https://www.musicradar.com/artists/guitarists/then-on-air-is-where-it-gets-nuts-how-princes-final-legendary-guitar-performance-on-snl-was-saved-by-a-quick-thinking-audio-engineer?fbclid=IwY2xjawF7vD9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcp-SNrOv057qF1bH8nFtZlm69kBm4ICU_dwmRkt6Pn07UNps_QiOywnuw_aem_0XMuFJsQcD8ij9dByiia0A

Here everyone reading this thread by -rap-

i'll give you an actual link to click on

LINK TO CLICK ON

• Don't post trolls/ads/spam/get-rich-quick schemes/other junk.
  Don't make posts that are inflammatory just to get people riled up. Don't post useless off-topic stuff. Even if a silly, no-purpose post seems harmless and fun, don't be surprised if you get a warning and the message locked/deleted. You might think it's cute, but Moderators who have to wade through tons of posts like this, don't. In general, don't post advertisements. Advertising may be allowed in certain circumstances; ask a moderator privately before posting. If a post is mostly just an ad for another website, it will likely be removed. In general, post if you have something to say. If you want to start a new thread, make it worthwhile. Don't be lazy and give a 1-sentence "what do you think about X?". At least explain your position, why, etc... make it interesting to read; you're more likely to get quality responses.

nayroo2002 said:

Here everyone reading this thread by -rap-

i'll give you an actual link to click on

LINK TO CLICK ON

People can just double click on the text and it makes it all selectable to copy and paste in the brower, right?

strawberryletter23 said:

nayroo2002 said:

Here everyone reading this thread by -rap-

i'll give you an actual link to click on

LINK TO CLICK ON

People can just double click on the text and it makes it all selectable to copy and paste in the brower, right?

Absolutely, but doing so would add an extra 2/2.5 seconds to the whole process.

rap said:

strawberryletter23 said:

People can just double click on the text and it makes it all selectable to copy and paste in the brower, right?

Absolutely, but doing so would add an extra 2/2.5 seconds to the whole process.

Putting the link between url tags takes less time

And this is Prince.org. People complaining about the url format more than discussing Prince and his music lol

However it is people have accessed the text in the article, does anyone have any thoughts about what was said within the article and the anecdotes?

On my browser if you highlight the plain text link you can then right click it to open as a link, without the need for copy/paste.

strawberryletter23 said:

And this is Prince.org. People complaining about the url format more than discussing Prince and his music lol

don't be all overdramatic, nobody is complaining but only handing out some useful tips for the users here

JorisE73 said:

rap said:

Absolutely, but doing so would add an extra 2/2.5 seconds to the whole process.

Putting the link between url tags takes less time

Joris, my friend, I strongly disgaree. It takes much longer to manually URL tags. Every time I want to put a link in URL tags, I have to google how to do it. That takes a several minutes.

Why do I have to google it? Because it's not knowledge that I or most people have off the top of our heads. That method is antiquated. No other currently active website require you to manually enter URLs. There's simply no way most people automatically or intuatively know how to do it.

Also, after I google it, I tend to forget. That's because it's so rare that I use it. Again, no website I frequent besides the Org requires you to manually enter URL tags. So I'll google it, post a link here, and then go six months without using that method again. Of course I'm going to forget. Which means if I want to post a new URL on the Org, I have to google it again.

What I find most remarkable in this article is this:

.

Gluck says that he uses this story to illustrate why it’s still important to have a human in charge of a live mixing environment rather than an AI solution.

“I don’t know if AI can accurately say, ‘Oh, he’s not playing. Let me bring this down. Let me listen to where we are in the music. Let me call on my vast nanoseconds of experience and see when I think I can open this fader up.’” he suggests.

.

I didn't know there was a debate about AI mixing live shows, too, but of course, why wouldn't there be one?

.

It seems whichever job we do, we'll all be obsolete within a few years...

lurker316 said:

JorisE73 said:

Putting the link between url tags takes less time

Joris, my friend, I strongly disgaree. It takes much longer to manually URL tags. Every time I want to put a link in URL tags, I have to google how to do it. That takes a several minutes.

Why do I have to google it? Because it's not knowledge that I or most people have off the top of our heads. That method is antiquated. No other currently active website require you to manually enter URLs. There's simply no way most people automatically or intuatively know how to do it.

Also, after I google it, I tend to forget. That's because it's so rare that I use it. Again, no website I frequent besides the Org requires you to manually enter URL tags. So I'll google it, post a link here, and then go six months without using that method again. Of course I'm going to forget. Which means if I want to post a new URL on the Org, I have to google it again.

See reply #5 from olb99, it really is not that hard

databank said:

What I find most remarkable in this article is this:

.

Gluck says that he uses this story to illustrate why it’s still important to have a human in charge of a live mixing environment rather than an AI solution.

“I don’t know if AI can accurately say, ‘Oh, he’s not playing. Let me bring this down. Let me listen to where we are in the music. Let me call on my vast nanoseconds of experience and see when I think I can open this fader up.’” he suggests.

.

I didn't know there was a debate about AI mixing live shows, too, but of course, why wouldn't there be one?

.

It seems whichever job we do, we'll all be obsolete within a few years...

I think it wil take a looooong while for A.I. to do the job as good as human ears can because it also has the human 'emotional' factor to consider which A.I. will never be able to do 100% correctly

JorisE73 said:

databank said:

What I find most remarkable in this article is this:

.

Gluck says that he uses this story to illustrate why it’s still important to have a human in charge of a live mixing environment rather than an AI solution.

“I don’t know if AI can accurately say, ‘Oh, he’s not playing. Let me bring this down. Let me listen to where we are in the music. Let me call on my vast nanoseconds of experience and see when I think I can open this fader up.’” he suggests.

.

I didn't know there was a debate about AI mixing live shows, too, but of course, why wouldn't there be one?

.

It seems whichever job we do, we'll all be obsolete within a few years...

I think it wil take a looooong while for A.I. to do the job as good as human ears can because it also has the human 'emotional' factor to consider which A.I. will never be able to do 100% correctly

I fear (or hope? — I'm not sure TBH) we are very much telling ourselves reassuring tales when it comes to this.

.

To name only one AI that everyone knows and can easily use for daily tasks, had we discussed what ChapGPT can do now a mere 5 years ago, most of us would have said "never, or not before decades at least". Most of what we've already achieved in AI and robotics in the last 10-15 years sounded like absolute sci-fi when we were young, and so far, the fact that acceleration is exponential seems to be confirmed a little more every year.

.

What is true is that AI will lack the physical organs and chemical reactions necessary to emotions, at least until we give (or they give themselves) such organs and chemicals. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how far emotional responses can be simulated (thus equaled in terms of results) through sheer abstract reasoning. AIs do not have emotions, yet chatbots have already been seen behaving angrily towards users, or lying to humans in order to achieve a designated task. One doesn't have to be sentient to simulate sentience and act like a sentient being.

.

Not to claim I have any idea what's going to happen: even the best experts in AI don't. Yet, so far, those greatest experts' predictions have been wrong several times in the sense that they often assumed AI would take much longer to achieve a goal than it actually does. They say "15 years" and it ends-up being 15 months. All I'm trying to say is we should be very, very cautious before assuming AI can never do such or such thing before a long while. We'd be safer assuming it can and being wrong than the other way around.

JorisE73 said:

I think it wil take a looooong while for A.I. to do the job as good as human ears can because it also has the human 'emotional' factor to consider which A.I. will never be able to do 100% correctly

"Emotions" (whatever we mean by this word) can be simulated by using enough data. That's how machine learning and deep neural networks work. We have millions of multitracks / stereo mixes to train algorithms. I'm willing to bet that automatic mixes will be as good or better than human mixes before 5-10 years. Actually, I'm pretty excited/terrified by what AI will be able to do in 10-15 years, but that's another story.

I'm not an expert, but I've been following developments in AI for 25-30 years now. At the time, people such as Ray Kurzweil were not taken seriously by many people. Things have changed now. One thing he understood (and explained) since the beginning is that people tend to vastly overestimate how hard it is for machine learning / AI systems to reproduce human tasks.

www.enditaerformnaseyuicinkniner?fbclid=IwY2xjawF7vD9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcp-SNrOv057qF1bH8nFtZlm69kBm4ICU_dwmRkt6Pn07UNps_QiOywnuw_aem_0XMuFJsQcD8ij9dByiia0

https://www.musicradarom/artists/guitarists/then-oneer?fbclid=IwY2xjawF7vD9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcp-clid=IwY2xjawF7vD9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcp-SNrOv057qF1bH8nFtZlm69kBm4ICU_dwmRkt6Pn07UNps_QiOywnuw_aem_0XMuFJsQcD8ij9dByiia0A

wmRkt6Pn07UNps_QiOywnuw_aem_0XMuFJsQcD8eHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcp-SNrOv057qF1bH8nFtZlm69.com

strawberryletter23 said:

rap said:

strawberryletter23 said:

People can just double click on the text and it makes it all selectable to copy and paste in the brower, right?

Absolutely, but doing so would add an extra 2/2.5 seconds to the whole process.

Nope, double clicking selects one single word for me on Mac. But even if double click did select it all, you make every single person have to do more work.

You post loads of links, you could be one of the more beloved members here. Instead you insist on being one of the most irritating!

lurker316 said:

JorisE73 said:

Putting the link between url tags takes less time

Joris, my friend, I strongly disgaree. It takes much longer to manually URL tags. Every time I want to put a link in URL tags, I have to google how to do it. That takes a several minutes.

Why do I have to google it? Because it's not knowledge that I or most people have off the top of our heads. That method is antiquated. No other currently active website require you to manually enter URLs. There's simply no way most people automatically or intuatively know how to do it.

Also, after I google it, I tend to forget. That's because it's so rare that I use it. Again, no website I frequent besides the Org requires you to manually enter URL tags. So I'll google it, post a link here, and then go six months without using that method again. Of course I'm going to forget. Which means if I want to post a new URL on the Org, I have to google it again.

If you posted as many links here as Rap does, you'd have to be some kind of special for it to not sink in. I've explained it to them a few times, and I've seen others explain it a dozen more. They actually did it once or twice, but have descended back into just being annoing.

Has to "Google" it? Has Gen-Z finally found the org?

It's been [ url ]URL[ / url ] without the spaces since the day before Twitter and reddit monopolized online interaction.

EnglishGent2 said:

rap said:

Absolutely, but doing so would add an extra 2/2.5 seconds to the whole process.

Nope, double clicking selects one single word for me on Mac. But even if double click did select it all, you make every single person have to do more work.

You post loads of links, you could be one of the more beloved members here. Instead you insist on being one of the most irritating!

Highlight all the text, right click the highlight and tell me what options you see.