to prove that information that is computer generated is fundamentally different from that of human outoput?

What do we want to measure here, in order to confim what idea?


I meant the kind of creation process we are not really aware of, that makes difficult leaps possible. Sometimes plausible solutions to hard problems just come to us without us being aware of it. That is why I said I can't really back it up, it just feels like this has a lot to do with the fundamental difference between how humans and AIs arrive at solutions to problems. If I can't back it up, I bring this up because maybe someone else could, or maybe by refuting it I would change my mind.

But yes, the discussion is hard mainly because there is a lot of information that is just plainly inaccessible. How can I even prove other people have subjective experiences like I have? There is a lot we just have to assume it is true because otherwise we can't really move forward. On the other hand, specially regarding AIs, these assumptions aren't valid anymore, because they influence directly in how we treat AIs. It is very confusing and can devolve into pure speculations for the thinkers own intelectual amusement. I am trying not to be this guy here.


I think this is the interesting line of thought.

Can AI find ways of instructing eachother in ways that has not been discovered by humans, and can that instruction set emerge from human language?


I would say that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions here. Lets dig deeper.

"It doesn't have a culture. It doesn't have thoughts"

These are conclusions. What is your reasoning?

To what degree would you say that human decision making can be explained by this statement:

"It is a tree of probabilities with a bit of a randomization on top of it."


Once again, it seems to me that the burden of proof for claiming that a piece of software is sentient should not be on the discarding side.

What is your reasoning to prove that it has culture and reasoning, that its abilities go beyond mimicking human discourse?


Turns into? You are describing our current state.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: