Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HelloGoodbyeFriend t1_j67o4a9 wrote

Reply to comment by CypherLH in Google not releasing MusicLM by Sieventer

Completely agree. Unfortunately the way the AI works isn’t easily explainable as of now, so uneducated critics or artists with a bias toward AI content will immediately call it a “collage tool” instead of focusing on the power that it has to expand art.

I’m a musician myself and I cannot fucking wait till the models are capable of producing anywhere near the equivalent musically that the text to image models are doing now because I will immediately use it as a tool to expand my art and expression to get the most accurate output of my emotions and the story I want to tell. That’s the biggest part of the conversation thats’s missing right now in my mind.. The great visual artists of today should be, or are probably already using AI to amplify their talents. AI, for now.. is just raising the bar of how the average person can attempt to express themselves, it’s up to the artists to view it as a tool or a threat.

3

CypherLH t1_j67onsk wrote

It unlocks artistic expression for people who previously lacked the traditional talents or lacked the time/money/resources to get that training, etc. Someone who can write but never had the talent to draw can you infuse visual imagery into their products without having to spend a bunch of money and waste time going back and forth with a contractor, etc. Its going to bring in an explosion of new creative effort, new ideas, etc. Plus think about disabled peoples who couldn't physically do things like drawing/painting but can now interact with an AI tool via speech recognition.

7

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j67plhh wrote

The problem with people who have these type of utopian fantasies is that you clearly don’t understand the concept of saturation and how this type of bar-lowering will simply tank the value of art and end up rendering the majority of it worthless in the future. It won’t lead to some unrealistic renaissance where everyone is lauded for their artificial, ai-granted, “artistic“ abilities. Instead, art will be so easy and cheap to produce for even the most talentless morons that creating art won’t be impressive or meaningful to anyone in the future.

0

CypherLH t1_j67puor wrote

Literally this is the same argument used against the printing press, digitization of data, etc. Oh no the vulgar masses can now print and read whatever they want, the horror!

Suppressing this AI now is literally akin to trying to suppress moveable Type to save the jobs of scribes and monks.

Hell, I bet people made the some sort of complaints about _writing_ when it was first coming into use.

3

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j67qzg6 wrote

First off, no where in my comment did I advocate for suppressing it smart guy… I was simply telling you what the outcome will most likely be from these innovations.

Second, stop trying to compare AI to printers, etc. AI is completely different from all those other tools. It’s a dumb false dichotomy that doesn’t even make sense. And history doesn’t always repeat, so appealing to the past is ridiculous anyways.

Lastly, do you not understand that the value of art is tied to its rarity? Do you think “The Starry Night” would have been so beloved if literal everyone could create something just as beautiful with a few text prompts? If everyone has the capability to be a great artist, no one has any reason to consume or pay for anyone else’s art. Thus art will cease to have any real monetary or cultural value. (And that’s not even touching on the damaging effects that market saturation will have on these industries as well.)

Deep down even you know I’m correct because you can’t even actually argue with what I’m telling you. All you can do is try to appeal to past creations that are in no way comparable to what AI is capable of. Says a lot huh..

−6

CypherLH t1_j67rv28 wrote

I'll admit I was ranting off on a tangent there.

That said, I really don't give a shit if artists don't like that AI Art makes it easy to generate art. The onus is on them to use the new tools to augment/improve their work....which they should be better at since they have the advantage of their artistic talent.

Set aside the copyright issue for a moment....would you agree that most of the anti-AI artists really just don't like AI generating art, period? Their citing of "copyright" is just a tactic, the real issue is that they just don't like AI Art and they hate the thought of dirty untalented vulgarians being able to express their ideas with a new tool.

5

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j67smhg wrote

Well, I definitely agree that artists just don’t like AI art period and never will (for good reason). But with the copyright thing, I don’t think it’s a “this or that” situation. I genuinely believe that it also does piss them off that the AI technology is not only a threat to their industry, but basically using their own art to eventually render them obsolete. Who wouldn’t be slightly pissed in that scenario?

But like I said, I do agree that the real animosity they have stems from the fact that they can see the writing on the wall. If people can just use AI to design their own art. There’s no need to ever hire “artists” as we know them. Thus the market for “artists” will disappear shortly after. Their animosity will most likely be justified in the end. But the genie’s out the bottle now so… it is what it is.

3

CypherLH t1_j67tmis wrote

Obviously "art" is going to change, there is no denying that. And yes there will be a flood of art. The skill will come in using the new tools to enhance works and create projects that are larger in scope, etc. But yes there is no avoiding that there is going to be a MASSIVE amount of art out there and it will be divided into smaller and smaller niches. Thats just the way its headed, like it or not. Add it to the pile of things AI is going to disrupt MASSIVELY.

By the way, if we get to UBI or some form of "post scarcity" then its alleviates most of the problems because artists would no longer need to earn end's meat off their work, they could just do art for the joy of it like any starving artist but without the starving. Sorry to sound all utopian but this IS /singularity ;)

4

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j67uqtz wrote

I can agree that a post-scarcity world takes the sting out of losing your career, but my concern lies more with what the value of creating art will be in a world where AI allows everyone to be just as capable as you are.

There may not actually be much fulfillment in creating art in a world where artistic skill itself is no longer scarce. You know what I mean? Sure some may still attempt to make art when bored or whatever. But what’s the point when some less talented idiot can just open up an AI and create something just as good or even better with a fraction of the time and effort it took you? How fulfilling will making art be when “making art” simply consisted of typing a short description into a text prompt and then boom… beautiful artwork?

I’m just not sure the value of making art will survive this transition into post-scarcity. I guess that’s what’s being debated here.

2

CypherLH t1_j6a4za4 wrote

I can see your point but I optimistically assume that a larger amount of art in total will also mean a larger amount of quality art.(even if its a small percentage of the total) And the same AI tools that generate art will also be able to help people seek out art that appeals to them. The best art will still rise to the top and there will still be a skill in things like worldbuilding, setting style guides, etc.

2

visarga t1_j68rznt wrote

> If people can just use AI to design their own art. There’s no need to ever hire “artists” as we know them.

So naive. The competition will not fire their artists and use AI as well. Guess who will win? They might have so much volume they need to hire more.

−1

HelloGoodbyeFriend t1_j67tm9c wrote

“Deep down even you know I’m correct because you can’t even actually argue with what I’m telling you.”

I was going to write out a whole counterargument to your comment but then I read this. Fuck the fuck off dude and if you don’t understand why I’m saying this, go ask ChatGPT.

4

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j67ts6b wrote

Nice argument you got there pal… totally didn’t prove me right with that comment… nope.

−2

californiarepublik t1_j681dvo wrote

The problem with your ideas here is that you have no proof or evidence it will work out this way.

−1

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j681o9q wrote

I have no proof that the more saturated an item or skill is on the market, the lower the price it yields? I have no proof that the larger the supply of an item or skill, the lower the demand? Am I misunderstanding your question or are just new to planet Earth? Please be more specific…

2

californiarepublik t1_j682la1 wrote

Another point -- using MusicLM to create drumbeats or riffs for an electronic dance track could actually be a MORE creative process for many producers that the ways they are doing it now, since many people are simply sifting through a library of samples to find their basic musical building blocks. Using a text-to-music generator to make your beats instead seems potentially a much more creative process, and personally I will embrace this as a tool in my own music making as soon as its available. I don't see this as replacing my 30 years of education and experience as a musician -- rather -- my background as a musician and artist enables me to get much better use out of AI tools and get the results I want.

1

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j6850c9 wrote

Ahh… So you’re a “would-be” artist yourself? that explains a lot. Have you not considered that you may be biased on this particular topic buddy? Seems like you have a vested interest in the idea that human art will somehow be spared from automation. (For pretty obvious reasons).

Ask yourself this, what’s gonna happen when AI creates a world where there’s no need for beatmakers because AI will generate a perfect beat in seconds based on a few descriptive sentences? What happens when everyone can use these AI to make their own beats? (So there’s no need for them to ever buy anyone else’s beats?)

What happens when we have AI that can totally bypass the process of “making beats” and can instead, simply generate fully completed songs with human vocals included? What happens to music industry when this type of tech is available to everyone?

1

californiarepublik t1_j6828h9 wrote

Let me try.

With regard to music, its already very easy to produce formulaic derivative music without AI, you can simply buy all the samples online and snap them together. You can buy vocal a cappellas and use them or hire a studio singer online for cheap.

This has led to a flood of mediocre music ALREADY, we're well down that road, but somehow the best artists still manage to rise the top by creating work that moves people, regardless what tools were used. I believe that this situation will continue well into the future, and AI-art that can replace human artists is still as far off as 100% reliable self-driving cars, another chimera.

0

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j68400s wrote

Because… at the moment , making “the best” music still requires some degree of skill and talent. What do you think will happen once we have AI that can generate music better than today’s best artists with a few descriptive text prompts? What happens to the market for music when anyone can generate an entire album full of songs personally tailored to their specific tastes for free with AI? Do you still think people will bother listening to (or financially supporting) music created by other people?

It’s completely stupid to compare the state of any industry today to what will be possible with these AI’s in the future. There’s never been a point in human history where we were able to create the type of technology that we’re working towards now. There’s no historical precedent for a world with AI so comparing the future to the past is useless here. At the end of the day you’ll always be comparing two different worlds. History doesn’t always repeat itself my friend. Past doesn’t necessarily dictate future.

3

californiarepublik t1_j684kzf wrote

> Because… at the moment , making “the best” music still requires some degree of skill and talent. What do you think will happen once we have AI that can generate music better than today’s best artists with a few descriptive text prompts? What happens to the market for music when anyone can generate an entire album full of songs personally tailored to their specific tastes for free with AI? Do you still think people will bother listening to (or financially supporting) music created by other people?

Will this happen before or after my full self-driving Tesla can drive me to work in a snowstorm in New England?

0

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j685awm wrote

Are you under the impression that neither of these things will ever happen? Or do you just think that they’re a long time away? You’d be wrong on both counts…

3

californiarepublik t1_j694wuz wrote

I’d rather say that by the time AI ca n do all those things, we’ll have bigger problems than musicians and artists being replaced, at that point AI will be able to do everything better than humans.

2

californiarepublik t1_j681xzd wrote

r/iamverysmart

−1

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j68340b wrote

Because… I simply disagree with you? Seems like someone just has some intellectual insecurities. 😂 But whatever, I’ll take that as a compliment. The fact that you think I’m trying to “look smart” when I’m simply giving my views on the matter is hilarious tbh. It’d be like telling a beautiful person simply having a conversation in a restaurant to “stop trying to look beautiful 😡”.

No one’s trying to look like anything buddy. Do you really think I wanna impress some random dumbass on Reddit that has yet to even provide any real argument against what I said? Lmao get over yourself. I simply gave my opinion, you proceeded to post a dumb rebuttal, and then I responded to that. That’s it. The fact that you’re now trying to resort to childish insults proves you just don’t have anything meaningful to add to the conversation. So stop wasting your own time and just move along pal. 👍

2