>the current level of ML/AI music is about on par with a precocious elementary student with a basic understanding of an Akai MPC. not really true. As far as se

>the current level of ML/AI music is about on par with a precocious elementary student with a basic understanding of an Akai MPC. not really true. As far as seven(!) years back people have done experiments where AI reproduction was good enough to fool even experienced listeners (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/computer-generates-music-rival-bachs-n414066 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/computer-generates-m...) The biggest issue with AI art isn't the quality, we can already make generative art that is faithful enough to not be distinguishable. It's that authorship is an inherent part of art, and nobody is really interested in art that has no human creator in the same way nobody watches bots play chess, despite higher quality of play. Authenticity is central to art, what Walter Benjamin called the 'aura' of a work. (it's unique place in space and time, which automated art does not have). Keeping this in mind the NFT craze over seemingly random pictures makes more sense, because it was essentially a mechanism to give a replaceable, fungible, mechanic work an aura of sorts, anchoring it. Rather than fidelity, this will be the central question of the tech/art intersection.