The last decades witnessed an exponential proliferation of AI music composition programs. The hard-coded algorithmic composition systems of the outset are progressively giving way to a more advanced use of neural networks and Deep...
moreThe last decades witnessed an exponential proliferation of AI music composition programs. The hard-coded algorithmic composition systems of the outset are progressively giving way to a more advanced use of neural networks and Deep Learning software, with a consequent
increase of the sophistication and quality of the music produced. The Mozart and Lady Gaga of the future are a set of silicon chips: Jukedeck, Flow Machines, Aiva and other programs are gaining more and more followers in many music platforms, raising a growing enthusiasm and
consent among their fans.
While the latest developments in the field of AI music are matter of excitement among both listeners and researchers, they also raise less practical and more philosophically oriented questions. In this paper I discuss the impact of AI on one of the key topics in the philosophy of
art: the nature of musical works. The question I will address is the following: “Can a computer create a musical work?”. In attempting to provide an answer, further questions about the creativity and intentionality exhibited by AI will emerge.
In the first section of the paper I identify a necessary requirement for musical works: being created by an act of intentional creativity. I then argue that the evaluation of something as creative or intentional is influenced by our subjective judgement. As a consequence, it seems impossible to objectively assess whether a computer can create a musical work. What we measure when we provide an answer to this question, in fact, are not the computer’s accomplishments but instead our subjective evaluation of them (Boden and Edmonds 2009).
In the second part of the paper I suggest an alternative definition of minimal creativity (CREATIVITYm) which focuses on the autonomy needed by a system to produce a creative output. I will claim that software like Jukedeck or Flowmachines, where the human presence is still essential for performing the task of composing music, do not create musical works. They at best can be considered an extension of the programmer’s or user’s mind (Clarks and Chalmers 1998). This point will lead to the related discussion about the boundaries of the self and the relative autonomy of humans and machines in respect to each other.
In the last part of the paper I will claim that the use of Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) in software for music composition may grant AI a sufficient level of autonomy for deeming it able to create musical works (Yang 2017). In addressing the inherent difference of GANs from other kinds of software previously used in algorithmic composition, I will borrow some insights from the discussion on integrated information theory (Tononi 2008). Indeed, I will discuss the quantity of integrated information, or Φ (‘phi’), that a system for music generation which makes use of GANs has and what does this tell us about its levels of
creativity.