This is very interesting, scientist predict in a short period of time our brains are gonna get smaller, thanks to the confort and technological improvements by the day to day routines.

That's a judgment, a copy can be way better than the original, just look at the product cicle curve, always decline, as life.
jet is a mistake i wanna write "yet"
Yah i am babbling, love the chatter, like the culture of forums and open debates.

Yeah, third time you cut the wire, you have my atention

Both, my hart in half, i want attention as an artist, and money as a businessman.

Yeah,may be they wont have more intuition, but may be more knowledge, and perfection. -Someone is gonna create the Artificial-Intuition. May be quantum computers if they finally arrive?

I create music, because is my mission, my purpouse, and where I belong.
The think is not important if I care, (AI) is something in progress. Where is going to end? If in this particular case of "music" AI would be able to surprise also the more skeptics.
For me, it is clear than in pictures, is doing an amazing job. In music, I can see the difference, but may I am wrong.

Imagine Ai integrated in all DAWs, that shorts the time of producing by 100x
Or autogenerated songs, at a click.
All options. where is the line?

This is not a law, law's are incoming soon, but..

From https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10922:
Who Owns the Copyright to Generative AI Outputs? Assuming some AI-created works may be eligible for copyright protection, who owns that copyright? In general, the Copyright Act vests ownership “initially in the author or authors of the work.” Given the lack of judicial or Copyright Office decisions recognizing copyright in AI-created works to date, however, no clear rule has emerged identifying who the “author or authors” of these works could be. Returning to the photography analogy, the AI’s creator might be compared to the camera maker, while the AI user who prompts the creation of a specific work might be compared to the photographer who uses that camera to capture a specific image. On this view, the AI user would be considered the author and, therefore, the initial copyright owner. The creative choices involved in coding and training the AI, on the other hand, might give an AI’s creator a stronger claim to some form of authorship than the manufacturer of a camera.

You love machines, and you know it!

It is more a tandem

But of course, they will never have a soul, whatever is a soul

 

Last edited: Dec 10, 2023

The opposite is very possible. No one is obligated to declare how they made their music. If it was made with AI, it might be kept secret and copyright protected, major label or not.

 

Do you know what the best tool is? The human hand. With your hands, you can do infinite things, which is why there is no tool as complex as the human hand. Therefore, an AI is in the same situation; it is a tool that will never replace the human in everything, even in music. It is and will be just another tool. Times change, and new things come that seem absurd to us, like it seemed absurd to my grandmother that a keyboard could generate a rhythmic track. However, the art of the human will continue, in a different way, but it will continue.

 

"AI will replace them for the better' - AI has no taste, imagination, inventiveness, or emotions. It matters even if you are creating mosaics of musical phrases or a potpourri.

 

To dispel any illusions about AI's precision, punctuality, and other capabilities, here is an excerpt from my conversation from earlier today:

 

You are right, AI have no taste, but I have my own..
I said "the better" I should have added, in my opinion.
The phrase should have be "Ai will replace them for the better in my opinion"
Sorry, my English still lacks some subtlety.

Yes, taste, imagination, inventiveness, and specially emotions, matters. But so many people make empty music. So, no, not all human "making music" is irreplaceable by AI.
That's what I meant.

 

It is very interesting idea and effective way for “creating” things surely. But all that AI can do is nothing more than the human has done. The whole its database is based on human input. All resources are taken from existing man-done creations. Even AI itself was created by men. It is just a programme, however very sophisticated. When computers were introduced in the previous age everybody thought that they would replace people at work. Can it replace people in creating music? Definitely it can create a new Chopin-like track but only when it would be given all Chopin’s music to recalculate meticulously all details, remix and mashup. It can be helpful, anyway.

 

I do not know why someone completely disagrees. I would not say I disagree, but you are definitely missing some variables...

• 1. It depends on "what" pieces - if you created and performed them yourself, that is, played them, the AI cannot mimic you perfectly. It can emulate and possibly make it perfect but no human is perfect, hence it's robotic and machine-like.
• 2. No Artistic choice is limited if a human being places no boundaries on themselves. People like Parker, Coltrane and Stravinsky who broke rules like minor 9ths on Orchestral music and more would never have existed. No machine can create at that level of imagination because it is completely determined by the human being's imagination.....When mainstream pre-Bop musicians first heard Charlie Parker, they said it sounded like Chinese music (in the history books). In case you have not noticed, many programmers are NOT A-Listers. They are B,C and D listers. They do not have the imagination and performing skills of the A-listers or the experience. They rely on the information fed to them by others.
• 3. A.I will never do it better. If you believe that, why are you bothering performing still other than for fun? A.I is only as good as the person who uses it and anyone who knows anything knows that and so do you. I am surprised by your comment actually because you are a good musician and it seems out of character.

 

Exactly, it's there to be cost effective solution and music that is irreplaceable is not part of that ecosystem anyways, so ones who will reach for AI will do it to get something faster and more cost effective than paying someone else to do it.

Someone posted one site where AI makes generic library music and even I would rather generate that, than spend a minute doing it, he does that generic thing so good, it's mater of time when media/stock library musicians will extinct. I was freelancing for a multimedia company that only contacted me after they couldn't find anything for free and their demands about the work exceeded the amount they were willing to pay, not even mentioning how vague their descriptions of what they want were, you need to develop special sense to deal with that people... than constant revisions and all that... those same folks now can get huge mileage out of AI, even going with vague descriptions and all that, eventually it will spit out something they like faster than someone on the verge of suicide on another side.

Than this You Tube stock video influencers, hertz heeling and all that, AI is right up their alley, for generating everything from music to video.

 

While this is correct, usually the composer/writer is mentionend. If in times of A.I. it's not, that would be at least suspicious.

 

Well, sorry for the intrusion, but here are some interesting points. Initially, you say that AI will never do it the same as a human because humans are not perfect, and AI would do it perfectly. Well, it could do it randomly and with imperfections too if this AI is programmed that way. Then you say that humans are influenced when composing by emotions, situations, perhaps memories, etc. Which is true, and AI couldn't do that. If we take a moment to speculate a more distant future, AI could also be influenced by "memories" (a database with experiences of other users, drawings it has created, etc.). And the question of whether AI can do something better or not is subjective, in fact, among humans, it is. You and I could create a version of a song and then ask others, 'Hey, which version is better?' and we would likely have different opinions on what is 'better.' I could also use as an example who the 'best' singer or 'best' composer is, etc.

 

"A.I." isn't and won't be an entity like people think. It is processes, functions, tasks etc. that are currently taking workers' jobs, smashing costs and prices and that consumers are already becoming dependant on. See, A.I. processes are taken into account for budget projections already. If you run a small business, you know you can rely on a text generator to write simple business emails and don't need an employee or private contractor for that anymore. If you do feel that need (say you're a "bad prompter"), you will pay less for that extra human factor than you would have paid for a proper secretary 5 years ago, but those "quality control" jobs won't last long either. That's done, it has already changed and will not be reverted; on the contrary, it will keep accelerating.

One can say, that's technology, of course. Take compressors: they took the jobs or a bite of the salaries of people who were in charge of level control in radios. Other jobs were created because of compressors, that's for sure. But I think A.I. is a different animal, and won't create jobs (the idea of a "prompter" has been ludicrous from day 1).

The thing is: if A.I. ever does take over, it will be under a human master, and there lies a very real, foreseeable danger.

 

I voted the third option too, no and never an AI will be able to do that. Doubting too, and more as something I believe, than a rational thought.

Better is a word overused in this thread. I'd should choosen: Could AI create music AT THE SAME LEVEL as humans, for the question of the poll. (Can't change it now)
I know the theme is subjetive. But a lot in life is subjetive, and a matter of choosing and oportunity.

Wich burguers are better, macs or b kings? Both are of the same quality, both are interchangeables, like pepsi or coca-cola. Now, humans has the monopoly of music, like coca-cola or levis at the beginning. They (the leaders) asked in past about their competitors, to consider them as rivals, or aliates, or just nothing to worry about.

 

Last edited: Dec 11, 2023

There will be tools to fake the tools that proove that this audio was AI generated, hope in sister site.

 

You know, I believe that sometimes, to gain a perspective on the future, we must look to the past because, from my point of view, everything tends to happen again, but in different ways. About 100 years ago, people in factories did almost everything by hand—packaging, sealing, checking, etc. There were very few machines, and when technology advanced significantly, machines emerged that replaced various jobs, simplifying labor and time. At that time, society thought that all jobs would be replaced by machines, envisioning factories filled with machines working alone and only one person controlling all those machines—something similar to what you suggest. However, in reality, it didn't happen that way because we couldn't see the future.

While those people with traditional jobs lost employment, new job opportunities emerged with technological innovation, such as web developers, software developers, and companies providing soft technology services, which either didn't exist or were minimal before. So, I believe something similar will happen with AI. We can't see it because we don't know exactly what, but it will transition into new professions. Drawing parallels with the past.

 

Geez, shades of Milli Vanilli! Misrepresenting what they did and didn't do on recordings didn't end so great for them.

 

 

Last edited: Dec 11, 2023

Hold on, that did happen. It didn't happen as if an entity called "the robots" took over; factory robots are indeed prevalent in many fields and are indeed controlled by people. The economical expectations of our current society depends on the manufacturers of these robots doing their job (otherwise cars would be more expensive, less reliable or what have you). It's easier to see that transformation in farming. The amount of food we are able to produce nowadays would be a fiction for 1923 commodity standards.

Now, how much power do these robot manufacturers have? Well, not little. If the whole chain (including maintenance, support, logistics, supply etc.) went on a global strike, society would change and probably cave. Of course that is a silly scenario... But I don't think this amount of power is comparable to the power that A.I. will grant to its masters, in the long run.

In any case (even if there is competition between A.I. developers, as there is, of course, a lot of the audio tools we use is "A.I.", like it or not), jobs have already been taken, salaries have already been cut and I am highly sceptical of sufficient new jobs being created on account of A.I. Depopulation and U.B.I. are already being implemented.

 

that's what these things are, at this time at least....glorified super search engines. what they output is from what they cobble together from what humans put on the internet and then reguritate in a different form.

 

Sure, if I pass, but I mean that at the time, people thought that everything would be replaced by machines. That is, imagine a chocolate factory that produces chocolates with just one human pressing a button. Now, scale it up, and you have AI, with many people thinking that AI will completely replace humans. These are difficult scenarios to imagine, but what I mean is that if we go back to the past, we see that it wasn't the catastrophe of machines completely supplanting humans. It was probably terrible for those people who had been in a profession for maybe 20 or 30 years doing the same job, perhaps sealing a package of cookies. But it wasn't like that for humanity. While those job positions no longer exist, simultaneously, there are other jobs that didn't exist before, for example, "installing internet in your home." But at that time, who would have imagined that something called the internet would exist and open the door to so many job opportunities?

The point is that I believe something similar will happen with AI. I don't know what exactly because I can't see the future, but if I base it on the past, AI will likely take up many "jobs," but new ones will emerge from something that is yet to come. As the saying goes, "Nothing is lost, everything is transformed