Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
Yes, they will be embedded whether we want them or not. One of things that Jaron Lanier talks about in some of the articles that he has written is the misunderstanding of how LMM's work (even on the part of people that are computer scientists but not expert in machine learning) is that you can do all kinds of refining to improve what something like ChatGPT does -- but you can't categorically change what it does -- only how effectively it does what it does. There are a lot of smoke and mirrors on the part of people with billions and billions at stake -- who want to convince you and everyone (particularly investors) that particular AI systems are something other than what they are. You can improve how well an LLM does what it was set up to do (again: massively effective predictive text generator that generates text responsive to your prompts. It has a massive amount of text to draw from -- and generates the expected response extrapolated from its database. It can refine how it weights and filters things -- but there is nothing in it to determine truth -- and one of the things that people with no money to gain point out: the more that LLM output becomes (inadvertently) part of the corpus it trains on, the more prone to error it will be when erroneous data enter the corpus.
So much money is at stake that you need to really take anything that any interested party has to say about the future capabilities. Lanier pointed out early on that there would be massive apparent improvement that is just the natural fruition of a better corpus and better filtering of the corpus and tweaking of the algorithms used -- and that LLMs will hit a wall and a new generation of systems will need to be generated. They are amazingly powerful tools -- they just aren't quite the tool that some people want us to think.
I don't disagree. But on the bright side, it's saved me a lot of time and effort at work.
The NY Times clearly doesn't understand how this works. Chips improve on a less than annual cycle. Their processing power improves and their power requirements drop every single time advances are made. This is how technology cycles work. The imaginary "all the energy a country can produce" claim is completely bogus. They need to look up Moore's Law.
Erroneously presumptive. My default affect tends toward acceptance and non-attachment.
"Alex de Vries is a PhD candidate at the VU Amsterdam School of Business and Economics and the founder of Digiconomist, a research company dedicated to exposing the unintended consequences of digital trends. His research focuses on the environmental impact of emerging technologies and has played a major role in the global discussion regarding the sustainability of blockchain technology."
Yeah, that sounds really "unbiased." Also, whatever are the results of this "peer-reviewed study" are hidden behind a paywall so the alleged results are not subject to discussion or debate.
Completely true.
LOL. You cited a NYT link to a source which has no evidence... unless you pay for it. That's not evidence.
In the interest of getting back to less controversial topics, I think this exchange is over.
Have a nice day.
This post should be stickied as it was written like a grad school term paper (and no one asked him to).
What happened to "...that’s the end of this conversation for me"?
Why don't you contact me via DM if you have additional issues you need to work out? This is not the place for this kind of derailing conversation.
Not true that ‘there is no bubble’. The rate of development is impressive, but many highly informed observers state that it is by no means a certainty that the problem of “hallucinations” is solvable. See people like Gary Marcus on Twitter, for example, for more informed critique of optimistic outlooks. If the problem of hallucinations is not solved, AI will never end up disrupting society anywhere near as much as was earlier expected, and this will lead to a MASSIVE drop in value of shares in AI tech companies, exactly in the same way as happened with crypto metaverse projects. None of this is to say that AI is not useful, but we may have to limit our expectations drastically. Lots of other points Offbrands made also seem accurate, including the energy issues. I still find chatGPT and Claude valuable and inspiring in some ways, but their usefulness is drastically limited by the problem of hallucination (as well as by the poor ability of most humans using them to use them to full potential).
My immediate reaction is there is some conflation going on between "success," as defined as profitability and viability as a business investment vs. disruptive impact. I don't believe there's a determinative correlation.
Agreed it would be a crap shoot to expect return on investment. Profits could happen. It could look like they're happening and then crash. It could never take off. Some people are going to make fortunes. Some are going to lose their shirts. (I'm not touching related investments at this point, myself. It's too uncertain.)
But that isn't going to stop AI gaining huge, scary, dangerous, wildly beneficial, practical, and absolutely disruptive capabilities. That much is guaranteed regardless of return on investment. To shrug that off based on whether it's a good investment or not is a mistake.
I'm greatly fond of my Shark robot vacuum, "Buddy". He's reasonably smart, never complains, and feels like a little friend puttering around the house doing the floors while I tidy up the house. He's respectful toward the cats, but also doesn't let them intimidate him, much to their annoyance.
I look forward to a future with a couple other helpers like him. I prefer them not speech enabled, but I'm weird that way. Don't like talking (to humans either). 😂
The next big leap is AI companies working on reasoning technologies. Couple that with an improvement of high quality training data will yield the next step. It’s going to be an interactive non ending process but in the short term it will deliver AI that can be relied on to perform a good subset of human related tasks autonomously reliably and with trustworthy results. Things will rapidly improve after that.
AI scientists who are deeply imbedded working out the problems of AI say there’s no slowing down of the technology and super intelligence is just a matter of time. Observers of AI tech companies can state what they wish relative to AI advances but if they talk about bubbles then they don’t understand how much effort is being poured into this endeavour and the huge advances that are happening at a global level on a near daily basis.
I don’t think people understand how fast things will change when AI is embedded in the millions of laptops, desktops, tablets and smart devices around the world….up until now AI has been opt in or service-based. While it has scrubbed the internet for what it can find, the greater advance is having the world actively feeding you data on how people talk, and think and feel, and connect. The things they search for and share. Schedules, mails, messages, location data, and all these other things that even at the lowest level of invasiveness will help it grow constantly.
You raise a good point that I hadn't considered in that when all these AI systems are embedded into our laptops/phones etc... there is going to be a vast amount of additional high quality training data available. That's really going to catapult progress.
Microsoft CTO Kevin Scott says we are not at diminishing returns and that scaling laws will continue to extend and debunks the twitter trolls who states it's all a scam.
So no. There is no bubble.
Be very cautious about treating what technologists with billions of dollars at stake have to say about yhd state of AI and its benefits. The CTO of Microsoft, for example, has a very vested interest in having people (investors) think that AI should be in every product and has only upside and untapped potential…oh and by the way, we are making enormous profit on something that relied 100% on data we for which we didn’t compensate anyone…and we’ll worry about the enormous energy burden later
Here's a citation from an engineering-centric source regarding energy consumption and A.I.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/epri-study-data-centers-could-consume-up-to-9-of-us-electricity-generation-by-2030-302157970.html
But even this source is basing its 9% of US electricity generation by 2030 on current trends for something which is relatively new. I sincerely doubt the likelihood of these projections, especially since populations across the world are currently in decline. Declining populations mean there will be reduced power consumption needs. And reduced power requirements will come from more efficient programming and more efficient, lower power processors.
That did genuinely made me chuckle. Thanks