IT's Over...This proves AI has taken over

[kurth]

...but we're all judging this in the here and now....not in the soon to be. To say that in 5 years Ai would never make another and better SGT. Peppers is ludicrous. Yes it will...eventually. Eventually you'll go to alittle shop on the corner with their little custom 3d printer and order a Mona Lisa. It will look identical even to an art historian. Or Ai will have invented the 500 painting Leonardo only dreamed about painting. Maybe some clever chat user has already begun the request. This could easily be true....except for one thing. At the same time Ai is being used for the fun stuff, it's also being used to control the world. So we'll most likely never arrive at the next Sgt. Pepper or the printing a Mona Lisa stage before we destroy ourselves with it. Or with something else equally crazy. I don't blame people for burying their heads in the sand. It's as good a strategy as any.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by kurth

...but we're all judging this in the here and now....not in the soon to be.

We already went through this in the Mixing and Mastering thread..
Again Who is this "we" Lindbergh ? Not agreeing that Ai will "take over" music, has nothing to do with not understanding the future potential of Ai. It is simply is a different conclusion from the facts and potential. Who are you to presume to judge and dictate what time frame criteria is being used by "we" ?

To say that in 5 years Ai would never make another and better SGT. Peppers is ludicrous. Yes it will...eventually.

Except "better" is of course totally subjective. But in fact it won't, nobody human or machine will ever do another Sgt Peppers --it was a one off...... period.

Eventually you'll go to alittle shop on the corner with their little custom 3d printer and order a Mona Lisa. It will look identical even to an art historian. Or Ai will have invented the 500 paintings Leonardo only dreamed about painting.

Except You are confusing the potential what "could happen" with what "will happen". It does not matter if Ai "could" duplicate the Mona Lisa exactly or come up with something new in Leonardo's exact style (no doubt a very real potential) but that has no bearing on wether or not human artists will continue to paint or if people will continue to purchase human art .


You are assuming and predicting based on only one very narrow single imagined direct cause and effect scenario . Which could simply be your tunnel vision of the future ..

Maybe some clever chat user has already begun the request. This could easily be true....except for one thing. At the same time Ai is being used for the fun stuff, it's also being used to control the world. So we'll most likely never arrive at the next Sgt. Pepper or the printing a Mona Lisa stage before we destroy ourselves with it. Or with something else equally crazy. I don't blame people for burying their heads in the sand. It's as good a strategy as any.

Seems a bit condescending to believe those who do not agree with your specific dire predictions about Ai in art and music, have their "heads in the sand" and do not understand the potential dangers of Ai in the larger context ....

[Brent Hahn]

For me, it proves that it hasn't. I'm of two minds about that Kanye "Hey There Delilah" deepfake, though.

[latentaudio]

While it's understandable to feel a sense of concern about the impact of AI on the music industry, I believe that it's important to keep in mind that AI-generated music is not a replacement for human creativity and originality. While it's true that AI algorithms can produce impressive results, they are ultimately limited by the data they are trained on and lack the emotional depth and complexity that comes from human experience and expression.

It's also worth noting that AI-generated music is not a new phenomenon. Musicians and producers have been using software and technology to aid in their creative process for decades, and AI is simply the latest tool to be added to the mix. In many ways, AI can be seen as a supplement to human creativity rather than a replacement for it.

Ultimately, I think that the rise of AI-generated music should be seen as an opportunity rather than a threat. By embracing new technology and exploring new ways of creating and producing music, we can push the boundaries of what's possible and continue to innovate and evolve as artists.

[Gordon Currie]

My take is that AI can currently supply a better Beatles 'soundalike' that sounds closer to that 'Free As A Bird' tune they did 2 decades later than it does to any actual Beatles release.

One thing completely missing in the AI tunes: hooks. The Beatles were masters of hooks. And harmonies - most of their harmonies were anything but static, and often unexpectedly clever.

My prediction of the coming AI wars is that the unpredictable, random and quirky aspects of human endeavors will come to be prized and sought out, as this will be the hardest thing to generate.

[Doug Young]

AI isn't all that new, it's been around since at least the 1950s. I worked in an AI lab more decades ago than I care to think about. AI is already controlling a lot of our lives, from self-driving cars, to smart doorbells and thermostats, traffic lights, ads and recommendations we get, what social media feeds show us, search results, on and on - there's more of it actively in use than most people realize. And there's long been a fear that the robots will take over and kill everyone from even before the 50's. It's just this relatively recent advance of "generative" AI, along with a massive amount of media hype its gotten, that seems to be making people more afraid. The technology is stepping on human turf - mimicking creativity - in a way that wasn't as obvious before. A lot of the more subtle uses of AI have had equally serious implications for a long time, it's just been flying a bit under the radar, at least relative to the latest focus.

It's true that people shouldn't "bury their heads in the sand" about any technology. Every piece of technology from the discovery of fire on has had the potential for good, bad, or just serious disruption and unintended consequences. Think about what the printing press did to civilization as people knew it! Or the cotton gin, or automobiles, or electricity.

I'd just say that of all the worries that are warranted in this particular case, the development of AI that can create passable, or even great music doesn't seem like the thing to panic over.

[kurth]

I know that every research project in every university is funded by military, or it's minions. All of them. Think of the most erudite subject ...it's funded with 'defense' in mind. All of the press on Ai and art is only to keep your eyes focusing on the trick, instead of the ball.

Every advancement in everything , and especially Ai included, is made by those researching it for 'defense'...not making songs or art. That's the real ball, not the trick. There's no market economy for Ai driving the cutting edge.

But Ai will also supplant present behavior in our culture. Yes people still make arrowheads, and arrowhead making was once considered a high art by other cultures, but now 10 people on the planet know how.

The leaders have been very honest. They've said that whoever wins the Ai war will control the world. It's pretty simple. I don't see any fearmongering , since they say it, except to people unwilling to face the obvious. What they are saying is that not only and besides the fact that multiple forces are competing ...that in the end the result will absolutely be the world controlled by Ai, regardless who wins. And that's where the money's going. And I don't see any rainbows. I still recommend reading Thomas Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by kurth

Yes people still make arrowheads, and arrowhead making was once considered a high art by other cultures, but now 10 people on the planet know how.

What was one of John Wayne's famous lines? oh Yeah...now I remember..."Not Hardly".

I got more than 10 friends alone in my group of close knit traditional archers who can Flintnap an obsidian arrowhead. They also Go out and cut down their own staves to make Selfbows. One in our group can throw Atlatl's almost as good as any of us can shoot our wood arrows.

I make my own quivers, wood arrows & flemish bowstrings. ( I don't personally flintnap, but I know the basics). I also do my own nuts and saddles for my acoustic guitars. I also made my own custom knives.
No machine, no automation could ever make a custom knife that could do what my knives do. To long to go into reasons why...but they can't (well.....not yet anyway).



https://knife10.wixsite.com/victor-smith-knives

No, no I get it now. I get what Doug has been saying all along.
It doesn't matter how much they come up with. There will always be People who want the pleasure of doing it themselves.
There will always be things that us humans can can come up with that Robots can't.
We just won't be able to make much money at it.

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

The problem I have with all the concern about AI is that the worry seems to be "if a machine can do something good (or better than me), then why should I bother to create anything?" If this is a reason not to make art, then people should have just given up the first time they heard Tommy Emmanuel or John Coltrane or Jeff Beck play, or heard a song John Lennon or Gershwin wrote, or a composition by Bach or Beethoven. Making music shouldn't be a competition, it should be about expressing ourselves. If a machine can mimic that, so what? Is the machine enjoying itself?

Having worked a bit on AI in the past, I get that it can do some things that humans can't - processing vast amounts of data to find patterns that we can't see, with results that sometimes seem miraculous. But it's just a tool, there are always new machines that do some tasks better, and humans just use them for what they can do and go on. AI will probably become a new tool for some composer/arrangers, and so on, but to me, it's somewhat irrelevant to why people make music (regardless of what tools they use in the process).

I like this line of thinking. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, I worked on a joint project with the NIH developing a neural network. They were using it to track/predict pandemics and we were using it to troubleshoot networks using "bots" to send it data. There were several companies involved, but that was what we were using it for. Even back then, we could see the potential given sufficient computing power.

Though it has been a lot of years since I was involved in that sort of thing on the job because I got much more into the embedded development environments, I have recently in retirement rekindled my own interest in this technology and have built a number of NN's for various interesting tasks, not the least of which is the lee0 chess playing NN. I use my Linux laptop for these projects.

However, along Doug's thoughts, I have a dedicated chess computer that probably no chess player in the world could beat. It is the newest of such modules and I can hold it in one hand. It uses neural networks at its core for a couple of the engines its supports. Then, there is Deep Mind's Alpha Zero, which taught itself to be a chess champion in the space of a half hour of training on a huge collection of pgn's.

Does that mean humans should stop playing chess? No, chess among humans is a live and well as it ever was.

With the advent of the bicycle and later, the car, should humans stop running races? No, those track sports are as alive and well as they ever were.

There has been software available for some time now that is used in professional environments to generate complete movie soundtracks from snippets of musical phrases fed into it. That is nothing new. What is relatively new is the broad development and acceptance of "self-learning machines" which can function without our help. The technology and computer science have made this increasingly possible. What we will do is learn to live alongside this as we have every new development throughout modern history.

A humorous event was in the news not too long ago. A business was apparently using a Rhumba to continuously clean the floors and somebody left the front door open. The Rhumba "escaped" and the employees were frantically trying to find it. I don't know how the story ended, but at least there is a lighter side to some of these things.

As far as I am concerned, I am comfortable that there is much philosophical discussion at high levels about setting boundaries and control for AI development. In fact, just as there were global agreements in place for the so-called "nuclear arms race", there really is such a thing among nations now for AI development. Time will tell how effective this will be, but at least these considerations are happening much earlier in the development process.

Continue making music. Humans will always benefit from this. Music is a part of each of us and there is no reason to ignore or deny that.

Tony

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by kurth

I know that every research project in every university is funded by military, or it's minions. All of them. Think of the most erudite subject ...it's funded with 'defense' in mind.

...as is the beginnings of the internet and this very forum where we are discussing this. Much of the underpinnings came from DARPA research. Just because a technology was birthed for defense (or other government agency, or for commerce, or what have you) doesn't mean that other uses won't be found.

I have Kuhn's book on my shelf. Revolutions don't always turn out like we think they might.

[The Watchman]

I heard someone say today, that AI (in general) is becoming good at answering questions, but not at asking questions.

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Chipotle

...as is the beginnings of the internet and this very forum where we are discussing this. Much of the underpinnings came from DARPA research. Just because a technology was birthed for defense (or other government agency, or for commerce, or what have you) doesn't mean that other uses won't be found.

I have Kuhn's book on my shelf. Revolutions don't always turn out like we think they might.

I was working on equipment for the internet in the mid-80s. At that time, it was military, universities involved in research, and companies building the equipment. The original intent for the military was to build a self-healing communications network. I know that I didn't foresee what the internet has become nor the impact it has had on society and culture.

The late 80s and early 90s the projects I was involved with were cloud technology (the early adaption was NAS - network attached storage) and early AI. The interesting thing about NNs was that you train them by feeding them data and watching output for expected results. What the NN forms in between is anybody's guess and the output is often surprising, often teaching us things we would have never thought of. Even AlphaZero is teaching chess players strategies that have not been previously considered.

There were many other projects I worked on during that time and later that are in common use today, but these are not applicable to this discussion and I am sure other engineers participating in this thread can make similar claims. It was a very interesting career.

With all of our technological developments, nothing beats 6 strings and 12 frets.

Tony

[nickv6]

Originally Posted by The Watchman

I heard someone say today, that AI (in general) is becoming good at answering questions, but not at asking questions.

Excellent.

[nickv6]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

What was one of John Wayne's famous lines? oh Yeah...now I remember..."Not Hardly".

I got more than 10 friends alone in my group of close knit traditional archers who can Flintnap an obsidian arrowhead. They also Go out and cut down their own staves to make Selfbows. One in our group can throw Atlatl's almost as good as any of us can shoot our wood arrows.

I make my own quivers, wood arrows & flemish bowstrings. ( I don't personally flintnap, but I know the basics). I also do my own nuts and saddles for my acoustic guitars. I also made my own custom knives.
No machine, no automation could ever make a custom knife that could do what my knives do. To long to go into reasons why...but they can't (well.....not yet anyway).





https://knife10.wixsite.com/victor-smith-knives

No, no I get it now. I get what Doug has been saying all along.
It doesn't matter how much they come up with. There will always be People who want the pleasure of doing it themselves.
There will always be things that us humans can can come up with that Robots can't.
We just won't be able to make much money at it.

Good looking knife. There's a feature in your group photo..... you're all having fun and enjoying yourselves. Nothing artificial about that intelligence! Thank goodness

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

What was one of John Wayne's famous lines? oh Yeah...now I remember..."Not Hardly".

Very cool is that some kind of burl wood on the knife handle ?

No, no I get it now. I get what Doug has been saying all along.
It doesn't matter how much they come up with. There will always be People who want the pleasure of doing it themselves.
There will always be things that us humans can can come up with that Robots can't.
We just won't be able to make much money at it.

The revenue or loss of it, is of course different and complex discussion ..

But just as an example Blick Art Materials only one of numerous on line fine art suppliers, posted just over $170 million in revenue in 2022