That's a pretty misleading headline. The news article is about a cool art installation, in which an artist has used a deceased composer's DNA to produce electrical signals that are interpreted as music. Still cool, but it's not "composing music" in the same sense as the alive musician was composing music.
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
166 points (74.7% liked)
Technology
69299 readers
3937 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's about as close to composing as transcribing the twitches of someone with Parkinson's.
About as respectful as well, if the researcher is the person characterising this process as composing.
It seems to be the journalist presenting it as such, but in any case, I don't think the artists are suggesting it's equivalent to what the guy made when he was alive. It's an interesting artwork riffing off of the fact that the person whom the DNA belonged to was a musician. That also seems like a pretty disrespectful way to talk about people with Parkinson's.
I'm referring to completely involuntary movements... Characterising any involuntary, debilitating phenomenon as intentional or artistic is gross.
Characterising involuntary but normal phenomenon as intentional or artistic is maybe a little less gross, but still asinine.
I understand why you think it's offensive, that's fine.
I know what you mean; I think it would be hurtful to people with Parkinson's, but whatever, I luckily don't have Parkinson's so not much point arguing it.
Characterising involuntary but normal phenomenon as intentional or artistic is maybe a little less gross, but still asinine.
That seems like a very bizarre take. Isn't that a very common artistic device, to find creative interpretations of natural phenomena, and to imagine intention where there is none? I mean, art is subjective so maybe that's just your personal taste, but it seems like a strange thing to be offended by to me.
Interpretations are intentional, transformative etc.
Automating that is not.
How is it not transformative and intentional to reinterpret neurological signals as music?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Some brain cells cobbled together from stem cells that have his DNA. None of the life experiences that made his music. You could likely get similar results with the same technique using the DNA of any random person on the street.
Even Abby Normal?
You're telling me you used an Abnormal brain?
They grew a brain organoid from his donated blood white cells that they turned into stem cells. The brain organoid produces electric impulses because that's what brain cells do. They made something artsy out of those impulses. So it's completely unrelated to whatever experience the musician could have had. DNA doesn't store acquired skills nor life memories. They could do that with anyone's cells and probably get a similar result.
Yeah, this was cool until all the steps show it's not "his brain". It's a genetic facsimile.
Not even a facsimile, just a thing which shares the same genetic code and doesn't resemble his developed brain in any but the most basic ways.
. DNA doesn’t store acquired skills nor life memories
Assassin's Creed wouldn't lie to me would it?
Quite the exaggerated headline from the look of it.
Yeah, I always want to clean up the headlines, but apparently it's against the rules.
More like 'decomposing', amirite, guys?
Read it the first time as "composting"
The hard truth is that there are a lot of completely un-empathetic scientists out there.
Some of the shit I saw them doing to animals when I worked for Baxter still makes me sick when I think about it. And I only had to go into that lab a couple times.
It's just a few cells they created on a mesh, it's not like they're using a hunk of his brain.
Yeah and it was just a bunch of sedated live rats pinned to little trays with their brains exposed and a bunch of shit stuck everywhere into their bodies that I had to see while working on the lab computers.
I'm not going to get into an argument about whether there's value in animal research (I think there is) but there's some horrifying shit that comes with it, and I'm just pointing out that I've directly worked with plenty of scientists that are completely unfazed by that shit. So while it may be a few cells on a mesh now, they won't stop at that.
it is important to note that the article says that Alvin eagrly agreed to this experiment, and donated the blood for it. If that is true, then I don't see any ethical dillemma in here
That is an important point that I missed in what I read of the article before I got grossed out. Thanks. I'm still not sure about this line of research because if (when?) they do make something that achieves a level of sentience, consciousness, or even just the ability to feel, will it be able to signal to us that it is happy, content, in agony, mental anguish, etc? The thought of being trapped in that situation is terrifying.
no, for sure there are limits. if you cultivated a whole functional brain, for example, would be dystopic af
Shhhh! Don't interrupt him, he's decomposing.
This sounds like chatGPT with extra steps and body horror.
I genuinely thought this was an Onion headline.
Storm of lying clickbait titles today.
nervous laughter
Has anyone seen the show “Pantheon“? This is getting close to it.
view more: next ›