AI in music

[SteveXFR]

Should AI have any place in music? Musicians are quite rightly against AI being used to create music but some of the same people seem fine with using it for artwork or videos so happy with replacing other artists who support the music industry. 

Considering that its replacing real artists plus uses enormous amounts of energy plus it keeps any information you put in (nothing is ever free), is it right in your opinion to use AI as part of your art or any art?

[Rich]

 

[neepheid]

Generative AI can get in the bin as far as I'm concerned.  It makes an absolute mockery of the years I've spent learning an instrument.  It's a disgustingly insulting short cut.

 

Get gud or eff off.

 

*mic drop*

[80Hz]

In terms of generative AI, it's basically an inevitability in my industry (music adjacent) at this point, so I'm resigned to it. We've been using trained neural nets in specific applications for years now anyway (i.e. noise reduction) and they tend to perform very well - but the lines are starting to blur as to where generative AI fits into that.

 

Ethically, I view gen AI in its present and growing form as a pure expression of rentier capitalism. So whether it belongs in music is down to your attitudes as to whom value in creative work should accrue (I feel this will inevitably slide into politics, sorry mods, so that's all I'll say).

 

I think we're very quickly moving towards a world where AI generated = low value and low effort advertising, memes, misinformation, and propaganda. So in my more optimistic moments I believe there will always be a place for us meatbags.

[Cato]

It's going to become increasingly unavoidable unfortunately.

 

I don't want any part of it, to the point where I block anyone on social media who posts unlabelled AI content, even if it's just a description of an image.

 

Although  the torrent is such that I think eventually it will just be easier to leave social media.

 

I've even seen it creeping into Basschat where people have cut and pasted responses from Chat GPT or some such,omwtime containing glaring errors, without crediting their source, in response to questions posted by other members.

 

At the moment such things are still identifiable, but give it another 12 months and none of us will know whether what we are seeing, hearing or reading online has been authored by a human or a machine.

 

Interesting times.

 

 

Edited 30 minutes ago by Cato

[gjones]

It depends on whether the consumer will accept, AI music, AI films, AI books, AI online content, AI whatever.

 

If people are made aware that music, films, books, online content, is AI created, then they may reject it. If creative output of all genes can be show to be guaranteed human, then I can see people choosing the human option rather than the AI one.

 

At this stage people don't know if it's AI ,or if it's human, and they don't yet have the option to choose.

[EBS_freak]

Of course it should - but at the moment its largely misunderstood and not regulated properly.

 

For all those against AI, I would wager a lot of them were also eager to watch the Beatles Get Back documentary and listen to "Now and Then", both of which would not be a thing without AI.

[Hellzero]

Did anyone see Sarah Connor in the matrix these days?

[EBS_freak]

2 minutes ago, gjones said:

It depends on whether the consumer will accept, AI music, AI films, AI books, AI online content, AI whatever.

 

If people are made aware that music, films, books, online content, is AI created, then they may reject it. If creative output of all genes can be show to be guaranteed human, then I can see people choosing the human option rather than the AI one.

 

At this stage people don't know if it's AI ,or if it's human, and they don't yet have the option to choose.

 

 

It will be interesting if older films will become seen as more precious because they are pre-AI.

 

I dont think it as easy as saying "if the consumer will accept" - if you give people no other option, the decision is made for them. If it's all driven by cost, the cheapest will always win.

Are people really impacting the sales of Coca-Cola because they cheaped out and went AI for the last two years on their Christmas advertisements?

 

[wateroftyne]

As a tool, it's useful.

As a means to generate creative content, it can get in the sea.

[EBS_freak]

Just now, wateroftyne said:

As a means to generate creative content, it can get in the sea.

Its funny isn't it. As AI adoption comes into the place - the industry is quickly learning that AI is rubbish at doing the jobs that people hate.

[SteveXFR]

Im currently at a point where I will avoid knowingly listening to bands who I know use AI.

[neepheid]

7 minutes ago, EBS_freak said:

Of course it should - but at the moment its largely misunderstood and not regulated properly.

 

For all those against AI, I would wager a lot of them were also eager to watch the Beatles Get Back documentary and listen to "Now and Then", both of which would not be a thing without AI.

 

You need to be careful not to turn this conversation into a binary choice and an "us vs. them" type situation.  I was careful to use the term "Generative AI".  I'm all for AI automating humdrum tasks, or doing things which are impossible for humans (like the software which turns a full recording back into multitracks to allow remixing which I believe you are alluding to).  But using it to create "art" that the user could never hope to do under their own steam, that can fork right off.

[Cato]

There's a huge backlash against AI in the gaming community at the moment, especially where it's being used as a substitute for human creativity.

 

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out given that gaming studios are a natural fit to use AI to cut staff and speed up production.

 

I suspect in the end the big studios will carry on down the AI road regardless but it will create a niche for independent companies making 100% human authored content.