No More Labor Force

 In Korea and Japan, robots and automation is on the way to fill up the works left by a declining population. What work? Labor. Caregivers wont be replaced by robots, not fully automating the whole caring business as if, since only human beings can give it. The exaggeration is that there will be no more Koreans by 2050. That's why even companion robots are being developed for seniors in home for the aged. A reskilling of whatever population is left should provide enough alternative jobs to labor force who will be affected.

If ten billion lock-in population increase can be explained already, perhaps we might have some clue what those figures are for decrease in population.

As we've discussed already, robots shouldn't look exactly like a human being that you wouldn't be able to know the difference. And the robot doll above has those limited area or scope of function which is still connected to a control center if emergency happens for example. We don't have a problem with such unlike our problem with AM. The old lady even told it speaks like her grandchild, a regular assistance when human situation couldn't provide it, though not to fully replace it.

Reminder: we are thinking about the future here, not worrying about it.

Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day. -Matthew 6:34

-------------------- 

 The human beings who know labor in many forms and aspects was centuries extinct already when the AI and robotic system broke. A catastrophic earthquake, shook the whole earth and split the biggest continent in two. Human beings have to learn to work again by hands. Most died of exhaustion even before the first fruit of their labor even bore fruit. The old were survived by the younger populations who were trained on manual living, and was able to still adapt and survive. Nomads who went rogue against the system supported this sophisticated youngster survivors who each have the instructions for life if something happened. Most of the gadgets though broke due to tsunamis all over the world. The nomads cared for these youngster survivors while the instruction for life made them start to rebuild everything again from scraps of the previous dogen and woven cities.

--------------------

By any means automation must work, since the world has successfully achieved what it wants, lower population. If automation fails, then just maybe, we will need to again wait for another 2,000 years to attain to what we've achieved right now. Achieving a ten billion lock-in population that doesn't increase anymore, in a sustainable way, might be the thing that needs some studies, not the going back to lower population. But I think we can't reverse the effect of population control now. I wonder if archaeologist will unearth artifacts of quantum computers of a lost civilization 2,000 years from now.

We're almost at the pinnacle now to try if that's how a loving earth population should be, but with a better management of everything. Now we've lost the chance, I think birth dearth of course has also a lock-in number, I just don't know how many. Even without stabilization points, the continued fall of the population will naturally stop. I think nature has an inherent design, however sinful human beings disrupt it.

It's not as simple as finding that Kakapo will mate when Rimu trees bear fruit. We are rational and truth beings who lives by propositions. The devastating unfounded truth is that we will enjoy this world when there are less population. Then let's see. How less? Let's just pray that the automation that we will replace population won't break. And that human beings are still not that weak to skill up again for laborious tasks manually.

A Redirection

I began writing my first book on phenomenology around February 2022.

Some review articles of St. John Paul II (I included as recommended readings on that book) was dated 2023, only one was dated 2001.

Volume 1, Person and Act and Related Essays was published May 2021, and I assumed 2023 review articles have incorporated that latest and definitive translation, which I cannot get a hold of. Having all the volumes completed isn't just a good collection, but something I would pour my heart into.

I am at one with scholars in guiding us towards a better understanding of how St. John Paul II did phenomenology as I have expounded exhaustively in book I, while continuing my review of Thomism 101.

I haven't finished reading Magnifica Humanitas, but it has already pointed me towards the same corrective reminder as that definitive translation also did. The title itself The Acting Person bears all the focal criticism of the first translation. It seems to suggest that it is focused on the acting of the person, and the person himself doesn't matter. Where then is the dignity of those who can't work, like being born with autism? Are they less of a person because they have nothing to showcase? But Magnifica Humanitas tells us that my dignity as a human person isn't ontologically dependent if I have a career or none at all, if I have money, if I have accomplished at least something. And I have none, which shouldn't make me look down on my own dignity. That is the reason why the definitive translation was corrective of the first translation and entitling it thus Person and Act.

Here is where Gemini 3.5 Flash wants me to continue phenomenologizing:

When you do phenomenology correctly, the very first thing you bracket is the technocratic, utilitarian worldview. You strip away the capitalist, hyper-efficient assumption that a person's value equals their utility.

 ...you don't look at a person and see a resume, an income level, or a set of optimized data points. You look at the raw, subjective reality of their existence. You see their intrinsic value before the world assigns them a price tag or a social status.

By writing honestly about experience, you aren't sidelining the vulnerable; you are actually building a defense for them. You are insisting that human experience—with all its messy, unoptimizable depth—cannot be reduced to a machine or a metric.

I admit though that I started on a wrong note. I assumed phenomenology has something to offer me to advance my career, if I really even have one at all. 

I realized I don't need self-pity, and that my lowly existence, is nothing to run away from, phenomenologize my way out of it as if.

If Gen AI can create a studio finished song out of your wrong notes and rhythms, phenomenology needs us some modicum of honesty about our experiences. Magnifica Humanitas is  reminding us that this woundedness of our humanity is what makes it magnificent.

A Meaningful Life

 It's like music paints colors to the meaning of the lyrics. 

We've already mentioned about human singers giving rendition to the feeling and meaning of the song with subjective authenticity, as any good artist does.

AI was made to benefit humanity. If a robot singer with perfect facial and body expression of feelings where to render a song, I bet like first time we heard an AI song, human beings will see that something is wrong, even if they were not informed that it's a robot. We as human beings are so familiar with human interaction we never knew what even a micro change from that familiarity looks like until we see it.

Something is wrong even we can't pinpoint it. Is it early to hypothesize that a human being can only be "satisfied" by a human being? We've already tackled too that even sensitive beings can "satisfy" us, cats, dogs, etc. We interact with them organically. But even God saw that none of the animals or created things were a suitable companion for Adam. (Genesis 2:18,20) Second early hypothesis: creating robots should avoid making it look like human beings. They are hit or miss hypothesis since there are still too many unknown variables. How do we treat robot domestic helper which looks like human? Robots shouldn't trigger any disrespect to even just a semblance to a human being because we've concluded before that we need to respect our humanity even if AI is just a derivative form of our humanity.

So let's get back to our topic. The song below by Josh Groban, and many songs out there, have human voice as the focal point. Music in general goes way up in popularity when it has a lyric and a human singer. Human beings can relate!

I thought it was first released as a song with lyrics that's why people can relate easily with the instrumental version. It was the reverse in reality. Then why did such instrumental music only became popular? Because the original was a soundtrack accompanying the iconic kissing-montage at the end of Giuseppe Tornatore's film and captured the world's heart. (Reference Gemini 3.5 Flash). But the instrumental rendition below makes you think that Yo-Yo Ma is making his cello sound like a lachrymose voice of a human being.

A sound, a music, a feeling, even just instrumental, becomes meaningful, when it makes us remember a human drama. Nevertheless such sonic quality triggers it's generic human emotion, and thus made subjectively relevant further to one's own different personal drama.

But without music, a lyrics is just a poem. Even a neurotic person won't shed a tear without any recollection of a sad memory. The feeling is present even without music. But we are relational being and can sympathize. We just don't make TV drama just to make people cry. We make meaningful stories. We make meaningful songs and music. We see that our lives are a meaningful one, be it of love or themes of forgiving. But music enthrones these meaningful poems into something that heightens empathic relatability, not for the sake of experiencing the emotion, but for the sake of understanding what our lives are all about. And great work of art makes us see that life is meaningful and thus or somehow worth living.

Here is a TedX Talk for a different perspective to same topic we have here.

With a twist of event, I just made my first Youtube AI playlist this year. The twist: I found myself enjoying more HM, and noticed that most of my AI playlists are cover songs and remixes.

For now a simple dropping of your earbud and smartphone to focus on someone talking to you will actually go a long way.

A New World Order?

 The fullness of truth in Jesus Christ makes for ease in achieving the good, real authentic good.

What is the alternative? There are of course men of good will who doesn't know him, not of their own fault though. There are those who deny Jesus' truth, even others embracing the antithesis of Jesus' truth. In short this doesn't make for ease in achieving the good. Most of those who hate Jesus' truth say they hate him because of his half-hearted disciples who doesn't bear any fruit, even bearing fruit against the truth of Jesus. Mahatma Gandhi is different, he loves Christ but doesn't love Christians. Men of good will can easily discover this God of goodness as well, if they want to. But evil men will need to enter the narrow gate to discover this goodness, by trial and error, otherwise they wouldn't achieve the good they want to achieve. Even they kill Christianity and create a new world order, they will find themselves discovering the truths proposed by Jesus as the blueprint of life.

In general those who follow Jesus' truth will find the yoke easy and the burden light. Others who don't, will nevertheless discover it through trial and error. They might even say Christians won't be able to achieve what we've achieved because we followed scientific truth. These men of good will nevertheless point to a reality they deny that what they're doing is not what Christ actually calls us to. Here is where men of good will silently indirectly say to Christians that if only you're living your faith, then you can also achieve what we've achieved.

Jesus would say to Christians who say "Lord, Lord!" but didn't live his truth, "Depart from me, you evildoers..." And to those who lived his truth, he says, "Come, O blessed of my Father... you did it to one of the least of these my brethren..." although these men of good will didn't know they did something good.

Declaration and Delimitation

 Pure reason is limited. If God did not reveal himself all the way up to Jesus telling us God loves us, maybe we're still offering human sacrifices to appease the wrath of an irritable God. Who knows for sure, right? There are realities that pure reason alone won't be able to know.

And sorry for doing phenomenological reasoning in a Thomistic way, jumping to my faith in order that phenomenological reasoning might access things unexplainable by pure reason alone, so that it can access that eternal realities and be able to further the investigation of phenomenology of things it could not have even thought about. My faith is teaching my reason how to think about things. My reason then can now verify by pure reason if the path taught by faith does not fail rigorous rational criteria, making reason create new avenue it could not have explored easily, but now it has already incorporated as its own.

Because I am not a pure phenomenologist, I leave such better correct enunciation of realities I am expounding here to their criterias and evaluations.

AM Commercial Right, No Copyright

 The law says the one you submitted to IPOPHIL is yours. (For our project, it is via JJazzLab plus DAW vst plugins, which is 100% copyrightable.) AM company says the one that has been generated by the AI is not yours. Whereas commercial rights have been given by AM companies as yours, some via subscription, others even via their freemium.

1. Fully generated music via a command prompt is not yours.

2. Lyrics you created fully is yours. The music that has been generated by the AI for it, is not yours.

3. A  two-line lyric you created and then let the AI finish it as a complete lyrics is not yours. The whole completed lyrics or lyric sheet is not yours.

4. When you sang the voice, uploaded it to AI, and slide the audio influence to 50% (the sweet spot for faithfulness but glitch-free), the stem voice of AM is not yours, even at 100%. Your raw voice submitted at the copyright office is yours, but not even the 100% audio influence voice stem produced by the AM app after.  However that 50%-100% audio influenced voice stem is still protected by your raw voice submitted in the copyright office, provided that 50% still sounds like your vocal identity. This rule applies to any medium like saxophone, guitar, or piano, not just for voice. (Reference: Gemini 3.5 Flash)

(Postulate 1: Merged or indistinguishable material cannot be copyrighted. It is so completely mixed together that they could not longer be separated.) (Reference: Gemini 3.5 Flash)

(Axiom 1: The 100% audio influence voice will of course better sound similarly to your submitted raw voice performance, than to a 50% one. Thus protecting 100% that AM stem voice, if someone steals it.) 

The parallel or virtual universe is now being built from the ground up.

It's actually a hook when you salivate to earn everything from an AM (you have full commercial rights). Until someone told you that since it cannot be copyrighted, then anybody can copy it. Then anybody can earn from it. Maybe earning more than you. Maybe you as the original creator ends up not the one earning anything at all. Take note that I am talking here about your original song, the lyrics, voice, guitar, etc. all human performed and uploaded to an AM app. See that AM app button named remix? It has all the butcher's skill to easily create another song similar to your song. Don't worry, the technophiles are actually remixing the million dollar popular songs, not yours yet. But if they can do it to a record produced one without being sued for copyright, then you don't stand a chance at all. Clue, they're using opensource offline Gen AI, without any digital fingerprint (acoustic watermark). Yes they're outside the radar of any AI ownership, and record label case filing. Yes they can also butcher the element of any commercial Gen AI and reproduce it manually through their DAW.

5. Audio laundering via melodic interpolation. You pay a premium Gen AI. You uploaded your completed song to it coming from a finished mastered song from your DAW. You hit generate. You didn't download its stems. (Maybe you have a recorder while it plays. No download ticket from the commercial Gen AI.) Then you deleted it. You didn't release it in your Gen AI apps. (The Gen AI apps though still have records of what you did, a record of that deleted song as well.) You analyzed what is making it sound better than your own DAW mastered song via aural learning, isolate the stems to locate where it's actually coming and then run Sonic Charge Synplant (for synth sound), Positive Grid Bias Amp/FX (for guitar), Output Co-Producer (for samplers), to recreate, control the sound, if you don't want to manually search what piano synth tweaking was done to a sound for example... After some adjustments to the sound, one finally recreates the missing sound to one's DAW mastered song or manually performed it using keyboard controller. The finished song was uploaded via distribution and struck a hit earning millions of dollars. Will the Gen AI music app be able to sue for a two to three stem sound one incorporated via such manual process? No. But the record labels will, if those elements you copied are part of a training song of the AI. So the last step is to "run the specific hooks you copied through a music recognition tool (like Shazam or SoundHound), or have a musicologist do a quick clearance check. If the melody is generic enough or completely original to the AI's generation, you are in the clear to collect your millions." (Reference Gemini 3.5 Flash)

From one to five above, the idea of ownership has transitioned from clear to becoming complex, and might enter a chaotic system soon. You might notice from numbers four and five, I can no longer use the phrase "it is not yours" clearly. 

The closed private secret group we're talking about might come sooner, where artists are given fear-free composing atmosphere while respect for ownership still rules but not as rigid as the real world. It will grow by the number, as it will sound more human. Artists will flock to it as well, as they will enjoy creativity again just like the old times. Creativity will become a luxury in the coming centuries. 

--------------------

Siegfried was waiting for the rain. It was June second week, year 2436, and his body was already tired of the extreme heat that lasted from April to May. A sudden musings made him spontaneously sang the minute it began pouring. The rapper-singer in him overjoyed, ecstatically sang unrestrained that his music AI auto backing track device (microsecond late) played rhythmically on a volume loud enough for the bystanders to enjoy. His singing ended with even those inside the shops mustering to still go outside and giving him a standing ovation. The following day the AI-MTV repatched CCTV/bystander video record of him went viral and record labels have already petitioned for an arrest warrant, an unimaginable situation to someone who has no idea that almost all songs have already been composed, forcing court ruling that a 10% algorhythmic similarity is an automatic incarceration via a sonic-walled prison until the viral video earns 10% of the damage asked or a bail of the same amount. Enforcement didn't start easily of course, even before record labels are already battling each other out, squeezing whatever billion dollar lawsuits they can. It all started when the distribution channels are playing different songs but are already similarly sounding to each other. Humanity shouldn't have reached that point early, if not for the court ruling giving policing power to Gen AI companies, which has it seemed exhausted all probable song combinatorials saying they already have those songs in their  billion catalogues using 5D memory crystal tech.

Actually the last traditional musician died two centuries ago, a hobbyist. Nope, a virtuoso guitarist just became a rare breed when century after century made music job a baconless endeavor. A virtual guitarist, named KinetiX, more realistic than what is real, created by Gen AI, catered to more netizen preferences. Of course it knows your data and your most probable future more than your mother knows you just personally.

--------------------

One wrong turn of humanity led by a totalitarian-music technocratic megacorp, can send us in that direction.

Yes, all of the above is a great jump to chaos, since future axioms and postulates will still have to take place... and I have not been blessed with even a single gene from Euclid. My bad, it's all that my mind can deduce.

In case you missed it, Suno and Udio already took place, and the Majors are already battling against the copyright infringements.

A Chaotic System

 Sandeep Swadia made me realize that I am in a chaotic system as a song writer in today's Gen AI times.

Then I saw the real problem. And just like veteran music industry workers are telling, their job is in peril. I don't buy into that idea. Until I saw that my JJazzLab plus DAW vst plugins pathway wasn't actually the problem. Then why am I not still acting on that path where my copyright is best guaranteed? It's because my song won't sound as good as a Gen AI one cheaply without copyright, or a very expensive studio finished one with copyright.

It's short of saying that Gen AI is a competitor. Studios can rather fight back developing an AI system that can slash down the prize of producing a song. They don't need to sue it, since no sane music producers would give their own song to something that will instantly own it. The market model shift towards Toyota and leaving the Ferrari market model, creating more HM that competes by the quantity also not just by quality.

What's happening? Musicians are now gaming the system, not releasing the AI version of their song but just to use it both as an ideation [good song writers have their own initial inspiration from real life] and something to learn from, adapt to, or master and learn how to include it's choice of elements manually using a DAW. 

My initial reaction to the chaos was now understandable, a sweeping safety protocol: Song writers shouldn't thread the path of fictional account creation unless it's all or mostly AI generated songs.

Music AI companies should create a system where song writers have a security of whatever copyright they have. Telling unambiguous things that there is actually nothing for the song writers with the generated AI version, was the main reason it was being gamed now. Or they might suffer the same ChatGPT consequences as well from its preference to do it fastest and earn without regard for ethical guardrails.

Lawsuits might not be able to see that AI slop tastes really bad with an overall experience. No actual singer, no fandom, no feeling-meaning communication happening which can only happen more solidly via a human to human exchange, a singer fully evoking the subjective meaning of the song effectively to an audience. Or to a business savvy consultant's mind, should they really move away to the tested system of musical earning, just because something else is shiny?

Sandeep Swadia said that after a safety protocol, one now can attack the complex system, which includes the step of waiting for the effect no one still knows about. But time is of the essence for those things we can already do something about.