SoulMonster

Furthermore, Axl would likely not have written new lyrics so if the lyrics don't match up, it is likely different songs.

Perhaps has been sound checked and is likely on the setlist, so it is possible it will be released this year. The General is maybe on the setlist, so it is some possibility it will be released this year. Atlas Shrugged was ready in 2008 and is likely one of the song the band has worked on, so it is possible it will be released this year.

One of those cases of being unable to contain oneself.

Just pick up any textbook on genetics and how genes affect our bodies.

We haven't come anywhere closer to knowing whether unheard music exists with vocals recorded after '99, whether we will get a new album at some point, or whether the next two singles will be Perhaps and Atlas Shrugged. If anything, we have some weak evidence suggesting the next two singles will be Perhaps and The General. The only thing we will likely be able to conclude on in the short term, is the singles argument. The rest will remain inconclusive for years and years, I suppose. But if you think the mere passing of time somehow is evidence for his opinions, then I don't know what to say.

Zero points in reductive reasoning for you, my fried. Even if The General has been heard, that doesn't mean somehow that he was correct in claiming that no music with vocals recorded after '99 exist which haven't been heard by us. That can only be proven to be correct when we know the full extent of the unreleased material.

He claimed that the next two singles would be Perhaps and Atlas Shrugged, that no music existed with vocals recorded after 1999 except what we had already heard, and that there would never be a new album. Except for the 'no music with vocals after '99' argument his opinions aren't unreasonable. I mean, it is entirely okay to believe that Perhaps and Atlas are the next singles, I would say it is plausible (well, maybe less so now if The General is really on the setlists). The same with no new album, that's a legit thing to think. In the short term, say the next 3-4 years, I find it likely, too. As for his claim that there is no music existing with vocals recorded after '99 that we haven't heard, that one is less plausible considering the fact that Axl himself pointed to having recorded vocals for Soul Monster, that Tommy mentioned Axl had recorded consistently, and that we know sessions took place which resulted in vocals for songs like Scraped and Better after 1999 and that it is reasonable to assume Axl also recorded additional vocals in those sessions. It ius kind of mind-boggling to think that everything that was recorded after '99 had either been released or leaked. What are the odds of that? But anyway, my problem with all this isn't necessarily his opinions as such, most of which are fair enough, but how inflexible he was to accept any possibility of being wrong. Basically, he held rational opinions with irrational conviction. As for whether he has been proven right, not at all, of course

Right on what? That Perhaps and Atlas are the next two singles? That there's no vocals we haven't heard since 1999? That there will never be a new album? He certainly hasn't been proven wrong, yet, but absolutely not been proven right either.

If The General is among the two next singles to be released, then Pele was wrong on 2 out of the 3 things I disagreed with him (that the next two singles would be Perhaps and Atlas Shrugged and that no unheard vocals recorded after 1999 exists).

Yeah, where are all the guys spelling gloom and doom for the tour?

I don't think Youtube had auto-transcribed these videos. When a Youtube videos don't have transcripts to download, I usually generate my own transcripts using Google voice-to-text function. By the way, as a nod to the AI thread, such transcription features are based on AI.

And what you mention here is why I am not worried about AI music: It simply cannot replace real music because it lacks the human component. AI music, without humans, would never induce the same kind of fandom as proper bands do, AI music would never be as exciting live as proper bands are, etc etc. Basically, AI music would only thrive in niches where the human component isn't part of the experience, like elevator music and mall music, basically background music that is not meant to engage to the same extent with the listeners. And as I stated before, let's say I am wrong, would that really be a problem? No.

Exactly, and that's what some people here consistently fail to understand: Because they don't like Absurd or Hardskool (possibly out of unrealistic expectations) they think everything else that is unreleased must be shit. It never fails to astound me that subjective preferences, a concept we are exposed to as little children, is so unbelievable hard to fathom. Personally, I loooove Hardskool and think it could easily replace most on UYIs. I also think the locker leaks contains uncut gems. Is it really so incomprehensible that Axl could be of the same persuasion? Is it so bloody hard to grasp that we like different things?

The mistake you make is to assume Axl operates by conventional rationality.

Again, I don't see a problem with AI music. People will want the human component so its applicability will be for stuff like muzak. Kids want to idolize the people behind, kids want to see real musicians on stage. But here's the kicker: Even if I am wrong and AI music completely outcompetes human musicians, that just means music has become better, and we all benefit (except musicians at the time who will need to find themselves a different job because they have been made redundant by technology - like so many other orifessuons). That's progress, I suppose.

AI is already being used in numerous applications, for good use. When I was studying, back in the late 90s, we had these distributed software thingies that would use free CPU to try to solve complex problems, like searching for extraterrestrial signals or solve protein folding. Now AI (in the shape of AlphaFold) can predict protein structure from primary sequence easily. What a revolutionary progress! And this is just one example out of thousands of contemporary uses. AI isn't the future - it is now.

As I have stated many times, there were real duds on Chinese Democracy that could easily have been replaced by material from the locker leaks to improve that album. Like Hard School, State of Grace, Perhaps, etc. But Axl, like he also did with Aooetite/UIYs decided to hold over some songs for the next record. Like November Rain, You Could Be Mine, Perfect Crime. That's how he operates. It's all fine and good if you for some reason think everything on the locker leaks is subpar to what ended up on CD (Scraped, Rhiad, If The World, really!?), but obviously that's not how Axl thinks.

But this will regulate itself. If people don't want AI arts because it is soulless, than no one will create it and it disappears and problem solved. If, on the other hand, people still enjoy it, then your argument is wrong.

Except that some people might consider these songs to be "big guns"....and poof went your argument!

Again, this seems like a generic argument advising caution to AI in general and nothing specific about AI "arts". Whether AI is good or bad and how to regulate it is a much wider discussion and, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Look, I am not interested in making this into another bizarre discussion on you and me. You have to get over it. If you are not interested in discussing your problems with AI-generated art, as opposed to AI in general, then there is nothing more to discuss, is there? Anything else you want to say about me can be done in private, or ideally with your therapist.

You are a great guy but you have to overcome this unhealthy relationship you have with me. This is a public discussion forum. You sort of accept having your posts challenged when posting here. If you post something I think is wrong or share an opinion that I believe is ill-informed, then I am likely to post my views on that. You can either ignore that, and that ends that discussion effectively, or choose to respond. The choice lies with you. If you are so upset by simply seeing me respond to you that you start acting childish with insults, then it is probably better to put me on ignore so you won't see my posts (but I will of course continue to respond to your posts if I think that is necessary).

And back to insults. Wow. You know, there is an ignore function, both in your brain and at this forum. If you can't stand being challenged on your opinions by me, why not use either of those?

No, it isn't. AI could absolutely create music that seems novel, like having been programmed to understand musical trends and what makes good music "good", without it necessarily being able to feel things and think. These are two very different things. Are you able to discuss the merits of AI "arts" without going completely Skynet on us?

There is a big difference between discussing the inherent danger of sentient AI and discussing "arts" created by AI. If you cannot distinguish the two and are unable to discuss AI "arts" without making this into some "Skynet - yes or no?" discussion, then I am opting out.