AI music getting much better

[Secret Chief]

A good cheat can create a forgery that can fool everyone. But what he created is still a forgery. And the creator is still a cheat.

I'm lost. If EVERYONE thinks something is a work of art then, logically, it is a work of art. I don't like what I've seen of Damian Hirst, but I'm pretty certain his official job title is artist. Your position seems patronising, condescending, elitist and arrogant. I'm done here.

 

[PureX]

I'm lost. If EVERYONE thinks something is a work of art then, logically, it is a work of art.

No, it's not. Art is an activity that we humans engage in with a specific intent. The results of that activity are just the documentation of that intent. The art objects are not the art. The artists in not the art. The art is the process of we humans sharing our experience of being here, and being who we are, with each other. AI can't do that. It can only mimic the documentation.

I don't like what I've seen of Damian Hirst, but I'm pretty certain his official job title is artist.

Oh, well, if it's "official" an all!

Your position seems patronising, condescending, elitist and arrogant. I'm done here.

Anything so as not to learn. I get it.

 

[Nimos]

It was a test of mimicry, so of course AI won. That's what AI does. That's ALL it does.

A proper contest would have been to charge two human composers and AI with the task of composing a piece of music with no outside input. AI would fail every time. Because it could not identify or decide on it's own what the goal of the task is.

Obviously, it's like saying: "Let's test a mathematician against a computer and then conclude that the mathematician will win because the computer requires a program to do the math."

The human composers just as the AI have also been trained in composing music, and it is done pretty much the same way, we study other people's work and use that to improve our own, the difference is that the AI is much faster at learning than we are.

No one is trying to make the AI appear as if it is a living magical thinking machine.

Damien Hirst is a clever con-artist. Every era gets a few of these people who manage to bamboozle the boogie elites and pseudo-intellectuals of the "art world" into thinking that their nonsense and gibberish is some new ingenious take on art-making. When all it really is, is nothing more than the empty novelty of 'nothingness' pretending it's art.

That's what Damien Hirst does. He deliberately makes artworks that say and mean nothing at all, and then he pretends this this is some sort of wise intellectual statement on the state of modern art. It's not. And he's just a 'flim-flam man', But even in the upper echelons of the art world there are plenty of small minds with big egos that are just waiting to be fooled. And now that we have this new super class of classless billionaires looking to throw big piles of money at whatever they think will make them look clever and respectable, the art world is cluttered with these charlatans and hucksters pretending to be artists. There's big money to be gotten, after all, for those that can pull off the big illusion.

This is the issue, obviously, there are lots of people who like his stuff otherwise he wouldn't have made it. But art is very subjective, some like it and some don't.

You can't just call every person's art that you disagree with as non-artist or con-artists etc. That is what I'm trying to explain, art is weird and undefined. Yet, we have no issue calling what an AI make for not art. But a person making music, which today is so filled with AI and bought samples, computer-integration, autotuning etc. is definitely fine and is art. But when a person uses an AI then it isn't, because then it becomes to "easy", it's ok that we go just to the edge, but not all the way.

So where is this edge? How much AI can you make use of in the creation of a song, before it is no longer considered art?

 

[idea]

When it comes to the creative process I am not impressed with AI. The songs are souless and moving, the writing without spark and feeling, the art like a cheap paint shop afternoon job.
We need real connections to heal the madness, not technology that further separates us.

I think many people are more authentic online (anonymous, without fear of family or social judgement for saying what they feel), so internet/computers are a good thing.

It depends on data for AI. If data is sourced from everyone equally (not giving anyone a megaphone, but really trying to capture individual voices equally), AI can be viewed as an amazing collaborative communal representation.

Individual voices are precious.
Community is also precious.

Individual compositions
Community compositions

Each has their value.

 

[idea]

I have no clue, I'm a tech nerd I love all these things.

I tried it, in the prompt "create in the style of...", you cannot add many current artists (copyrighted), can request specific style, specific instruments to cater to taste - I think it draws from open libraries that match prompt.

Imagine if --- enter musician--- lived during the same time as -- enter musician-- if they could play together, if they could have composed together, what might it have sounded like? A neat question to ask.

 

[idea]

OK, but what does that have to do with my post?

Its not all about training, or masters. That is only one style of music. Most music isn't technical expertise, but experience, stories, communication of emotion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm ok with this. It was better for everything else.

I disagree. The average lifespan was shorter mainly because so many children died. You just went through this. Think how bad it would be if about half of everyone's children died at a very young age. Once you got to five or seven you were probably going to have a full life. But before then it was very dodgy.

 

[PureX]

Obviously, it's like saying: "Let's test a mathematician against a computer and then conclude that the mathematician will win because the computer requires a program to do the math."

The human composers just as the AI have also been trained in composing music, and it is done pretty much the same way, we study other people's work and use that to improve our own, the difference is that the AI is much faster at learning than we are.

No one is trying to make the AI appear as if it is a living magical thinking machine.


This is the issue, obviously, there are lots of people who like his stuff otherwise he wouldn't have made it. But art is very subjective, some like it and some don't.

it’s not about liking it or not. Art is what it is, and isn’t what it isn’t, and most people have no idea what it is Or what it’s not. So they think it’s whatever they like. Or whatever they’re told, or whatever the think without ever thinking about it. And AI is just going to make this worse. Art isn’t subjective, but the ability to recognize it and appreciate it, is. And this is what the hucksters will continue to take advantage of. And the sad thing is, a lot of people will applaud it because they don’t know any better.

You can't just call every person's art that you disagree with as non-artist or con-artists etc. That is what I'm trying to explain, art is weird and undefined. Yet, we have no issue calling what an AI make for not art. But a person making music, which today is so filled with AI and bought samples, computer-integration, autotuning etc. is definitely fine and is art. But when a person uses an AI then it isn't, because then it becomes to "easy", it's ok that we go just to the edge, but not all the way.

So where is this edge? How much AI can you make use of in the creation of a song, before it is no longer considered art?

It all comes down to intent. Art is not an object, it’s an intent. And AI by itself has no intent. It has to be given that by an artist or by a someone pretending to be an artist. And that will determine what the result will be.

 

[Nimos]

I tried it, in the prompt "create in the style of...", you cannot add many current artists (copyrighted), can request specific style, specific instruments to cater to taste - I think it draws from open libraries that match prompt.

Imagine if --- enter musician--- lived during the same time as -- enter musician-- if they could play together, if they could have composed together, what might it have sounded like? A neat question to ask.

A lot of people want to make the AI copy other artists and in many cases, it can because it is trained on them. But the AI itself doesn't try to copy other artists, you have to specifically tell it to do it and then they points at the AI saying look it's just copying them!!

But clearly, you would have to blame the human prompting it, the AI works based on the input it gets and if all it gets is someone "forcing" it to copy something then it will try to do it.

For instance, I did this as a test and I don't think anyone is in doubt what I told it to get inspiration from. But the AI wouldn't do this if it wasn't because I specifically told it to. So just as with any software that allows you to misuse it, the same applies to AI. But there are ways to fool the AI's and some of the models have no limitations, so if you want to know how to build a bomb or whatever bad thing you can think of, then you can get the information from these. And also the official ones, have been tricked several times to do things that they weren't supposed to.

 

[Secret Chief]

I don't think anyone is in doubt what I told it to get inspiration from.

Duchamp's Fountain?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think many people are more authentic online (anonymous, without fear of family or social judgement for saying what they feel), so internet/computers are a good thing.

It depends on data for AI. If data is sourced from everyone equally (not giving anyone a megaphone, but really trying to capture individual voices equally), AI can be viewed as an amazing collaborative communal representation.

Individual voices are precious.
Community is also precious.

Individual compositions
Community compositions

Each has their value.

With art it is very often one person who looks at things differently and gives it a different approach that leads to developments and great art.
Amd for some of us, we don't want larger community aspects of art in our stuff and it doesn't want us. AI won't be able to do niche stuff very well or appeal to those who prefer less mainstream and underground art.
Nor will a community voicd capture someone like Eminem. His word play is top notch and too advanced for a computer program because it requires a human perspective and a human perspective of things. AI will never have that.
Les Claypool, again this is an artist who is truly one of kind. His lyrics are strange and bizarre, his music is often very unconventional and bass driven, add in Buckethead and we have something we'll never see from AI. Even masked AI won't as well because it's AI and it's not mysterious like a masked person, as the psychology of masks as we understand them do not apply to AI. In a waybwe only see a mask of a computer amd it's programs anyways.
Or how Ghost used to be anonymous. Ot was fun not knowing who they are while it lasted. It's also fun wondering who Here Come the Mummies are, especially as they have reminded anonymous for over 20 years. AI can't have that, nor will it understand why it appeals to us.

 

[Nimos]

it’s not about liking it or not. Art is what it is, and isn’t what it isn’t, and most people have no idea what it is Or what it’s not.

This is too vague that is what mean, it's like me saying "Not everything is music and most people have no clue what music is". That doesn't answer anything, who am I to decide what is music and what isn't?

Art isn’t subjective, but the ability to recognize it and appreciate it, is. And this is what the hucksters will continue to take advantage of. And the sad thing is, a lot of people will applaud it because they don’t know any better.

It is subjective if I saw that sketch lying somewhere, I would assume it was something that should just be thrown out, but apparently, someone think this is worth 24450 pounds:

This is one I created using AI, which has no value, but at least to me it is far more interesting, AI or not:

I don't consider the sketch to be art, and should I vote between the two I would vote for the AI.

It all comes down to intent. Art is not an object, it’s an intent. And AI by itself has no intent. It has to be given that by an artist or by a someone pretending to be an artist. And that will determine what the result will be.

But isn't art just to get you to feel something, an emotion, being curious, engaged etc. The sketch gives me nothing of the sort. Whereas the AI image, I think have nice color scheme, mood, you could even imagine there being some story here etc.

 

[Nimos]

Duchamp's Fountain?

YES!!

 

[PureX]

A lot of people want to make the AI copy other artists and in many cases, it can because it is trained on them. But the AI itself doesn't try to copy other artists, you have to specifically tell it to do it and then they points at the AI saying look it's just copying them!!

All AI is doing is mixing and reassembling what it has learned to copy. Artists do this as well, but an artist has a specific intention that helps them determine what to mix and how. AI does not have that. It has to be told what it's intention for choosing and mixing is. And the artist can discover/invent new methods and content along the way, while AI cannot.

But clearly, you would have to blame the human prompting it, the AI works based on the input it gets and if all it gets is someone "forcing" it to copy something then it will try to do it.

Exactly. The only way AI makes art is as a tool in the hands of an artist.

For instance, I did this as a test and I don't think anyone is in doubt what I told it to get inspiration from. But the AI wouldn't do this if it wasn't because I specifically told it to.

It also could never have done it without access to the original image to copy from. AI will never create this image in it's own. It can only remix information that it already has.

So just as with any software that allows you to misuse it, the same applies to AI. But there are ways to fool the AI's and some of the models have no limitations, so if you want to know how to build a bomb or whatever bad thing you can think of, then you can get the information from these. And also the official ones, have been tricked several times to do things that they weren't supposed to.

View attachment 91271

 

[Nimos]

All AI is doing is mixing and reassembling what it has learned to copy. Artists do this as well, but an artist has a specific intention that helps them determine what to mix and how. AI does not have that. It has to be told what it's intention for choosing and mixing is. And the artist can discover/invent new methods and content along the way, while AI cannot.

The AI follows your prompt. Not without issues, that is one of the big problems with it, that it has some randomness to it, but I think it is just a matter of time.

This is some images from the one I use if I give it no input at all, then it just throws out whatever, in this case, some landscapes.

The AI is not going to do anything on its own, but it as humans based on the prompt can create things that don't exist.

In this case I told it to create a cute monster:

This doesn't exist, it was made up based on the stuff it was trained on. The AI is not intelligent like trying to invent things on its own in the same sense as a human would. We completely agree on that. At least now there is no reason to even have that discussion, it might happen at some point, but it won't be with the AI tools for generative image and music, that would be something like ChatGPT etc.

Exactly. The only way AI makes art is as a tool in the hands of an artist.

Agree, at least in the hands of a human. I wouldn't say that my intention with the image in the last post and the monster was to create art. But let's for the sake of argument say that it was. Would you then consider it art, just because my intention was? And this again is where things get messy, what makes something art? How do we even define it?

It also could never have done it without access to the original image to copy from. AI will never create this image in it's own. It can only remix information that it already has.

Of course not. Again we agree it is a tool and nothing more. It can utilize whatever it is trained on, it has to know who Leonardo is and who Mona Lisa is, otherwise, it would most likely just throw in people with similar names thinking it was them or simply a random woman and man.

 

[PureX]

This is too vague that is what mean, it's like me saying "Not everything is music and most people have no clue what music is". That doesn't answer anything,

What answer do you want? You can determine what art is and if it's good or not via an uninformed knee-jerk reaction, as most people do, or you can take the time to ask people who know, maybe read up on the subject, and try to learn how to 'read' the artworks that you encounter for the art that they embody and reveal.

who am I to decide what is music and what isn't?

It's all just noise until you listen for the humanity in it.

It is subjective if I saw that sketch lying somewhere, I would assume it was something that should just be thrown out, but apparently, someone think this is worth 24450 pounds:
View attachment 91273

As P.T. Barnum is supposed t have said, "No man ever went broke overestimating the ignorance of the public."

This is one I created using AI, which has no value, but at least to me it is far more interesting, AI or not:
View attachment 91274
I don't consider the sketch to be art, and should I vote between the two I would vote for the AI.

Vote for what? An image that you "like"? That's fine, but an inage is just an image. That doesn't mean it's art. Same for a song, or a dance, or a play or a satue, or whatever. The medium doesn't detemine the intent. And it's the intent that determines whether something is art or not. Ust making pretty images isn't making art. It's just making pretty images. I'm sure AI can make pretty images.

But isn't art just to get you to feel something, an emotion, being curious, engaged etc.

No. Art is a special form of holistic communication, wherein one human being gets to experience how another human being experiences the world. When we look at that painting of Mona Lisa, we are seeing what Michelangelo saw, and feeling how he was feeling about what he was seeing. We are getting a glimpse of the world through his eyes, mind, and heart. And it's why he painted it. He wanted to share his 'vision' in that moment with the rest of us.

The sketch gives me nothing of the sort. Whereas the AI image, I think have nice color scheme, mood, you could even imagine there being some story here etc.

Yes, but be aware, that inviting you to fill in the story and determine the significance of an image like this is a very common tactic for hiding empty banality. There are instances where artists can use that invitation to imagine to create great works of art, but it's far more often a tool employed by hacks that have nothing of real substance or value to share. Empty minds create empty stages.

I have met some artists over the years that for whatever reason just never had a lot going on 'upstairs', so to speak, and their artworks were a reflection of that. I'd look at them and see nothing in them. Why they wanted to be artists always mystified me. It's a hard enough road to walk even when you're really good at it. Why walk it when you essentially have nothing going on upstairs, to share? Dunno.

 

[PureX]

Agree, at least in the hands of a human. I wouldn't say that my intention with the image in the last post and the monster was to create art. But let's for the sake of argument say that it was. Would you then consider it art, just because my intention was?

I would ask you what of your experience of being did you share with us through the creation of this image. So that hopefuly you would realize for yourself that it's not art.

And this again is where things get messy, what makes something art? How do we even define it?

It's not that messy. Art has a purpose. Fulfill that purpose and you can call it art.

 

[Nimos]

What answer do you want? You can determine what art is and if it's good or not via an uninformed knee-jerk reaction, as most people do, or you can take the time to ask people who know, maybe read up on the subject, and try to learn how to 'read' the artworks that you encounter for the art that they embody and reveal.

The 24450-pound sketch is considered art because Damien Hirst is famous. Who should you ask, that can decide whether that is art or not, the only giveaway is the price tag. I can bet you the 24450 pounds that if I had created that sketch, it would be worthless.

No one can judge what is art and what is not, and I think that is one of the huge issues with the whole AI thing. Because it is stepping on something that people agree on, was uniquely human and something that a particular group with talents did. Nothing before AI touched on this domain. But now everyone could potentially call themselves artists because nothing distinguishes their end product from what everyone can make now or at least in the near future.

And as I see it, given that art has never been well-defined, we are in a huge mess.

Vote for what? An image that you "like"? That's fine, but an inage is just an image. That doesn't mean it's art. Same for a song, or a dance, or a play or a satue, or whatever. The medium doesn't detemine the intent. And it's the intent that determines whether something is art or not. Ust making pretty images isn't making art. It's just making pretty images. I'm sure AI can make pretty images.

Again, this is what the issue is. You say it is not art, because you think I had no intent (Imagine I did create them as art). Then wouldn't you be offending me, saying that I had no intent with it? Who are you to decide that, you might as well call me a liar?

Obviously, Damien Hirst also has some intent with that sketch, whether that is because he thinks it is amazing or just wants to see if he can get some random person to pay that amount for it. But is that really enough? anyone could generate AI images and say it has intention and then it would be art, to me that seems pretty vague, despite the fact it might actually be the case.

No. Art is a special form of holistic communication, wherein one human being gets to experience how another human being experiences the world. When we look at that painting of Mona Lisa, we are seeing what Michelangelo saw, and feeling how he was feeling about what he was seeing. We are getting a glimpse of the world through his eyes, mind, and heart. And it's why he painted it. He wanted to share his 'vision' in that moment with the rest of us.

It was made by Leonardo.

But anyway, I think I showed you those videos with a paint bucket on a string swinging around, which is apparently also art:
This artist creates paintings with a swinging paint bucket. Callen Schaub is an artist in Canada. The paint flows out of slots as the bucket spins on a string. He calls this technique the Chalice of Chaos. Callen spins the bucket before he lets go to create the pattern. There are dividers to keep the colors from mixing. His original pieces sell for up to $50,000.

And if you want to see how it is made: Artist creates paintings with a swinging paint bucket

Those are the experts that you refer to that should decide what art is. How much mind and world view or heart is in a swinging bucket with paint?

 

[Nimos]

I would ask you what of your experience of being did you share with us through the creation of this image. So that hopefuly you would realize for yourself that it's not art.

We are just pretending that I thought it was art, I don't and wouldn't claim either, it's just some images I made.

 

[idea]

A lot of people want to make the AI copy other artists and in many cases, it can because it is trained on them. But the AI itself doesn't try to copy other artists, you have to specifically tell it to do it and then they points at the AI saying look it's just copying them!!

But clearly, you would have to blame the human prompting it, the AI works based on the input it gets and if all it gets is someone "forcing" it to copy something then it will try to do it.

For instance, I did this as a test and I don't think anyone is in doubt what I told it to get inspiration from. But the AI wouldn't do this if it wasn't because I specifically told it to. So just as with any software that allows you to misuse it, the same applies to AI. But there are ways to fool the AI's and some of the models have no limitations, so if you want to know how to build a bomb or whatever bad thing you can think of, then you can get the information from these. And also the official ones, have been tricked several times to do things that they weren't supposed to.

View attachment 91271

Interesting to put responsibility on the person writing prompt rather than AI platform. I always believed the difference between plagiarism and research was:

1. Use multiple references
2. Transparency - clear attribution
3. Add something unique, your own thoughts

Prompt for each AI work should be clearly visible along with the work created, as well as reference section listing material/data used in generating work.

Just use basic rules for adding references - just like a research paper, and to me it is ethical.