The AI is or at least will be better than its creators. That is how it is supposed to be. It might take some time though, but eventually AI will surpass humans in every thing it does. And it is not something that will take a long time until it will become reality.

 

An essential facet of truly great art is that it's the product of passionate (bordering on masochistic) human endeavour. Today's AI's are not even self aware i.e. nothing more than thoughtless learning machines. As far as i am aware there's nobody alive today who has the remotest clue how to program a digital computer to 'learn' how to feel pity, empathy, love etc.

Today's Artificial Intelligence is but an initial step toward self-aware Synthetic Intelligence, which is what the fantasists in hollywood love to portray, and is about as close to realisation in real terms as world peace and/or opportunity & dignity for the blighted masses.

 

Threat to the Music Industry?

While AI companies like to highlight the opportunities and new possibilities of their applications, critical voices are also stirring. For Jon Eades, Innovation Manager at Abbey Road Studios, AI is a double-edged sword: "I think AI will also hurt the music industry. It's like the Internet. On the one hand, it opens up new possibilities and has completely changed our world. But depending on where you were before the Internet era, it was either opportunity or danger," he explains in an interview with The Guardian.

Will composers no longer be needed in the future because an algorithm will do their job cheaply? What value will human creativity have in the future? Singer Taryn Southern, at least, doesn't feel that AI threatens her existence. Because she is certain that even highly developed applications cannot replace one thing: "When people make music together, there is a magic that I wouldn't want to do without."

Source: www.br-klassik.de/aktuell/news-kritik/musik-kuenstliche-intelligenz-computer-100.html

 

Last edited: Aug 27, 2022

'intellectual property' ... what a gas

 

nowadays, there are still struggles between performers and songwriters, those are often not same person entity, and AI will inevitably become another,

speaking of audio, speech recognition and speech synthesis is very real and very present, take a look at something like Google Translate which can do live interpretation translations between multiple people speaking different languages, or look at various online articles, tutorials etc.. for example news reporters and sound engineers, or podcast creators could be replaced by AI, just wait for what iZotope RX 10 shows off next month

 

 

Last edited: Aug 27, 2022

I believe this is the future, for better or worse.
We all want our idols to be immortal, and to always keep creating music and never die.
The same thing happens in movies, in TV series. Human beings, besides getting old and dying, sometimes want to earn more money and the production company doesn't pay them, so they end up not making another movie or abandoning a series, and therefore, this affects the audience that watches it. With the advent of AI robots, this will no longer happen, the series will be able to go on forever without the robot dying or quitting. Just like musicians, they will be eternal, as long as the audience consumes the product, these robots will always be there.

It is difficult and many of us completely refuse to be replaced by AI, but not for future generations, it is inevitable to go forward (for better or for worse).

Who wouldn't want to listen to Lennon again? or the Beatles never to get back together again? Of course, for us or many of us, it's crazy to see the Beatles in the form of robots playing on stage. But it won't be for future generations.
I can already imagine the robots giving interviews of their concerts.

Imagine a celerbity like Paul McCartney in robot (or whatever artist you imagine).
Then this famous AI will be able to sing your songs, many will be making songs so that they can be "hit" and be interpreted by these AI.

Suppose this AI, is called Michael . Michael is famous all over the world, his songs are listened by millions of people. Now many artists are making songs for Mr Michael to perform. And thinking out loud, it is possible that yes, the compositions, and the copyrights will be shared. Since it takes the man and the man of the AI.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2022

Thanks @Ryck for your story, here already the first prototype:

Watch Ameca the humanoid robot in its FIRST public demo

 

Last edited: Aug 29, 2022

It's really cool, although I would choose my past, of course, I stick with what I grew up with, but I admit it will be good. I know that science is also working on making artificial organs, and in the future people won't have to wait for a donor. that will be great.

Already imagining too much, I think that robots or AI, would turn against humanity if they become aware that they are living beings, that is, if they think they are in danger. As crazy as it may sound, our mind is like a computer, we respond to electrical impulses. If we see someone fall and get hurt our brain is telling us that there is danger, it is all information, information that the brain relates and says "no, this is not" "this is" "there is danger" "there is no danger". So, if a robot or AI could recognize certain information as danger, it would be a way to be conscious. I also understand that some robots are self-learning, they learn from information and can relate it. But well, these are just my crazy thoughts haha.

 

A good two years (only) have now passed since the thread was opened and the world has massively moved on.

The first legislative measures on the topic of AI in general and also on the issue of AI-generated music have now been introduced.
The EU has enacted initial legislation to regulate AI: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/topic/artificial-intelligence
The US Copyright Office has ruled on the copyright of music created with the help of AI https://www.copyright.gov/ai/

This does not mean that all questions about AI-generated music have been resolved, but at least the direction has been set.
In case of music copyright it seems that AI music can be copyrighted for a person, if he not only publishes the AI-generated music, but also makes his own artistic adaptations.

In addition, there are now mature AI projects and the results are sometimes surprisingly (or should I say frighteningly) good.
I heard some pieces that were at least better than elevator music.

How is your stress level in terms of competition from AI or AI stealing ideas/works now?

 

Last edited: Dec 31, 2024

Thank you @twoheart for your article and for the new current links to legislation. I think that large companies will be careful not to be sued, otherwise they would have to face high fines.

I think that criminals have recognized the potential of AI and will use it.

The probability that private users will steal other artists' music is high.
Why study music and work hard when others have already done it for you?

It will be exciting for me to see how all the platforms like YouTube, SoundCloud, BandCamp, Spotify will deal with AI and whether they can expose all the fakes and then block the stolen content.

 

So far, the only A.I. generated music that sounds like it might need copyrighting, Is literally stolen and morphed pre-existing copyrighted music. It's theft! SO, no.... not at all.. I don't believe that said music should even be copyright-able....

 

I have not heard any AI music that was obvious theft, any more than any other type of sampling. But we have probably been hearing a lot of AI generated content people have been passing off as their own work; in one form or another, already.

 

Exactly...they don't know even what is AI...

"Parliament also wants to establish a technology-neutral, uniform definition for AI that could be applied to future AI systems."
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topi...t-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence

 

If one wants to copyright anything that he/she/they made, that's only possible when you are a living person. The articles in the lawbooks are very explicit about that, it's an inseparable condition. Copyright however is very explicit about using the combination of chords, lyrics and toplines that sound very alike anything already copyrighted and existing and that's where AI is on a slippery slope because it always uses what has been to generate something 'new' (which is a mix/shake of what was there already). Comparative to what the heirs of Marvin Gaye do to almost any tune they hear that nears their catalog, to paint the picture. So if anything generated with AI comes near to what is recognizable as a previously copyrighted work, that's it: copyright infringment.(and probably right too, given the cirumstances under which it is 'made')

 

Yessir!
No human being really knows what an AI exactly is if you define "knowing" as at all times every state of every byte and every decision an AI makes is clearly comprehensible.
And that is already not possible with the status of AI far below AGI (regardless of what opeAI claims, they define a tiny subset of AGI as AGI imho).
When an AI is developed to the point (and I don't know if it will ever get that far) that it can perform all activities like a human being and physical aspects such as movements within the environment, changes of position and tactile influences are also possible, then an AI is likely as complex as a human being (as a biological system).
And who has ever heard of a human being doing or not doing things at any time that can be traced down to the last detail?
AGI will be the end of determinism.
It's the same phenomenon physicists had when they first found the quantum world. Nothing is exact when you go down to the very detail.

Yes, the EU parliament has not understood the real scope of what we are facing.

Nevertheless, it is right to consider at an early stage what rights and obligations should be imposed on the creators of AI and to what extent the uncontrolled spread of AI can be prevented.

Yes, you said it:the keyword is obviously.

However, I heard a few Suno pieces that reminded me extremely of existing musical works.
In fact, when I put the music into a YT video as a test, youtube did not find any similarity to such an extent that it would have refused monetization due to copyright infringement.

Maybe AI is just very good at changing existing music so minimally that it's not possible to identify an obvious copyright infringement

 

Last edited: Jan 1, 2025

This isn't a copyrighted thing...
for example, there are millions songs with the same chord progressions... there is even video

The Four Chords That Killed POP Music!

 

I don't think the law is interpreted that way.
If the law denies human authorship of AI-created materials, there is no authorship whatsoever for AI-creates materials.
If the day comes when the developers are artists, the knife makers will be shefs and killers and carpenters.

 

generally spoken, you can't copyright a sequence of chords, then copyright would be limiting makers. As I clearly wrote, it's always the combination of chords, topline (melodies) and (if applicable) lyrics that make a piece of music copyrightable. If a piece of music is so distinct that you can recognize it immediately (Beethoven's 5th opening chords, Beatles A Hard Days Night opening chord) then yes, even chords are subject to copyright, as exception to the rule.