5 ms·

Eventually, they will be able to transfer music and song style from one artist to others too. I wonder what is the point to have artists in the future and how

Eventually, they will be able to transfer music and song style from one artist to others too. I wonder what is the point to have artists in the future and how the artists can survive? Will artist become template markers?

gallerdude 10y ago
"I'll take a Wes Anderson movie about volcanoes, with Bill Murray starring in it, computer."
idoh 10y ago
Musicians have always been about the performance more than the creation of the music. A ton of musicians do not write their own music, for instance, but are still really popular.
grandalf 10y ago
Interesting. Your comment gets at the question of what constitutes art. I think there are many forms and purposes of art, but the kind we most often consider authentic usually seems in many ways crude compared to what preceded it: - Jazz began as something that sounded cacophonous compared to the more obvious order of hymns and classical music. Jazz transformed what had been brief moments of dissonance and arrhythmia into elaborate intereleavings of tension and resolution, structure and chaos. - Rap began by taking the repetition and rhyme of poetry and the rhythms of african music and created something many would not classify as music when they first heard it. - In order to be deemed fresh and worthy of recognition, fiction must not feel like a rehash of the great classics. In most cases the best new fiction smashes conventions in at least one narrow way. I'd argue that an unattributed work from a great author would not likely be publishable today because of that. Quality is not just subjective, it is relative. - In fashion, the moment a style is obvious it becomes outdated and means something quite different. In some cases the latter can be marketed successfully, but it is hard to think of it as art by that point. Think of the way iconic things felt when they were new (and ugly to most people at that moment) and someone was making them iconic. So while these algorithms create believable surface features mimicing established instances of "art" (they might persuade me that a short story was written by Fitzgerald when in fact it had been written by a grad student and run through the algorithm) they won't necessarily make it a good short story. But in another year researchers will likely understand what makes humans consider things stylistically novel and then all the above points will be irrelevant.
tlrobinson 10y ago
> I wonder what is the point to have artists in the future and how the artists can survive? I feel like that's a bit like someone in the 1800's asking if artists will still exist once photography technology improves. If art creation is completely monopolized by AI then I think it's likely most of the rest of our jobs will be too.
j1vms 10y ago
> (...) how the artists can survive? Let's take "survive" to mean survive financially based on one's ability to produce art with commercial value during their lifetimes. As others do, I think art is much more than than the piece itself, through whatever senses we use to perceive it. It is also the story of its creator and the wider context of its creation, as well as history of its movement through the world including those of its various owners. I think this leaves tremendous room for human artists today and far into the future. Further, I believe some artists, and there certainly exists those who have tried already, will direct machine learning based art, adapting it to be more likely to succeed based on those factors I indicated.

gallerdude 10y ago

"I'll take a Wes Anderson movie about volcanoes, with Bill Murray starring in it, computer."

idoh 10y ago

Musicians have always been about the performance more than the creation of the music. A ton of musicians do not write their own music, for instance, but are still really popular.

grandalf 10y ago

Interesting. Your comment gets at the question of what constitutes art. I think there are many forms and purposes of art, but the kind we most often consider authentic usually seems in many ways crude compared to what preceded it: - Jazz began as something that sounded cacophonous compared to the more obvious order of hymns and classical music. Jazz transformed what had been brief moments of dissonance and arrhythmia into elaborate intereleavings of tension and resolution, structure and chaos. - Rap began by taking the repetition and rhyme of poetry and the rhythms of african music and created something many would not classify as music when they first heard it. - In order to be deemed fresh and worthy of recognition, fiction must not feel like a rehash of the great classics. In most cases the best new fiction smashes conventions in at least one narrow way. I'd argue that an unattributed work from a great author would not likely be publishable today because of that. Quality is not just subjective, it is relative. - In fashion, the moment a style is obvious it becomes outdated and means something quite different. In some cases the latter can be marketed successfully, but it is hard to think of it as art by that point. Think of the way iconic things felt when they were new (and ugly to most people at that moment) and someone was making them iconic. So while these algorithms create believable surface features mimicing established instances of "art" (they might persuade me that a short story was written by Fitzgerald when in fact it had been written by a grad student and run through the algorithm) they won't necessarily make it a good short story. But in another year researchers will likely understand what makes humans consider things stylistically novel and then all the above points will be irrelevant.

tlrobinson 10y ago

> I wonder what is the point to have artists in the future and how the artists can survive? I feel like that's a bit like someone in the 1800's asking if artists will still exist once photography technology improves. If art creation is completely monopolized by AI then I think it's likely most of the rest of our jobs will be too.

j1vms 10y ago

> (...) how the artists can survive? Let's take "survive" to mean survive financially based on one's ability to produce art with commercial value during their lifetimes. As others do, I think art is much more than than the piece itself, through whatever senses we use to perceive it. It is also the story of its creator and the wider context of its creation, as well as history of its movement through the world including those of its various owners. I think this leaves tremendous room for human artists today and far into the future. Further, I believe some artists, and there certainly exists those who have tried already, will direct machine learning based art, adapting it to be more likely to succeed based on those factors I indicated.