Music Creation with AI

[Eddi]

You do realise you're conversing with a chatbot?

So what if I am?

It doesn't alter the fact that a thing produced using generative AI can never be said to have any artistic merit or to be in any way art

 

[Nimos]

This thread is called "music creation with AI"

AI does not create

It copies and mimics

Everything it does is derivative

It spews out soulless inhuman trash that is based on real things

I can't stand generative AI

AI doesn't create in the same way as humans does, but how many humans actually create something new? It's not like each and every musician out there create their own unique genre or type of music, more than the AI does. So I'm not really sure exactly what the difference is?

What do you think when you hear a modern music number? let's say a random hit at a given time, how much of that music isn't created using computers and samples etc. In many cases, the singer's voice is so autotuned that you might as well use an AI.

I think there is a valid argument to be had against AI, but I think it has to be better than what you are presenting, given how a lot of music is produced today.

How many of the big hits are actually written by the artists themselves?

When it comes down to it, I don't think the process is all that different. The musicians will also constantly change the stuff they make until they are happy with it. In my case, the AI generate something based on what I tell it, and then I tell it whether I like it or not. The AI simply emulate the musicians and singers and you the producer or what to say.

If you take Andy Warhol (I think he is unique in this):
In his 1960s studio – known as the Factory – he employed studio assistants to make his work for him. Warhol realised that he could increase the commercial productivity of his art more quickly by getting others involved in making it.

Yet, for some reason, this is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Secret Chief]

So what if I am?

It doesn't alter the fact that a thing produced using generative AI can never be said to have any artistic merit or to be in any way art

We shall remain in disagreement then.

 

[Secret Chief]

If you take Andy Warhol (I think he is unique in this):
In his 1960s studio – known as the Factory – he employed studio assistants to make his work for him. Warhol realised that he could increase the commercial productivity of his art more quickly by getting others involved in making it.

Not at all unique. Large pieces are often constructed using other people. You think the artist Antony Gormley made this himself? Of course not, it was made by Hartlepool Steel Fabrications Ltd.
- Angel of the North - Wikipedia

 

[Nimos]

Not at all unique. Large pieces are often constructed using other people. You think the artist Antony Gormley made this himself? Of course not, it was made by Hartlepool Steel Fabrications Ltd.
- Angel of the North - Wikipedia

I think the discussion is important to have about AI, but the arguments against it need to be stronger I think. Because of what art is, anyone can call themselves an artist. Both of us might think what they make sucks, but that doesn't change that in a technical sense they are still an artist, simply because that is how art works even before AI came along.

But also everyone copies from each other or gets inspiration, people go to schools to learn how to copy other people's works and techniques etc. I used to study classical drawing and was also taught how to draw in the same style as Leonardo etc. This is common if you study drawing, it's not like they throw a pencil in your face and tell you to figure it out on your own. This is common for all things, first, you learn what others have achieved before you and from that knowledge, you create your own style.

But the moment an AI is taught how to do it and "easily" replicate it, then it is just bad because it's an AI, and then it is cheating, stealing and all kinds of stuff, despite it doesn't copy/paste things in the sense that it just takes a drum from one song and mix it with a guitar from another and then it is a new song. That is not how it works.

 

[Nimos]

That's the thing about it that bothers me

It can pass stuff off as human which I think is nothing short of fraudulent

Maybe the future involves a mergure of human and computer

I hope that never happens

In a sense that is already what is going on, hearing aids, pacemakers etc. Mobile phones where you are constantly hooked up to the internet etc. the step to biological integration doesn't seem all that far-fetched in my opinion.

I think it will happen, it is just a matter of time.

 

[PureX]

Hey ya'll, ...

I came across this interview yesterday and I was very impressed by the depth of information regarding AI and music, the arts, and culture in general. And it wastes no time getting right into it (which I appreciate). They start out discussing AI in music production, then move on to how commercial music production and distribution has change in part because of AI (and because of corporate greed, of course). And then they discuss cultural trends and changes in general and how to see them coming.

This is not a rant against capitalism (as it would be if I were being interviewed). But it is a very succinct discussion about what is actually happening in the music, film, and literature world as it relates to AI, corporate trends, and the real content creators vs the culture-sellers. I don't usually post videos like this, but this one was exceptionally informative if you're at all interested in this whole general subject.

Even just the first 7 minutes are very informative.