Music, Machine and Human Relationships.

1 Reply Jonny Hankins

Following on from my last post about Error 0xHUMAN: System Overdrive, I wanted to introduce another music project that plays on the intersection between AI and musicianship. A new work by composer Zeno van den Broek premiered at the Gaudeamus Festival in Utrecht on 10 October with AI powered drum robots developed specifically for the show.

The robots are responsive, learning from the music as it is played by humans. They can develop their own ideas as well as respond to the music that they are emersed in.

This is a step away from playing with a pre-programmed machine, at which point the musicians are slaves to the rigidity of technology, as the technology can influence the sound produced itself.

Another aspect that I find interesting is that the musician has developed a way of communicating with the robots using gestures, very much as we ‘live’ musicians do between each other. And the robots have a light system that they themselves can use to communicate with those surrounding them. They might want to make a change in the structure or sound for example.

The robots can ask for the materials that they play to be changed (maybe from wood to metal), and they can make these requests whenever they ‘want’. The timing of requests changes too, with changes requested more or less frequently at different points by different players.

There are a lot of similarities here with the Error0X:Human project. The line between AI and machine production and human production is blurred. AI is an artistic tool that might also be seen as having its own agency. Both projects raise lots of questions about art, authorship and creativity.

There is an article in the Dutch newspaper Trouw available in which the band members (the human ones) talk about their experience. One of the aspects is that the robots have names and really aren’t spoken about as if they were machines, but as band members. They have gone beyong machinery and into something that has agency. It’s a lovely article to read.

And if you can get to Bucharest on 20th September my colleague Luca Severino is bringing the Error0X:HUMAN project to a new public in a new format…. See below, on full screen.

Neither Intelligent, Nor Artificial

1 Reply Jonny Hankins

On 10 May 2025 I visited and participated in the NINA festival (Not Intelligent, Not Artificial). The festival was dedicated to thinking about the various uses of AI within the arts.

The talks were fascinating, as were the installations, and I was fortunate enough to perform myself as part of Error 0xHUMAN: System Overdrive.

This music project involves using AI to create music which is performed with a live drummer and human robot. The show aims to raise questions about the human/machine relationship. Where does the machine begin and the human end? Where does art begin and end?

AI is used regularly in music production, but its use to create music that is then performed and released (and used to generate income) brings a host of questions, including about the right to royalties and copyright. Not to mention musicianship, the rights and wrongs of third party creativity, possible job losses within the industry, increased efficiency leading to lower payment for musicians working commercially, the list is long.

And how does it feel to be a musician who performs through AI? And most importantly, what does it sound like?

You can find out by watching the video, and please comment.

Neuralink’s brain-computer interfaces: medical innovations and ethical challenges

2 Replies Jonny Hankins

I have just read a short article called Neuralink’s brain-computer interfaces: medical innovations and ethical challenges, authored by Andrea Lavazza, Michela Balconi, Marcello Ienca, Francesca Minerva, Federico Gustavo Pizzetti, Massimo Reichlin, Francesco Samorè, Vittorio A. Sironi, Marta Sosa Navarro and Sarah Songhorian.

You can find it in the open access publication Frontiers in Human Dynamics, and it is part of a series of 10 articles that appear in a collection titled Socio-Legal, Ethical, Technical and Medical Considerations on Neuroprivacy and Brain-Machine Interaction Technologies in the era of A.I.

The abstract summarizes the authors’ positioning:

Neuralink’s advancements in brain-computer interface (BCI) technology have positioned the company as a leader in this emerging field. The first human implant in 2024, followed by subsequent developments such as the Blindsight implant for vision restoration, marks a significant milestone in neurotechnology. Neuralink’s innovations, including miniaturized devices and robotic implantation techniques, promise transformative applications for individuals with neurological conditions. However, these advancements raise critical clinical, ethical, and regulatory questions. From a clinical perspective, BCIs show potential in addressing severe disabilities, but the long-term effects, safety, and usability of these devices remain uncertain. Ethical concerns focus on informed consent, patient autonomy, and the implications of integrating BCIs into human identity. The bidirectional nature of Neuralink’s devices introduces privacy risks, highlighting the need for stringent oversight to safeguard sensitive neural data. Furthermore, the company’s initial lack of transparency, such as delayed trial registration, has drawn criticism from the scientific community for deviating from established norms of research ethics. Regulatory challenges also emerge as BCIs intersect with frameworks governing data privacy, medical devices, and artificial intelligence. The lack of a cohesive legal framework for neurotechnology underscores the importance of developing comprehensive standards to balance innovation with the protection of fundamental rights. Finally, philosophical questions about human identity and agency arise as BCIs blur the boundaries between mind, body, and technology. As BCI technology advances, it is imperative for the scientific community, policymakers, and society to collaborate in addressing the opportunities and risks posed by this transformative innovation.

Beginning with a brief history, the article describes clinical, bioethical, neuroethical, legal, psychological, philosophical, and enhancement aspects of neurotechnological development, with questions of responsibility in innovation running throughout. The authors guide the reader through discussions around risk, cost and benefit, privacy, transparency, the protection and advancement of human rights, regulation, the influence of AI on neurotechnological developments, the primacy of thought over action, posthumanism (the creation of human-machine hybrids), human enhancement, and access for all of such technologies.

This well rounded and easy to read document is an ideal starting point for anyone interested in these fast-moving developments, and is free to read and download here.