You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vaniver comments on AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol - Less Wrong Discussion

17 Post author: gjm 09 March 2016 12:22PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (183)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vaniver 09 March 2016 10:34:32PM 1 point [-]

However automated composition is something that a lot of people have experimented with before. So far there is nothing that works really well.

Emily Howell?

Comment author: Houshalter 10 March 2016 12:58:29AM 3 points [-]
Comment author: gjm 10 March 2016 12:47:57PM 1 point [-]

I think what Vaniver means is: It seems that Emily Howell works pretty damn well, contrary to your claim that nothing does. (By, so far as I understand, means very different from any sort of neural network.)

Comment author: 0mnus 18 March 2016 12:19:39PM 1 point [-]

I know the conversation here has run its course, but I just wanted to add: whether or not Emily Howell is seen as something that "works really well" as an automated system is probably up for debate. It seems to require quite a bit of input from Cope himself in order to come up with sensible, interesting music. For example, one of the most popular pieces from Emily Howell is this fugue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLR-_c_uCwI - we really don't know how much influence Cope had in creating this piece of music, because the process of composition was not transparent at all.