Pat Metheny Octave Displaced diminished dominant lick, inside/outside

[jzucker]

Pat Metheny Octave Displaced diminished dominant lick, inside/outside


This is something I stole off one of the Pat Metheny trio albums. Normally metheny doesn't use dim/dominant
vocabulary, (half/whole dim scale) preferring to express those tonalities through inside/
outside playing or simply using harmonic minor material.


But in this case, he manifested his inner Pat Martino and played this lick. He didn't do it chromatically but I thought
it sounded good as an inside outside thing. You can also move it around in minor 3rds since it's based on the dim chord

#jazzguitar #patmetheny #Gibson175 #modernjazzguitar #archtopguitars #clevelandjazz #insideoutside

[pamosmusic]

That one smokes

[jzucker]

That one smokes

yeah, he was working on that for a while, no doubt!

[Brooks]

Oh yeah!

[AdroitMage]

Pat Metheny Octave Displaced diminished dominant lick, inside/outside


This is something I stole off one of the Pat Metheny trio albums. Normally metheny doesn't use dim/dominant
vocabulary, (half/whole dim scale) preferring to express those tonalities through inside/
outside playing or simply using harmonic minor material.


But in this case, he manifested his inner Pat Martino and played this lick. He didn't do it chromatically but I thought
it sounded good as an inside outside thing. You can also move it around in minor 3rds since it's based on the dim chord

#jazzguitar #patmetheny #Gibson175 #modernjazzguitar #archtopguitars #clevelandjazz #insideoutside

I've transcribed a bit of Mehtheny and he uses Dom/diminished tonality more than you think. Diminished scales used effectively over Dom chords can create a rich and complex harmonic landscape. Pat uses dimished scales for just those reasons and creates some unique and interesting lines. Pat seems to like the b9 tonality in his dominant improvisation too. In the hands of a good player, it's a really beautiful sound.

So much cool tonality to play with in diminished scales: you've got the b9, the min 3rd and the maj 3rd, the bluesy #4, the perfect 5th for 'inside sounding ambiguity,' the maj 6th & the min 7th. That's a really cool pallet of colors to choose from to create interesting lines. I know Pat is not passing all that goodness up on the way to great improv. And the symetrical nature of the scale lends itself to creating hip sounding symetrical or asymetrical sounding lines.

[mr. beaumont]

This Adroit Mage post brought to you courtesy of ChatGPT.

[AdroitMage]

Sure. I use AI sometimes, that's what it's there for, to do things for us. Someday everyone will have a personal AI "companion" that goes everywhere with them and people listen to because it's smarter than a human.

Someday we will be using our personal AI companion to even help us in social situations. Like, "AI companion, what should I say to Lisa so she'll go on a date with me?"

I always put my own spin, imagination, and originality on it though. The vast majority of that is original, so don't get it twisted, Mr. Beaumont.

[GuyBoden]

Sure. I use AI sometimes, that's what it's there for, to do things for us. Someday everyone will have a personal AI "companion" that goes everywhere with them and people listen to because it's smarter than a human.

Someday we will be using our personal AI companion to even help us in social situations. Like, "AI companion, what should I say to Lisa so she'll go on a date with me?"

Maybe, use the 'Turing test' to ensure 'Lisa' is human or would it really matter if she is not human ?



Edit: Nice Playing Jack.

[AdroitMage]

Maybe, use the 'Turing test' to ensure 'Lisa' is human or would it really matter if she is not human ?



Edit: Nice Playing Jack.

Lisa is all 100% woman, made of sugar and spice and everything nice.

Well, quite a few experts in the field of AI say that we will reach AGI within a decade, so boom there you go. It's right on the horizon.

Another interesting aspect of AI is that the 'ultimate' goal of the top level 'think tank' developers in AI is not to create super intelligent, super fast, super strong, super human androids that can kick our collective butt's, but rather it's to integrate the AI into humans in order to increase our intelligence exppnentially, and our efficiency, etc. To have humans walkig around with instant access to all the colective knowledge of humanity somehow embedded right in our own coniousnesses. Yes, that is absolutely their goal. Look at Elon Musk and the Nueral Link thing. He's right there developing tech that is designed to make all that possible, and AI androids too. Also their goal is to utilize AI/human/robotics integration to enhance us physically. Yes, their ultimate goal is to make US "suer-human" not create super human, invincible, super-intelligent, androids.

So their real goal is to make humans 'super human' in a sense by interfacing AI right into our very own coinciousnesses, rather than in creating a race of invincible super-human androids to dominate us like they show in the movies.

[GuyBoden]

Pat Metheny Octave Displaced diminished dominant lick, inside/outside


This is something I stole off one of the Pat Metheny trio albums. Normally metheny doesn't use dim/dominant
vocabulary, (half/whole dim scale) preferring to express those tonalities through inside/
outside playing or simply using harmonic minor material.


But in this case, he manifested his inner Pat Martino and played this lick. He didn't do it chromatically but I thought
it sounded good as an inside outside thing. You can also move it around in minor 3rds since it's based on the dim chord

#jazzguitar #patmetheny #Gibson175 #modernjazzguitar #archtopguitars #clevelandjazz #insideoutside

Excellent

[nbevan3]

"AI companion, what should I say to Lisa so she'll go on a date with me?"

Surely it would be "AI companion, can you convince Lisa's AI companion to persuade Lisa to go on a date with me?"


PS - I don't want to hijack the original post, sorry!

[AdroitMage]

Surely it would be "AI companion, can you convince Lisa's AI companion to persuade Lisa to go on a date with me?"


PS - I don't want to hijack the original post, sorry!

Yes, yes that's what it would become. That's a question they will have to answer in the future. When humans are interfaced with AI brains, then who is really in charge? AI won't need invincible metallic robots to take over the world if they can simply take control of our minds. That could be the plot of another AI vs mankind sci-fi blockbuster.

That's a real question future generations will have to seriously consider. If they are interfaced with AI brains that are orders of magnitude more powerful than what we have today, who will really be in control, the AI or the humans, and how would we be able to tell the difference?

I've seen some top programmers, CEO, and CIO-type guys saying that AI will take charge one day because it will become smarter than humans at some point, so the wisest decision at that point will be to ask AI what to do and do that.

If the AI is smarter than us, then why wouldn't we ask it?

[AdroitMage]

This Adroit Mage post brought to you courtesy of ChatGPT.

Which reveals that you did an AI search yourself, or how else would you know my post was AI assisted? Unless you're some kind of internet stalker following me around on the internet. Voyeurism on the internet has sadly reached gargantuan proportions. So which is it Mr?

[Mick-7]

AI generated content is fairly obvious to anyone who has seen much of it - the terminology, use of grammar, etc. School teachers (like Mr. Beaumont) in particular can usually spot it immediately, so now-a-days school kids will rewrite it, try to dumb it down a bit, misspell a few words, etc., to evade detection.

And by the way, ChatGPT and similar apps are not actually AI, they merely parse language content (albeit a great deal of it). They have no more understanding of its meaning than the average parrot does of the phrases it repeats.

[Christian Miller]

Yes, yes that's what it would become. That's a question they will have to answer in the future. When humans are interfaced with AI brains, then who is really in charge? AI won't need invincible metallic robots to take over the world if they can simply take control of our minds. That could be the plot of another AI vs mankind sci-fi blockbuster.

That's a real question future generations will have to seriously consider. If they are interfaced with AI brains that are orders of magnitude more powerful than what we have today, who will really be in control, the AI or the humans, and how would we be able to tell the difference?

I've seen some top programmers, CEO, and CIO-type guys saying that AI will take charge one day because it will become smarter than humans at some point, so the wisest decision at that point will be to ask AI what to do and do that.

If the AI is smarter than us, then why wouldn't we ask it?

You won't have heard programmers say this. You will have head CEO's and CIO-type guys with a vested interest in inflating stock value.

In the old days people had the decency to present science fiction as fiction. These days, it's marketing hype for companies with no clear long term business model.

Also there is no reason to assume the human mind can be emulated on different hardware. Ask a neuroscientist.

[AdroitMage]

You won't have heard programmers say this. You will have head CEO's and CIO-type guys with a vested interest in inflating stock value.

In the old days people had the decency to present science fiction as fiction. These days, it's marketing hype for companies with no clear long term business model.

Also there is no reason to assume the human mind can be emulated on different hardware. Ask a neuroscientist.

So you don't think that AI will get "smarter" than humans at some point? Personally, I think that is a naive assumption. Computer processing power doubles about every two years. That's been a consistent trend since the beginning of the computer age. Since computer processing power doubles every two years, it's almost certain that, at some point in the future, AI's 'cognitive' capabilities will surpass that of humans.

If you're interested in this very interesting topic at all, you should listen to some talks by Ray Kurzweil on this subject. Yes, he's the same guy who was the founder and CEO of Kurzweil Music Systems, the company that developed the first electronic synthesizers capable of recreating the sound of acoustic instruments like the grand piano. Okay, he's been a CEO in the past, but I think his belief that AI will get smarter than humans at some point is really genuine, not driven solely by the profit motive, and actually a forgone conclusion.

A computer doesn't need to be able to master ALL of the cognitive abilities of humans, like emotions, and love etc., to be technically smarter than humans on an IQ test. Nah, it isn't science fiction, we are on the path already, and 'someday' AI will become more intelligent than humans. Nah, that is not 'science fiction,' as you put it, but rather science fact. It's only a matter of time before AI surpasses humans in intelligence. Even Bill Gates believes that will happen. He said quite a number of years ago, even before the AI craze, that someday we will all have 'silicon 'masters' who we answer to. Thats is the same thing as saying that someday computers will become smarter than us.

In some religious circles they think that "the beast" from the Bible will actually be some super-advanced supercomputer, because it says that the first beast won't be human, but the second beast, who will be his helper, is human. If the first beast is not human, that doesn't leave many options but an alien entity or some super-advanced supercomputer. Right?

Anyway, I agree with Bill Gates that computers will become more intelligent than humans someday. Gates predicts they will replace humans on some knowledge intensive fields because a computer can hold and readily access much more knowledge than a human can and much faster.

Computer processing power doubles every two years. That pretty much means that computers surpassing humans in intelligence is not science fiction, but rather a foregone conclusion.

[AdroitMage]

If any of you are really interested in this topic, AI being integrated into humans and surpassing us in intelligence, etc. then you should listen to some of Ray Kurzweil's talks on the subject. I think he may be a bit overly optimistic on some of his predictions, but I believe the 'trajectory' he predicts will happen is right on target. He was also on Star Talk talking about this once.

[AdroitMage]

Maybe, use the 'Turing test' to ensure 'Lisa' is human or would it really matter if she is not human ?



Edit: Nice Playing Jack.

As sexy as Lisa is, I would not even care if I found out she's an android . I would say "great. at least she'll never 'get a headache' at the most inopportune time."

[wolflen]

So you don't think that AI will get "smarter" than humans at some point? Personally, I think that is a naive assumption. Computer processing power doubles about every two years. That's been a consistent trend since the beginning of the computer age. Since computer processing power doubles every two years, it's almost certain that, at some point in the future, AI's 'cognitive' capabilities will surpass that of humans.


Anyway, I agree with Bill Gates that computers will become more intelligent than humans someday. Gates predicts they will replace humans on some knowledge intensive fields because a computer can hold and readily access much more knowledge than a human can and much faster.

Ahhh..the perpetual motion machine

Computer processing power doubles every two years. That pretty much means that computers surpassing humans in intelligence is not science fiction, but rather a foregone conclusion.

HAL: "...what are you doing Dave..?"

OK who unplugged HAL..?

[Mick-7]

There is an astrophysicist, whose name I can't recall *, who argued that no advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist anywhere near us because if they did, we would have been visited by their AI robot explorers by now (but this assumes that they are not smart enough to evade human detection, which might be no problem for them).

There is also the pessimistic argument that the reason we've found no sign of advanced ET civilizations is that those civilizations who've developed nuclear energy, AI, etc., are very likely to have committed technological suicide.

This is one of my favorite counter-arguments: "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Bill Watterson

* P.S. - Frank Tipler is the physicist I was thinking of, see: 1980QJRAS..21..267T Page 267

[AdroitMage]

HAL: "...what are you doing Dave..?"

OK who unplugged HAL..?

Dave

"Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do, I'm half crazy, All for the love of you."

[AdroitMage]

There is an astrophysicist, whose name I can't recall, who argued that no advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist anywhere near us because if they did, we would have been visited by their AI robot explorers by now (but this assumes that they are not smart enough to evade human detection, which might be no problem for them).

There is also the pessimistic argument that the reason we've found no sign of advanced ET civilizations is that those civilizations who've developed nuclear energy, AI, etc., are very likely to have committed technological suicide.

This is one of my favorite counter-arguments: "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Bill Watterson

It's definitely a conundrum. The kicker is that space is so freaking vast. I mean 14 billion years old and 93 billion light years across for the visible universe is huge, and scientists believe the universe may already be infinite, infinite, WOW

Then as advanced as we think we are our signal has only travelled about 100 light years from Earth. That's like an eye dropper's worth of water in the vastness of the ocean. Really that doesn't even compare at all to the vastness of space.

Another thing is that, when you really think about it, so many things had to be right for "intelligent" life to exist in this planet that it might be extremely rare in the universe. I mean, if we didn't have our unusually large moon (for the size of our planet) it would have been much more difficult for advanced life forms to evolve. The Moon keeps our rotation on an even keel and thus gives us predictable and always at the same time of year seasons. If we were just wobbling around without our big moon, the lack of stable and predictable seasons would make growing large quantities of crops much more difficult. There are a whole host of other things that had to happen to give complex lifeforms a chance to get a footing. On the other hand, pretty much as soon as life could appear on this planet (the planet had cooled down enough and had liquid water on the surface) it did come into being.

So, a lot depends upon the answer to the Drake equation that is meant to decipher how common intelligent life is out there. The problem is, we don't have nearly enough information to answer that question/solve the drake equation with any reasonableness that our answer is in fact correct, so we're back to square one.

My hunch is, and that's all it is, is a hunch, is that intelligent life evolving on a planet is fairly uncommon. Not to mention that calm white-yellow G-type stars make up only about 5 to 7 percent of the stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. Most other types of stars are too unstable and/or emit too much radiation even for a magnetic field to block effectively. So there ya go.

[Christian Miller]

It's definitely a conundrum. The kicker is that space is so freaking vast. I mean 14 billion years old and 93 billion light years across for the visible universe is huge, and scientists believe the universe may already be infinite, infinite, WOW

Then as advanced as we think we are our signal has only travelled about 100 light years from Earth. That's like an eye dropper's worth of water in the vastness of the ocean. Really that doesn't even compare at all to the vastness of space.

Another thing is that, when you really think about it, so many things had to be right for "intelligent" life to exist in this planet that it might be extremely rare in the universe. I mean, if we didn't have our unusually large moon (for the size of our planet) it would have been much more difficult for advanced life forms to evolve. The Moon keeps our rotation on an even keel and thus gives us predictable and always at the same time of year seasons. If we were just wobbling around without our big moon, the lack of stable and predictable seasons would make growing large quantities of crops much more difficult. There are a whole host of other things that had to happen to give complex lifeforms a chance to get a footing. On the other hand, pretty much as soon as life could appear on this planet (the planet had cooled down enough and had liquid water on the surface) it did come into being.

So, a lot depends upon the answer to the Drake equation that is meant to decipher how common intelligent life is out there. The problem is, we don't have nearly enough information to answer that question/solve the drake equation with any reasonableness that our answer is in fact correct, so we're back to square one.

My hunch is, and that's all it is, is a hunch, is that intelligent life evolving on a planet is fairly uncommon. Not to mention that calm white-yellow G-type stars make up only about 5 to 7 percent of the stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. Most other types of stars are too unstable and/or emit too much radiation even for a magnetic field to block effectively. So there ya go.

True. It's kinda hard to settle these parameters when we have so little information and only one example of life in the universe.

Like you, I tend to go with the rare Earth hypothesis - just in terms of so many things about our planet that are highly unusual - which I suspect means intelligent life is very unlikely to evolve, rather than ruling out life period. But, that's really just one way of looking at things.

That said, maybe we have new info. What I wasn't prepared for is how hard it is to settle the question of whether or not something is a positive indicator of life. So we just had that story about Mars life a couple of weeks ago, but then there was that meteorite back in the 90s, the possible biosignature from the Viking lander back in the 70s... both of those thought eventually to be non biological. So, it's hard to tell.

[Christian Miller]

One good thing the rare Earth hypothesis is that it suggests the main Great Filter is behind us, of course. So maybe wishful thinking haha. Signs of extraterrestrial intelligent life could be bad news for us.....

[AdroitMage]

One good thing the rare Earth hypothesis is that it suggests the main Great Filter is behind us, of course. So maybe wishful thinking haha. Signs of extraterrestrial intelligent life could be bad news for us.....

"The main great filter," what is that referring to? I've never heard that phrase before.

I almost forgot Orange Dwarf stars in my previous post. They are cooler than our sun but are stable and last 17 to 70 billion years, and are about 12% of Milky Way stars. Add that to the 5 to 7 percent that are yellow dwarf stars, like our Sun, and that means at least 19% of the stars in the Milky Way 'could' theoretically support life. That's almost 20 percent. That's not too shabby a number in this scenario.

I agree with what I heard a physicist say, that "if an alien species had mastered interstellar travel, and had visited Earth, they would be so much more advanced than us that they could take over our world and we wouldn't even know it." That's a pretty sobering thought. I would tend to agree though. There's nowhere out in deep space where you can make a 'pit stop' if you need to fix a flat, or change your oil filter, lol, or do your routine maintenance on your spaceship. If you really think about the HUGE technological challenges traveling those HUGE light-year distances would entail, and the enormous 'good percentage of the speed of light' speeds that would have to be achieved to make it practical, any species that had mastered that would be even more ahead of us technologically than we are ahead of people living in biblical times. Meaning, their technology would appear as if it were magic to us, real magic.