I could take my sequencer and crank the tempo up to a level on a Chopin etude that would smoke Yuja Wang too.
Who cares? The performance that is interesting is a human performance under these artistic constraints.
We didn't need transformers for algorithmic jazz or algorithmic composition in general.
It is also the bullshit of algorithmic Bach. Bach produced 1,100 works and most people haven't listened to even 1% of arguably the greatest artist who ever lived. What is the point of generating more?
I think it is because people have preferences for top-down vs bottom-up learning strategies and bottom-up is what the education system is built around.
I suspect top-down learners are who benefit massively from LLMs while bottom-up learners think they are bullshit engines.
As a top-down learner myself, Claude is really the best technology of my lifetime. I can completely understand though how a bottom-up learner could see Claude as an afront to their fundamental epistemology.
I could take my sequencer and crank the tempo up to a level on a Chopin etude that would smoke Yuja Wang too.
Who cares? The performance that is interesting is a human performance under these artistic constraints.
We didn't need transformers for algorithmic jazz or algorithmic composition in general.
It is also the bullshit of algorithmic Bach. Bach produced 1,100 works and most people haven't listened to even 1% of arguably the greatest artist who ever lived. What is the point of generating more?