Unless those satellites happen to be launched, maintained and controlled by a for-profit company, who's owned by a person who doesn't exactly ooze "controlled and tactful choices and strategies" from what we know.
And even saying the 12 notes must have specific frequencies is wrong. It's very common when creating synths for example to detune them to create richer sounds, or play on dissonance to some extent.
That's what I meant when stating 'the exact frequencies are culturally defined'.
There are lots of tuning systems. Equal temperament is just 12 (logarithmic) equal steps. But other tuning systems use different priorities.
The basis is physical, though. It's always about trying to get the frequency ratios as simple as possible (or as close as possible to a simple ratio). Based on the fact that natural overtones are always (more or less) integer multiples of the base frequency so that's what sounds pleasing to us. Using only integer ratios is impossible though, so we have to deviate from those. And on top of that we want to deviate because people get bored ;-)
I like to think about it as an opinionated framework. Once you have the basics, you can take an unpredictable sounding song and deconstruct it to understand why it sounds so good.
You could read books on strategy from military campaigns, the Art of War, etc, but if you want to be a good solder the best thing would be to join your local territorial army group.
And then you'd ask it about an area you're knowledgeable in and realise it routinely makes stupid mistakes.
Or you'd ask it to add a new page to your website and shout at it to use your existing brand colours instead of inventing some and realise it's not AGI at all...
Origami design will be my personal test bed for the coming years.
It's objectively very difficult and technical, it's spatiovisual, it's artistic, learning resources for it are sparse and most just learn by the FAFO method, current AI sucks terribly at it, and it's not likely to ever be specifically targeted by benchmaxxers.
Scientifically useful physics simulations. Every model absolutely sucks at them.
Or, as someone else points out in another thread here, academic writing. It's one of the things newer models seem to have actually gotten worse at. Even when you give them detailed instructions on how to write and what to avoid, the "load-bearing", "A but not B" and journal-like writing make it in anyway, with the supposed AGI having no ability to reflect on how blatantly unacademic (and often unreadable) its writing is.
Well, we used to blame it on Stack Overflow being down when we didn't want to work. And before that, we blamed it on slow compilers. Before that I dunno, maybe the dog ate your punch cards?
reply