Where did I said that, responded to your claim that your paycheck will remain the same and that AI advancement won't influence that, you clearly mixed up responses you prepared for some other member.

For now it's just that, tomorrow, I doubt it will stay just quirky little copilot, we aren't talking about new instrument or plugin here, so someone will find a way to make it work for him, we are talking about supercomputer that will spit out better jingles in matter of seconds for peanuts and become your competition. I have no doubt that you will try to do that on your own and sell people that results as your own, but it will affect your prices, because you aren't the only one that have access to it and you aren't the only one that is doing just that. it's not like nobody is developing it to become that, cost effective solution to replace you, here, if you missed response from other member:

You have naive perception of future based on current advancements in AI technology, thinking it will just advance a little so it spits little better results, which you can take from there and incorporate into your own thing, but their goal is to become way better then that and offer it as an cost effective solution to replace you.

 

or create them!

 

well said. couldn't agree more.

 

This is not necessarily a bad thing: if AI really managed to generate good artistic output I would only be pleased

Re-read your post, you're the one who talked about competition: every technological step triggers a competition, it's part of the game. An example: 20 years ago, when the Autotune plugin came out, everyone started to sing autotuned, which created a competition on an artistic level as to who could use it in the most creative way.

 

I'm talking about direct competition for your paycheck, that's it. Autotune didn't replaced singers, AI probably can, but I give up, in your mind AI will always stay some kind of quirky plugin or small separate service for music production, so see in your few years, when it starts spiting out whole jingles for peanuts and your paycheck get slashed.

 

So in other words you typed some prompts and let AI do most of the work. What a pathetic piece of “art”. The future is bleak.

 

Last edited: Dec 25, 2023

You have trouble following what I was saying, as you seem to have arguments prepared regardless of their pertinence.

 

So what did you said than, I'm confused now, isn't their aim to do what you said they are aiming to do and what allegedly they said their plan is to do, offer cost effective solution?

Either way, I already visited site someone posted here on forum that spits out jingles, I'm actually impressed and imagine it will get much better over time.

And to avoid confusion, I wasn't responding to you at all, but used your post as quote, than continued to respond to original member.

 

Last edited: Dec 25, 2023

o ffs... spark meet gasoline. microsoft will accelerate this 100x. interesting sidenote, i actually know the head of AI developement personally (i managed the remodel of he and his wife's home earlier this year) so i had some EXTREMELY interesting conversations w/ him ab what's coming. we're still friends so i'll def hit him up after the holiday and get some info on their plans and priority for suno.

 

The confusion can't be avoided once it's experienced. And you still can't follow what I say.

 

Follow what, you were on a meeting few years ago where they presented a plan for services like that, service like that already exist, I'm debating with another member that service like that will influence his paychecks, that's all there is to it.

 

It would be great if you could ask your friend if corporate entities involved with AI (e.g. Microsoft, Boomy, MusicLM, et al.) are sending people out to music forums who are paid to pose as regular members when they're actual purpose is to lull musicians and other creative types into acceptance of this new technology, when logic and reason should be telling those musicians/composers that this new tech is likely not going to be their friend, not for one single moment. As but one example, one of the biggest mouthpieces here to tell you of the sheer greatness of this new paradigm, @curtified, claims to have created "Replay". While that software may be popular for trying out for free on sister site, clearly cloning the voices of established music artists for using on your own music is hardly ethical and probably illegal if you actually attempt to do something with that creation. Therefore, it does not surprise me that @curtified is here firmly promoting the new tech while also having an involvement with Microsoft's AI ambitions. As the old expression goes, 'be wary of those who speak with forked tongue'.

In that regard, take a second look at the angst-ridden response yesterday when I mentioned actors unions and their involvement in fighting back against AI to protect their members. Frankly, I've never seen someone from a corporate entity react kindly when they hear the word "union", and I sure as hell wasn't seeing it here from the very vocal proponents of AI. Fact is, unionizing may be the only hope for musicians and composers if they are to reasonably and properly defend themselves against a new paradigm that is far more friendly to software, a computer keyboard, and high tech conglomerates then it is to those sitting at a piano keyboard or holding a guitar in their hands. And it will require big money and lawyers to fight back which strong unions can absorb. I urge people to spend a little time doing some reading about the recent SAG/AFTRA battles against the use of their members likenesses modified by AI for use in film productions which those members would not have been paid for had their union not fought back. Without fighting back, what actors have to sell would have become worthless to them. Anyone who thinks musicians and composers won't yield the same fate is just kidding themselves.

If you could ask your friend about his knowledge of such tactics it would be most interesting to hear what they have to say.

 

i'm sure a wealth of knowledge will be gained when i reach to him next week. and i'll bring anything i learn that seems interesting or relevant straight back here for discussion.

 

I am 100% pro-union, but IMO that actors-writers strike will only be a band aid in the long run.

Ok, so they've shown they're crucial to the film making process today. Great.
What will happen in, oh, let's say 10 years (as to be reaaaaally optimistic) when they won't be needed at all? Just write a prompt, and AI will shit out the script, and it generate the images, the sounds.. basically the entire movie, in less than an hour (or, if quantum computers are to happen, in less than a nanosecond lol).
But why stop there? Why have humans to write prompts, when you can just ask AI to calculate, according to current market trends, exactly which movies will be box office hits, and have them ready for the foreseeable future?
The general public being a billion times more complacent than they are today will of course not care whether their mind numbing drug was produced by humans or robots, on the contrary -most will find it just uber cool.

So unions and strikes, when it comes to artistic work, will be effective only for a short while, as the money guys are rubbing their hands waiting for AI to get more powerful.

At least that's how I view it. I'd say "I hope I'm wrong" but unfortunately this is the most optimistic scenario in my head, you don't wanna hear the negative ones

 

Thank you tylerv!

Well, I understand your pessimism regarding where this is all going. LOL, as you may have noticed, I'm hardly positive about it myself. i do disagree with some of your remarks regarding the actor's strike. I also get the impression from some of what you're saying that there may be some misconceptions on your part over what the actor's accomplished.

First, they brought an entire industry to a standstill. That's not nothing nor is it a 'bandaid'. Hollywood had its worst earnings year in decades due to the strike, the actors grievances were felt. It also serves as a warning that the actors could do it again. You predict certain things in the future where that sort of action may not matter anyway. However, I can assure you SAG will be keeping an eye on it, and if things move in certain directions that they view as a potential threat, they'll bring down the hammer again before the negative future you believe is inevitable is actuated. I happen to be a member of SAG. A healthy dose of my singing work has been for TV and movies, thus my membership. They're a strong, pretty honest union that intends to protect their people. Thus, I wouldn't count them out that quickly or minimize what they've accomplished.

Second, I'm not sure if you're aware that one of the major issues in contract talks with SAG involved movie production studios plans to take images of actors from their earlier work, and through AI they wanted to re-constitute their image in new productions with AI placing new dialog in their mouths, and their image appearing to be in new backgrounds that the actors never actually appeared in. The movie studios decided there was no need to pay the actors for this, since they had already been paid for their original work and the studios were merely creating an artificial reconstitution of what the actors already received money for. Certainly in my opinion the studios position was offensive, and SAG wouldn't settle until this issue was resolved. Thankfully it was. If a studio uses an actors image that they've taken from their earlier work, now the actor must be paid as if they worked in the reconstituted new movie production. That ended a lot of financial benefit from AI the movie studios were counting on.

Given that, some of what you're saying, if I'm getting it right, is not fully correct. A movie studio cannot take Tom Hanks' images from Sleepless In Seattle, throw it into a new film with new dialog seemingly coming from his mouth, and advertise it as a new Tom Hanks movie. They now have to pay him for being in a new film if Hanks agrees to be a participant in the venture. Funny, some small business in the U.S. decided it was okay to AI Tom Hanks' voice for a TV commercial they released. They are now being sued into oblivion by Hanks.

Of course, the studios could invent some new, not-truly-existent actor using AI, but that's not going to have the box office draw of established movie stars, and it won't do for the studios what they were attempting to do. By the way, the same holds true for a singer like me who's in SAG. A movie studio tried to reconstitute some of my singing from a film... 2 weeks ago I received a big check from that studio, including my legal fees, for them having the balls to think it was okay to use my work in that way.

This is also why I come down hard on apps like Replay and its creator here on this thread. The notion that its okay to borrow a performers stock and trade, loan it out to some music production that the performer had nothing to do with, and likely would have never approved of to begin with, and allow people to play with it as if a famous singer worked on their music just will not work. It may be fun for the people working with it, but they're not stepping into the shoes of the performers whose stock and trade is being "borrowed" without remuneration or approval. They will learn there's a price to pay for not considering the performers point of view.

Some seem to think this whole AI business is too powerful a freight train to be stopped, but I think those people will in many, but not all, instances be mistaken. Once the lawsuits start flying things take on a very different tone. Remember, it's still quite new and a good deal of the discussion is still speculation, hype, and promotion, rather than reality. Once reality hits, the lawsuits follow. Plus now, the U.S. government is beginning to get involved. So I agree with your pessimism, but the end of this story isn't written just yet.

 

Last edited: Dec 25, 2023

Fuck copyright

 

wow you got it all twisted. I’m trying to make tech that I use and wanted to share that with the community.

I have a lucrative career as a touring dj.

I appreciate the time and effort put into dreaming up the connections that are all false.

 

1. All twisted??? I simply asked tylerv to ask someone he knows in the business a question. Asking a question doesn't necessarily presuppose an answer. In fact, I generally wouldn't expect a straightforward answer to that question anyway, not at least from someone in the business. That doesn't mean you can't try asking. So, maybe its you that has things a bit twisted.

2. Correct me if I've misunderstood, but your "share with the community" has always looked more to me like using the community as beta testers for software which, in one form or another, you'd eventually like to to market and monetize. If that's 100% incorrect, feel free to say so. I'll believe you, albeit with an eyebrow or two raised

3. In regard to that software, the liberal usage of artist's names who clearly have nothing to do with that product, and have not authorized the use of their names and images, could be quite problematic for you, regardless of it being 'free' at this point in time. I know what I'm talking about in that regard. Just sayin'...

4. 'Dreaming up a connection'? The only connection I firmly see here are a few people who are trying to sell an endgame to AI that they want others to believe is a foregone conclusion. Like I said in a prior comment, in reality the end of that story has not been written yet.

 

Last edited: Dec 26, 2023

You have an interesting point: "the protection of intellectual property". In theory, the concept is absolutely fair and democratic - artists must be paid for what they create. We all know that this isn't how it works in the real world, copyright today has become a padlock on the free circulation of ideas: big companies actually put their dirty hands on intellectual property and creatives get absolutely nothing. A striking example is the abuse of royalties perpetrated by music platforms (apparently considered legitimate)
My position on this issue is that copyright as it works today is detrimental to artists and at this point, any action that infringes copyright becomes a revolutionary act

 

Of course if one is really interested in what's best for humanity, one ought to be humble.
It COULD be that the best thing for humanity is to quit fucking around with music and get building spaceships.

Don't get me wrong...I LOVE music and I don't know how life would be without it.
I am NOT talking about anyone actually quitting musical endeavors...

What I am talking about is people not being so arrogant and foolish.
I'm talking about admitting that we don't know what is best, and can only make guesses at what might be better, because we can't KNOW, unless we could predict into the distant future, which we CAN'T).

Of course we have to explain how things are and tell everyone else what to do because ...what are we going to do... say nothing?
That doesn't help either. We HAVE to make our best guesses.
But, AS we tell others how things are and what to do , maybe we can begin with "It seems to me that..."