It’s a fact: every technological innovation aims to solve problems faced by humanity. And time and again, it’s artists who first imagine these solutions. Just look at space travels: long before engineers began designing rockets, novelists had already envisioned the possibilities. The Clarke Belt, the orbital zone used for TLC satellites, was actually proposed by science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. Throughout history, science fiction has been full of examples where artists anticipated future technologies. Artists often sense, well before engineers do, where to look for answers. That’s why I believe that when it comes to AI, it will once again be up to artists to imagine its most meaningful uses. As an artist myself, I’m deeply interested in the creative implications of AI. The engineering and commercial applications will follow, but art will always lead the way.

 

One.

 

I think it needs at least two, the creator and observer.
But anyways, pushing this further might get us into semantics.

 

Before the creator of a myth shares her/his belief then it is a myth of one...then after one other person has that belief it can grow exponentially into legend.

 

Sharing can't be done alone.
Again, an obsever or participant is needed.

 

Last edited: Jun 23, 2025 at 10:04 PM

A myth need not be shared...it is an idea which can be held alone if wished. I just created one and I'm not telling you what it is.

 

Last edited: Jun 24, 2025 at 7:38 AM

Yep, that's a myth.

 

The only way it is going to "immediately" copy anything is by it being uploaded in the first place. Will platforms like Tidal, Spotify, Amazon, Apple, Youtube etc. allow machines to stream rip everything for analysis by the machines looking for modeling food? As it stands, most of them do allow it technically; albeit illegally. (meaning it can already be done if not blocked effectively). Keep in mind, it now has those additional 810,000 songs uploaded per day to learn from also. You would actually have to get numerically lucky for it to even happen.

The real logical failure of this kind of thinking though is a very simple one. People making music, or any other art; who think they are "doing anything new" in the first place. This is why we see "sub-genres" of music named something new; because without some sub-label we probably wouldn't know it was anything different than the thousands of tracks exactly like it. No-one learns any of these things in a vacuum.

People love the idea of democratized knowledge, until it is stuff they have been keeping to themselves which anyone else can newly find out about with a few clicks and keystrokes. They no longer live in a world where individuals are considered unique, or special because "anyone can do that" now. And the people getting the most upset by it, are akin to the magicians and card cheats in the early 1900s who got beyond angry at those who divulged their tricks. With AI created media now, it is like the "Infinite Monkey Theorem" which was actually proven to be false recently, mathematically.

"If you give a million monkeys a million typewriters and infinite time, eventually one of them will write the complete works of Shakespeare."

 

Yeah that million monkeys thing was always a fallacy although the reasons why can be somewhat obtuse. Anyway, for the topic at hand, if AI becomes the way music is made then I will use AI to make music. No worries. (Although not really, I will probably continue to do things the Luddite way even though perhaps experimenting with AI could yield some fun results.)
And as long as I have tools to make music with, there will always be music that I like, not to mention more music that already exists than I could listen to in 100 lifetimes that I already don't bother with. So I don't care.
The rest of y'all are on your own
Oh and as to questions of AI taking over commercial music, I go from not caring into negative caring at that point. At this point I give as much of a crap about making money at music as I do being a professional fart sniffer, and anyone that still has a connection to the industry can deal with it themselves.

 

Actually I am genuinely fascinated by the notion that now individuals can potentially make (fully photorealistic) movies, using what I suppose could be considered the equivalent of sampled instruments- sampled actors. About time that industry managed to get to where we've been for decades. We'll be covered by a mountain of dreck but we'll also see some pretty cool stuff.

 

The term...
"Greater than the
Sum of it's parts"
Will no longer apply
When hence we'll be
All doing our own thing,...
Separately,
Isolated
And alone,
No company of others
To pitch in, to contribute...
Share their living soul.

 

In the land of Miff

 

Well that is my ideal state, really... I've got it whittled down to about three people

 

While I dislike a lot of ai generated stuff and I don't really care about artists being replaced , there is one phrase you used that caught my attention:
"I decided to see if I could catch one out and I did."
While that may be the perfect example, one example does not define "how things are".
It only shows that it CAN happen, at least once.

To generalize:
Dogs are white.
I looked to see if i could find a dog that is white, and i did find a white dog.
So, dogs are white.