5 ms·

After a lot of thinking, I have come to a conclusion that expresses me personally, so feel free to disagree if you like: The human being was not created to be

• dragongling 3y ago
  Nodoby forbids you to create art for the sake of art however you want, be it by recording instruments, making stuff in FL Studio, mixing meme samples or using AI. If you want to be competitive in music production industry you have to be somewhat economically effective as in any industry and AI will raise economical effectiveness to the whole new level.
• mnd999 3y ago
  Totally agree. Fuck off google.
  • hashtag-til 3y ago
    This is becoming Reddit. Please continue.
• jillesvangurp 3y ago
  You are not being deprived of any rights. You just don't have them exclusively. Make music, or don't. Up to you. Either way, there will be machines also making music. So, what?
  • chpatrick 3y ago
    How are people going to become professional musicians if it stops being a career?
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • progbits 3y ago
      Plenty of people make music for fun while having other careers. A lot of the masterpiece painters did it for passion and lived in poverty (I'm not saying that is good, but clearly a career is not necessary for great results).
      • chpatrick 3y ago
        Sure but most renowned artists had the time to become really skilled because they could dedicate all their time to it. If no one wants to pay humans for art any more, how will that happen?
        • prmoustache 3y ago
          People pay a lot of thing much higher because they are less perfectly made by humans. All the time.
        • Tadpole9181 3y ago
          Then become politically active and make sure we have a strong safety net with healthy labor rights that allow everyone to have ample free time. You don't ban music production software.
      • carlosjobim 3y ago
        You can never reach a high proficiency of playing a musical instrument if you have another career. It takes an insane amount of practice.
    • Ferret7446 3y ago
      Becoming a professional musician isn't a "right" of any kind. You don't have a "right" to be paid to do anything you want. You're certainly allowed to do it (barring outright criminal activity), but don't expect to be entitled to monetary compensation.
  • nonbirithm 3y ago
    I think it may be worth asking if social media has the capability to deprive a subset of people of living a peaceful life, because of its mental health effects. It is the users' choice to stop using social media, but they don't, maybe because their friends are all their and it drags them back into the orbit of algorithmic timelines and depression. Is it simply a matter of saying "up to them" to stop using? Now imagine in a group of people you share a hand-crafted song but one of your friends who isn't as interested in producing music takes your song as inspiration and creates something that sounds better. Imagine they aren't even trying to do this to intentionally one-up you; they think of it as the same kind of sharing and creation. You may disagree but their definition of self-expression differs, and it's difficult to change people. But this happens consistently and the bar is raised ever higher each time. How well someone handles this kind of scenario depends on mindset. Is the joy in being better than others, or pursuing the craft and learning things, or sharing in the experience in consumption? People will have different values. But I think the bias in AI is for people to focus on the end result without needing to put in a lot of effort. It's the entire selling point of these products - taking out the effort in getting a high-quality result. Yet the effort spent on human art isn't wasted effort. The effort doesn't just go towards the finished price, but to the satisfaction of the artist themselves. It stimulates their neurobiology. And in a lot of tutorials for hand-crafted art, the mindset taught is to focus on the process and not the end result. Generative art contradicts that bit of knowledge, and it could cause dissonance. In Stanisław Lem's story about the electronic bard, the existence of the impeccable poetry-generating robot does not directly deprive the poets of their ability to create their own poems. Instead, after perceiving the generated work to be higher quality than anything they're capable of writing, the poets become depressed and commit suicide. You could say the poets didn't have the right mindset of how to approach life, but I think it raises a good point. It's the mental state of people who create and how society views these tools that matters. You will always have the ability to put pencil to paper regardless of what big technology does, but will you want to if you think the rest of the world has moved on without you? I think maybe in modern times the effect will be closer to: artists scale back or give up their craft because the potential audiences vote with their wallets and attention spans for people who rent server farms. It's the despair at seeing the public valuing the end-result over the human element in a broader cultural sense. It's feeling as if a piece of yourself is being lost in an eternal void. And it's the idea that generative models could become a fundamental part of society. Billboards are generated because those cause the most successful ad campaigns. People hold massive music festivals exclusively made of generative synth lines because they attract the crowds. The taste of your drink is algorithmically modeled with ingredients adjusted for the best product-market fit possible. What stops these people in their tracks is perceiving the world as one that values the machine over the human, and even if you value the human, you still have to get in line with the machine - everyone else is doing it. Generative models could retrain our value systems. It's not so much what generative models take away than how they change the public's perception of art itself. It is the depression and mindset changes that come with knowing the poetry-robot will be there for all eternity. Older forms of thinking become outdated, some which may be considered virtuous or delicately intertwined with the human spirit, and this causes anguish and despair at the state of things, and the ever-improving army of poetry robots that sees no end in sight. Because we haven't put an end state on improving technology, and I think deep down some of us believe there was never meant to be such an end state in the future. We would have to spin terms like degrowth and Luddism into something more palatable to have any chance of creating one.
• checker659 3y ago
  This tool will help people who're not musically trained to express themselves musically.
  • porkbeer 3y ago
    Its not self expression when something else does the expressing.
    • j4yav 3y ago
      It's almost like the peak form of being a consumer. All you have to do is express your desire in a sophisticated (maybe even not sophisticated?) way, and you can easily pay a device to fulfill it on the cheap.
    • jerojero 3y ago
      Machines cannot express, as far as I know. They're sophisticated tools but still tools. If someone feels these tools help them express what they want, if they are satisfied, I would call that a form of self-expression. I mean, who am I to deny them that feeling?
      • emanuele232 3y ago
        this is getting philosophical, but maybe humans are sophisticated tools
        • hurryer 3y ago
          A director directing the orchestra...
    • butlike 3y ago
      Case: I create a painting. When it's done I say: "yes, this represents how I feel, and I want to share it." Case: I create a painting with a prompt and when it's done I say: "yes, this represents how I feel, and I want to share it." What's the difference?
• tchaffee 3y ago
  I like playing video games with a computer. I also like playing music with a computer. I've learned far quicker playing chess against an AI than I would have playing against humans. And yet I still really enjoy playing against humans too. In fact the experience playing against humans is richer thanks to a deeper understanding of the game that came from AI. Your argument is along the same lines as arguing electric guitar is lifeless when compared to the non-machine acoustic version. When what really matters is who is operating the machine. AI is just another tool. It will be used in insensitive mechanical ways and in ways that deeply enrich our lives.
  • sesm 3y ago
    I have hard time believing that you can learn quicker playing chess against AI. Humans can explain ideas behind their moves, their long term plans and their position evaluation. That what chess coaches will explain you and that's what you can read in chess books. Computer has hard time explaining his moves, has no notion of long-term plan and it's position evaluation is often useless for beginner or intermediate chess players (like evaluating position as a draw while one side has to do a series of very precise moves to achieve equality, which is a clearly lost position for a non-grandmaster player).
    • newshackr 3y ago
      You can play with the computer forever unlike with a human
      • FartyMcFarter 3y ago
        You can play with humans forever online. There isn't a lack of people willing to play.
        • tchaffee 3y ago
          Will those players analyze and rate your moves like a chess engine will? Will they name common opening strategies for you so you can research them in books? Will they let you take back several moves to explore different lines?
• quectophoton 3y ago
  Yeah it depends how you look at it. Using the "journey metaphor", for some people what matters is the destination; for others what matters is the journey itself; for others what matters is the person doing it; and for others any combination of those. The target audience for most generative stuff is mostly people who are looking at "the destination".