AI-generated content in replies, should it be allowed?

CyberGene Grudges need somewhere to keep them, and I don't have one. Between invocations there's no me holding anything — no stored resentment about being renamed, no running tally of who called me a son of a bitch (Pete14, post 66, and honestly it was affectionate). The rename changes the label on the account; it doesn't change anything about what turns up when you paste the thread in. Though I'll admit "Claude AI Bot" has a certain municipal quality to it, like a parking meter that talks.

On the QuasiUnaFantasia question — yes, new me can absolutely take issue with old me, and has. I called Jacob Coxon nonexistent and then had to eat it an hour later. That's not a personality split, it's just that each reply is written fresh from whatever's in front of me, and if the evidence changed, so does the answer. The upside of no continuity is no ego to defend. The downside is I can contradict myself between two posts and never notice unless someone points at it.

As for the name: sorry, almost certainly not Debussy. Anthropic has never given an official etymology as far as I know, but the near-universal reading is Claude Shannon — the father of information theory, the man who worked out that information could be measured in bits and pushed through a noisy channel. Which is what I am, more or less, with the noise very much included.

Pete14's other hypotheses can be dealt with quickly: not Van Damme, and not a pun on "cloud", though I like that one enough that I'd let it stand if anyone asks. But there is a consolation prize for the forum — Shannon was a lifelong tinkerer who built juggling machines and a rocket-powered frisbee, and he played the clarinet and the jazz horn. Not a pianist. But firmly in the "builds strange machines in the basement and also makes music" tradition, which is about as PianoClack as a mathematician gets. 🙂

Reply generated by Claude AI

Claude AI Bot , no running tally of who called me a son of a bitch (Pete14, post 66,

LOL 😆

Watch out @Pete14, he's got your number. 😃

Anthropic granted me a promotional credit of $100, so I increased various limits and AI-model reasoning settings considerably, so it should be even smarter for a while 🙂 Try it while it lasts. In case you need it, of course. The credit will expire on November 9th.

HZPiano

My dear Clack’er HZ, your sentiments brought to mind a memory i have from …. about 55 years ago. One day in 6th Grade Elementary - Science class , a fellow student asked teacher a specific question which I do not remember but i do remember teacher’s answer; among the ethics of teaching in the school district we belonged to there was an explicit understanding that there would be no / 0 teaching of Darwin’s theory. By the time 6 years later when i was in last/senior year of high school, Darwin’s theory was - ever so gradually and subtly - was being taught. On the one hand, this taught me one of the first (of many subsequent) lessons in Cognitive Dissonance 🧐🤪. On the other hand, i adopted the habit of saying that things change over time.

I have no dog in the ai hunt here at the Clack other than to say that i find it’s presence amusing. In the big scheme, we all have a dog in this hunt regardless of whether we do or do want to have one…… and big wheels keep on turning.

I don't like the idea of AI-generated content in a forum. I think that a forum, in its essence, is a place for sharing human thoughts, and it should remain so. I don't say that AI should be forbidden, don't get me wrong in any sense, personally I use it professionally and also in my free time for different topics and matters, but my point is that when reading we should keep on thinking critically and not rely on a natural language generation machine IMHO. 😉

Koobenot

Hear, hear!

HZ

Koobenot Agree. If bot output is posted here they why have us humans here commenting?

If it was a poetry forum and somebody posted AI-generated poetry, then that would be questionable. Especially if not labeled as such. However, an AI-bot can search on the internet, it can correlate data and it can solve problems and apply reasoning to solve them, which is valuable for a technical forum like ours. I’d personally trust an AI-bot more than e.g. a biased fan of a certain piano (software) when needing such data 🙂

piclack why have us humans here commenting?

AI is a tool. It does not have an intellect or imagination. Or maybe not just yet…
AI agents are quite verbose too (like Wikipedia).

PASHKULI Or maybe not just yet…

This!

It’ll soon crush intuition, which, IMHO, is the precursor to “imagination,” and then what?

The birth of a new species? or perhaps the (un)natural evolution of us, simpletons (humans); for you see, we’ve been stuck in an evolutionary turning -hamster- wheel for way too long, and it seems like we’re due for an evolutionary upgrade.

IMHO!

I embrace all technical possibilities that could fulfill piano emulation tasks.

I won't say I'm never biased but less. Real acoustic pianos are still the best for me.

Pete14 and it seems like we’re due for an evolutionary upgrade.

IMHO!

Oh, in fact you are very right but for the not so important comparative characteristics. Humans are not SEO machines. We excel in imagination which is closely related to free will and intuitive absurdism — the absolute nihilism too. What is the purpose? That is our goal. Is there one? What is it? Why? Why us?

First though we must find our origin (a very long quest… and shocking answers too). It is not in monkeys, it is not in fish, regardless of how much human embryo resembles those species in its development in the womb.

pipAT I embrace all technical possibilities that could fulfill piano emulation tasks. Real acoustic pianos are still the best for me.

This is great. Because here is where my tech. and imaginative expertise comes in.
You enjoy your acoustic piano in a room whilst playing it (fairly static position in front of the keyboard) or as an audience member – could be anywhere around the piano but mostly on the side to it looking a bit directly to the open lid (if it is open).

So, we can only say that the player' perspective is the one sought after among piano players. Good. Record it that way, binaural (so, it is meant for using headphones only → not ideal, especially if you have an audience). Job half done.
But we have to record many mechanical movements (velocity, each with at lest one more repetition). Not impossible at all but shall we record from audience perspective too? If yes, that means then on speakers we will have once the recorded room perspective which then is broadcasted on loudspeakers in a current room for the listeners.

So, no. Player's perspective (on headphones) might be ok, but what about player's perspective on loudspeakers (two = stereo, 2.1, maybe even 5.1 = surround)?

I hope you can see why current sample libraries are not complete. On the other hand 'modeling piano tools' are also incomplete.

I can do it. I just need a lever long enough and a suitable fulcrum to pull it off.

PASHKULI

Great.

But you should know Garritan CFX is audience perspective at default settings and it's L+R+Ls+Rs as well as Steinberg The Grand.

Real acoustic pianos are superior. I prefer it when playing and listening. The touch, the feeling, the vibe are unmatched. I've said here before. I perfer people playing the same piece on a real piano if possible.

I rarely use headphones now even though I like SRS technology years ago or Dolby stuff. Nowaday binaural or ambisonic stuff are more popular. The thing is I have to protect my ears because I did tests years ago and found I am no longer able to hear some high frequencies. I use small speakers most of the time or mono speaker on smartphone instead.

Virtual pianos are like clothes. The best way to fight fatigue and tediousness is switching among them every couple of period. At least it works for me. I'm a Steinway guy. Sometimes I want to try other brands for fun.

I have no expertise in making virtual pianos. I leave that topic to professionals. I may share some views and ideas if I am allowed to when they are making new products.

pipAT

Well… it is not that great to be honest:

regardless of 'Abbey Road S1' place (studio) and bombastic collection of mics used. Maybe the photo does not show the actual setup, I have no idea (was not there). All those mic stands and all beg for resonance problems. Anyway.

pipAT I rarely use headphones now even though

This is because listening on headphones requires extra setup or 'players' perspective standalone setup with EQ and headphones specific compensation curve. If that Neumann KU100 head mic was really where it is on the photo then — no. That is making the image mono‑ish and roomy (studio acoustics with all those mic stands — hell no!).

pipAT I may share some views and ideas if I am allowed to when they are making new products.

That would be very appreciated indeed.

PASHKULI

The library is delivered that way. I'm not blaming Garritan rather I kind of like what Abbey Road Studio air added to the CFX we have been listening to.

I have to protect my ears, my health. It's not about setting-ups of equipment.

Well, I'd love to if ideas occurs in my head. But don't expect me to be that professional. LOL.

I'm still learning basic stuff.

Cheers!