Sure there is talk, but dig a little deeper and you won't find much substance. In the 70's AI researchers claimed it was 20-30 years away. It can be hard not to get swept away by the hype.

Things like Google Glass make me nerd rage. There actually needs to be a good reason for technology and Glass and things like holographic conference calling serve no real need. Although, the programming language choice of this message board is unfortunate it has actual value far beyond technology for the sake of technology.

From what I can tell from a quick read of that article, a human taught a computer how Bach's compositions were written and it uses those rules to mimic Bach to create something that Bach might have created. That is no different than the chess programs and the racist chat AI in terms of its ability to do things on its own, which is basically nothing. It is a neat program and complex but it can't write completely original works in any given musical genre.

It is a tightly focused "AI", like I mentioned before.

The headline is a red herring. "Will human composers soon be obsolete?". That program does nothing to obsolete musical composers, unless all compositions going forward are based on Bach.

The programmer could also train it to write instrumentals that sound similar to one of my favorites, Nine Inch Nails. Getting it to write lyrics that could pass as Nine Inch Nails? That is a problem harder than writing music. That is a ton of work just to mimic two musical composers.

Generalizing it to create any kind of music on demand? Get it to recognize that what it wrote is good or not? That would be a massive decades or centuries long undertaking with failure the most likely outcome.

They can't do it with music, like I explained above.

They are mathematical concepts. P is Polynomial Time and NP is Non-deterministic polynomial time. I think it is going too far afield but here is a description of the problem.

Technological progress in the past 30 years has advanced further, than I suspect will progress in the next 30 years. Why? Because we are hitting physical barriers to producing computer hardware. The density of transistors on processors, in RAM, etc are reaching a limit that the laws of physics won't let us go past. In 2000 people thought CPU's would hit 10 Ghz but the CPU frequencies haven't got near that and haven't increased in 5-8 years. They are just making multicore which can increase computing power when the software is written for it. Unless totally new methods and materials are created to make hardware, progress will be mostly limited to software which is handicapped by computing power and that pesky NP and intractable problems.

For a lot of problems, even increasing computing power by 10x or even 1000x still makes those problems impracticable.

Self-study is never pointless. Even if it isn't tied to a degree or job it has an intrinsic value that can enrich your life. If I were allowed to have more than two minors I would have also received a minor in art history, something about as far from my major as you can get but they were some of the most personally fulfilling courses I ever took. I have the artistic skills of a orangutan after a three day bender but those courses opened my eyes to a new world that I barely knew existed.

Knowledge, however it is gained greatly expands your worldview and that improves your life, thus it has value.

You honestly think that if every job that you could be hired for went away because of automation your life would have no meaning? The value of your life is that you spend a good chunk of your day working for less than you should(I don't recall reading what kind of work you do but most jobs underpay) and at the same time make a richer person than you even more rich?

That is the measure of a life? Are you sure you really feel that way? Why? I think that is a more productive avenue of thought instead of worrying over what might happen 30 years from now.

I hope that didn't offend you but I wanted to put it in the most stark and plain way as possible.

Humans have adapted to lots of changes since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

I am not nearly as old as being a grandfather might imply. I am 47. No, I didn't think you were being rude.