I think you only have to listen to the creator of Karma's performances, to see where HE thinks its' strengths are. He is a synth wonk (not a bad thing, just its' own thing!) through and through.

I don't think Karma has the slightest idea how to adapt to real world rules for playing by humans. The rules are so complex, it's only recently that some arrangers (designed for the task) are starting to get a grip on guitar chord voicing and performance. And that is with a completely dedicated Guitar mode that re-voices EVERYTHING to correct, idiomatic playing, and it STILL doesn't come that close!

As Stephen points out in his demo, Karma is ENTIRELY based around arpeggiators, whether single note or polyphonic, rhythmical ones, but there's nowhere where he even alludes to how these arpeggiators can be constrained to real world rules. Let alone the fact that playing isn't, in real world music, arp or loop based anyway.

I think we should just be grateful that, for many things, there still isn't an adequate substitute for a real person! We remain too complex, to intuitive, too unpredictable to emulate. I can only pray it stays that way!

Karma, for electronic music, is groundbreaking. For real music, it is no better (just different) than what we already have, IMO. And its' creator has already spoken about his interest in adapting it to arranger-like concepts... None, zero, nada.

At least HE knows its' strengths... and weaknesses