The drive behind Art and Music is to externalize one's Being in a medium that can be communicated on a sensory plane. Whether a product is aesthetic or not is of secondary concern; it is the 'soul' of work and how it relates to the artist and the art-perceiver that makes art, 'Art'.
For instance, this image entitled Water by Giuseppe Arcimboldo (https://www.wikiart.org/en/giuseppe-arcimboldo/water-1566?fb...) encodes collective aquatic mode of being into an anthropomorphic feminine form at a structural level. This can be easily programmed. What lies beneath the visual field is the 'feeling' or 'chitta' as it is called in Sanskrit of the work. Meditation on the work will often reveal this subtle layer; the Greeks called this 'Eidos'.
The output of any automation generally feels [the same].
Therefore, I believe that it is impossible for any computational system to produce genuine art or music in an automated fashion, let alone complete the work of a genius.
In fact, this so-called [AI-Completed piece] of Beethoven has no trace of machine in it. The [completed segments] are also not in harmony with the [rest of the work].
I'm interested in knowing how many vulnerabilities in production code were actually detected. In my former companies, we used Fortify and Zalewski's old tool (seems to have dropped off the grid) with little benefit. The False Positive Rate was just too high for anything beneficial to come out of the so-called automated approach. We had engineers parse through tens of thousands of hits with no real vulnerabilities being found; this made the whole process a drudgery and a financial blunder in terms of work hours and licensing fees. On the dark side of the security industry, some people were making a lot of commission money on million dollars a year inert tools, because the business folks wouldn't get it.
To the best of my knowledge this is still a very open problem in the industry, and if any mention is made of it, in compliance standards or in implementations, it just serves as security theater.
I'm somewhat of an Artist (https://ia804502.us.archive.org/35/items/TheSongofAntares/IM...) and an amateur musician (https://soundcloud.com/user-408150882-831970789/rhythm-of-ka...) myself (SonicPi and Dramyin), if it lends some experience rather than authority on this topic.
The drive behind Art and Music is to externalize one's Being in a medium that can be communicated on a sensory plane. Whether a product is aesthetic or not is of secondary concern; it is the 'soul' of work and how it relates to the artist and the art-perceiver that makes art, 'Art'.
For instance, this image entitled Water by Giuseppe Arcimboldo (https://www.wikiart.org/en/giuseppe-arcimboldo/water-1566?fb...) encodes collective aquatic mode of being into an anthropomorphic feminine form at a structural level. This can be easily programmed. What lies beneath the visual field is the 'feeling' or 'chitta' as it is called in Sanskrit of the work. Meditation on the work will often reveal this subtle layer; the Greeks called this 'Eidos'.
The output of any automation generally feels [the same].
Therefore, I believe that it is impossible for any computational system to produce genuine art or music in an automated fashion, let alone complete the work of a genius.
In fact, this so-called [AI-Completed piece] of Beethoven has no trace of machine in it. The [completed segments] are also not in harmony with the [rest of the work].
This is a profound topic and requires certain models of reality to dissolve for proper internalization. (https://medium.com/@100and9/the-incomplete-rational-guide-to...)