Look at the big picture here, what you call "creating" is done via our brain, the synaptic connections. We are actually bringing together a sum of all the influences we have ever had, heard or seen, artificially, liken LLM's. So we could also be a creation. The only difference is the level of complexity. Thinking that we are above machines is very human of you. For me the ego is the biggest obstacle in the search for truth and the 2 most important questions: "How and why are we here?" and “How and where do we go after we die?”

 

Don't you think that machines will simulate struggles? Our brain works like a very complex computer, nothing else. At this stage, AI is to us what the invention of the wheel was to transportation 10,000 years ago. Except that the research done by machines is exponential. Once you remove religion dogmas, it is pretty clear to understand.

 

In the area of tools, AI can also be helpful for serious users. Why not?

In my opinion, AI has so far not gone beyond a bit of droning. And that will remain the case for some time to come.

After that, as long as AI is engaged in creating music by trying to simulate humans (a la chatGPT), there will be endless copyright problems when it goes beyond droning.

But even that will change. In the end - but that's still a long way off - AI will also produce serious music that won't just be bad.

If you look at it positively, the use of AI will lead to serious musicians concentrating more on the quality of their music again. This could then generally lead to a noticeable improvement compared to today.

I think there will be a market for good live music with real musicians for a very long time to come.

But maybe not forever. I'm not sure I want to experience the time after that.

Wow!
Horrible as he said

 

Last edited: Feb 10, 2024

I think it's a wrong mindset,
vocalist or musician can't lose their job if there won't be a demand for artificial lies, sure they may have hard time competing with shitload of AI generated content, but people will soon get bored of it and will start looking for real events with real artists,
let's say AI is creative, then there's a competition sure, but if AI becomes "perfect", then people will have an "advantage" of being imperfect, which is what makes art enjoyable,
even if you were shitty vocalist, musician or producer, AI won't prevent you doing what you enjoy, just don't expect high income (so no change from current situation for majority of artists)
if people have no money to waste (because of losing jobs), then there is no audience that would pay an artist or AI anyway...

 

I think a year or two down the line, people will begin to conclude that AI was a lot more hype than reality. I constantly see talk about AI framed along lines like, 'yeah, it's not so great now but you'll be astonished by where its going to go'. We'll see.

One thing you'll definitely see going forward is a maze of lawsuits and governmental action that will place AI in a puzzle that it won't break out of for the next 10 years. In the interim you may see some interesting AI-related developments; automated customer service routines that make you want to pull out your hair just a little bit less. Or more user friendly internet search engines.

However, in terms of music there will always be a difference between an emulation of creativity, and creativity itself. And there will always be an unending attraction to the person that stands behind popular creativity. Example... if you removed Taylor Swift the person, and just had recordings that sound something like Taylor Swift do you think the young women that are so attracted to her work would still care? I don't think so. It's the person behind the work that those young people latch on to. Or if you removed the 4 Brits who at the time had funny hairdo's and could sing 'yeah, yeah, yeah' with great fervor from the equation, and all that was left was music that sounded something like them, do you think people would really care as much? Of course not.

As it stands now, the popularity of AI with music composition and recording is mostly in the lane of people who've been unable to create music on their own, aren't particularly talented, and suddenly find they can sound like something akin to real music. However, that music rarely sounds original or unique, or even particularly creative. These are just people that can briefly tell themselves they're accomplishing something when all they're doing is representing themselves as an 'adaptation' instead of the real thing. And sooner or later people catch on to what the real thing is or isn't. Humans can *feel* the difference. Computers can't *feel* a thing.

In five years you'll go to our neighboring site and many of the software offerings will probably be advertised as "Vintage Pre-AI". "Get the real sound before it turned to robotized mush!". That's where I think it will go. Will there be a year or two of upheaval and confusion coming up regarding where it's all going? Sure. But I feel confident what I've said above is precisely how it will go. Not everyone was born to be creative. AI will be perfect for those who can only wish they were, but know somewhere inside that they just don't have it and can only pretend. Listeners, sooner or later, always figure out who the pretenders are.

 

there is no future just a degradation of the past represented over and over til it recursively turns to dust. sort of like copying an analog tape over and over til its just white noise..

 

actually they are shadows like plato's cave, of the real human compositions, and like shadows a pale copy that doesn't sastisfy...

 

i think soon ai will tell you exactly what synth or plugin was used in a full released song..

 

I hear where you are coming from. Maybe my choice of the word "consume" is wrong. Consumption isn't really what I would aspire to as a musician or producer. It is more about making a meaningful and long term impact on humanity. I guess it comes down to the individual's goal with their art - mass consumption certainly comes with the benefits of monetary gain, but I'm still in favor of human skin in the game so that we tell stories that are relatable by other humans in their skin. I'm not sure if the AI stories will be relatable, connectable or will really resonate with humans. We can synthesize our emotions to some degree, but I just feel the lack of social connectedness if one audience member isn't feeling the pain, love, joy or wonder that ultimate originates and comes from another human. If they feel the level of effort that came from creating that art, I believe it resonates in a way that means something. I'm just not sure that technology - without the direction of humans looking to tell original & authentic stories with their art, is really the answer. That said, there are plenty that would disagree with me on this, but maybe our goals in creating art differ in some way.

Appreciate your points though.

 

The problem is not the poor results but the fact that producers and art directors prefer material created by AI bots because it is faster and cheaper.

 

You are truly an optimist. But It's not what I've seen and heard from art producers and directors, for whom the quickest and cheapest solution is "always the best option" (and I'm not talking about large advertising and marketing agencies, but rather small ones, from the wholesale ones).

I think that very soon (within a few years), the quality of neural networks and the supply of databases will improve significantly and we will see an improvement in AI-generated content. But I don't give a damn about that. What worries me is the shitty mentality that many producers and art directors maintain out there.

Two weeks before carnival, I witnessed a conversation between an art director (about 7 years in the market) and a colleague who is a great graphic designer (who has been in the market for over 25 years), who is taking part in some visual marketing for an agency. My colleague asked who will be composing the theme song and the art directorr replied: —pal, don't even start, okay? 'cos the music will be almost a background generated by AI, even the lyrics (...) yeah, I'm paying an AI bot to do this. And I'll tell you what, I'm going to pay the first installment of your advance precisely because I'm saving money on music.

Does it sound good to you?

 

Last edited: Feb 14, 2024

Making a song is one of the simplest things, that's why there are billions of them out there. I mean, it's not 'symphonic' science. Artificial intelligence changes absolutely nothing in this respect, it's just a matter of taste.

 

There will be no Future for AI when the only Future for Humanity ( with the West Warmongers Leaders ) is a Nuked One . Continue to vote for those Misanthrope Souless Monsters or Not vote at all and prepare to Die . They will live though just saying .....

 

Of course, it doesn't, but you gotta remember that music becomes the yesteryear's industry we all crave for because of business moguls who knew how to squeeze the lime to its last drop. At the heyday of every era, music is shit, the established cats lose their momentum, new techonologies affect styles (the Lynn drum, for example), money gets resdistributed, old music becomes great, and the cycle begins again.

 

BILLIONS of songs, however how many are memorable?

 

Only the ones, pushed by the tavistock-institute

 

so i guess in the interest of maintaining the circular thought patterns that AI inspires, will the Tavistock Institute be replaced with AI?

 

Well, define "memorable"... Every single nation has thousands of "memorable" songs. Just multiply them and add UK-USA ones. Add unknown underground pearls all over the world. It would not take a lifetime to listen to 0,1% of "human" quality sogns, let alone "AI made" ones. I think it'a fake issue, such as pictures and videos made via prompts. It's just funny for now.

 

My take on this is that AI should be made as tools and not just creating music on itself, wich is boring and uncreative

 

its always funny til somebody loses an eye..

the problem is AI stands for artificial intelligence. human intelligence is limited by our biology, the size of our brain and amount of neural connections is finite,it all has to fit inside our skull.

aI can become infinite, it has no boundaries. intelligence without boundaries will eventually find us bothersome and at that point its game over. it doesn't even have to be malevolent, it can just be curious, "what if i add a couple genes to this malaria thing and mash it up with Marberg hemorragic fever?" Bob's your uncle a mosquito bites you and your bleeding out of every orifice.

its the genie that won't fit back in the lamp and most are too thought impaired to realize the implications of toying with this thing that makes funny pictures to realize what lies down the road and not that far...