5 ms·
Billie Eilish, Pearl Jam, 200 artists say AI poses threat to their livelihoods
- whalesalad 3y agoFeels like RIAA napster era all over again.
- afavour 3y agoI don't really see how. That era was actually dominated by the record labels, not the artists (Metallica excepted). Artists were eager to try new models of of the music business (e.g. Radiohead releasing a "pay what you want" album) but the labels refused to adapt to the times. This feels like something quite different. The artists themselves are concerned about being replaced by a computer-generated facsimile of their creativity. If anything the record labels would probably love that. Make a Billie Eilish-y album without having to pay her any royalties for it? A dream.
- Drakim 3y agoA lot of these artists don't actually know how to play instruments, get their beats and tunes from others, and also use auto-tuning for their vocals. From the perspective of people who actually learn musical theory, compose music, perform music, and learn to sing, technology has already long ago replaced the artists.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ZitchDog 3y agoThis was my thought as well. Many people don’t remember how huge Napster was at the time. Dr Dre and Metallica speaking out changed the zeitgeist in a massive way.
- joenot443 3y agoConsidering the list is made up of names like Bon Jovi and Nicki Minaj, I'm not THAT concerned about their livelihoods. They could never a single penny for the rest of their lives and they'd still remain unfathomably richer than the average American. It might be controversial in some circles, but I'm of the opinion that the best music being recorded these days is not being done by people seeking millions. It's being recorded by people who have something interesting and novel they'd like to express, and very, very occasionally they'll see a financial reward. I say this as someone who has thousands of Spotify/Apple Music plays on my piano albums and zero motivation to ever seek any kind of reward from it. Making art is different from making money, I don't think that's a bad thing.
- telesilla 3y ago>not THAT concerned about their livelihoods Some (actually, most, now I read more) of these artists are well-known for their mentorship and community efforts, I'd like to take the kinder approach and assume they are using their powerful voices to support those artists who don't have such power.
- sieste 3y agoProbably true for some. But: > "When used irresponsibly, AI poses enormous threats to our ability to protect our privacy, our identities, our music and our livelihoods," the open letter states. Note it says "our" not "the young artists and communities that we mentor and support".
- afavour 3y agoThe statement is not by Billie Eilish, Pearl Jam, etc. though. It's by the Artist Rights Alliance, which is itself a community. Feels like we're splitting hairs to suggest young artists aren't included just because they weren't specifically called out.
- meaydinli 3y agoGroups like that use vague language like that on purpose so that when they are cornered and questioned, they can say non-committal, vague things like that and get away with not caring about nobody but themselves. So yes, if they really mean protecting the community along with young artists, they have to explicitly and clearly state it to be believable.
- nolroz 3y agoJoin the club!
- Zambyte 3y agoWorth considering what their livelihood is that is under threat: https://www.forbes.com/profile/billie-eilish/?sh=6da92972610c https://www.forbes.com/profile/billie-eilish/?sh=6da92972610... https://www.thethings.com/eddie-vedder-is-the-richest-member-of-pearl-jam/ https://www.thethings.com/eddie-vedder-is-the-richest-member...
- mattlondon 3y agoOk so 202 (already wealthy) people's livelihoods are at risk. What about everyone else?!
- bluedevil2k 3y ago> In the letter, the artists say that unchecked AI will set in motion a race to the bottom that will degrade the value of their work and prevent them from being fairly compensated Who defines what “fairly compensated” means? It seems the music industry is constantly complaining about not getting paid enough (Napster, satellite radio, streaming, master rights, and now AI).
- bee_rider 3y agoIMO there are credible arguments for and against AI generated content. But these label backed brands have no real grounds to complain about selling out art. They are big businesses incumbents that have commoditized art and are now worried that they might have some competition. I’m sympathetic to the hand-crafted buggy-whip manufacturers that really take pride in their work, but we’re talking about buggy whip assembly line #1000 worrying that they might have to retool for steering wheels.
- lancesells 3y agoI don't listen to any of the artists on this big list, but to say the popular ones are without merit is wrong. I wouldn't go see Bon Jovi if you gave me tickets but I'm sure they take pride in their work and before the fame they were working class musicians. Pop music does nothing for me but I don't think it's just some easy thing performed by non-artists.
- lc9er 3y agoSeriously. The number of people here saying, essentially, "These artists are beneath my tastes" so none are deserving of reward or protections, is ridiculous.
- joenot443 3y agoThey're not without merit - I like Bon Jovi and Billie Eilish too. I'm saying that in a world with millions of jobs in the process of being upended by AI, the jobs of millionaire performers are not high on my list of concern.
- 1123581321 3y agoRights to virtual live shows are major stakes here. Fans creating their own songs should just whet appetite to see live shows, which is where the money is shifting anyway. But live productions creating exciting virtual performances without input or permission from the artist threatens the live show revenue. One potential threat from fan-generated music we haven't dealt with yet is a popular fake diverging too much from what the actual artist does. If the artist won't accommodate this, it would create an opportunity for a similar artist to perform the music. It'd be like when an artist's popular song is one they hate, and they have to decide whether to give people what they want.
- alwaysrunning 3y agoAgreed. I just paid $409 for two tickets to a concert in Aug, yesterday. I'm not sure how much of that goes to the artist. But those prices make it really difficult for me to feel sorry for them as they cry out that they don't make enough money.
- bongodongobob 3y agoTo the artist personally? Prob 5% or less.
- zzzeek 3y agofirst AI came for the artists, and I said nothing, for I had no talent. take that, artists!
- Simon_ORourke 3y agoNewer better music you would think would pose a greater existential threat to the likes of Pearl Jam!
- AIorNot 3y agowith AI Platforms like https://www.suno.ai/ https://www.suno.ai/ -the capabilities are indeed mindblowing. - We do need protection for artists, but the tech itself is amazing and will only get better. Not sure that limiting the tech is the answer..historically that has never really worked.
- ZitchDog 3y agoIt definitely worked in the case of Napster! It was a technological setback that bought time for the incumbent industry to catch up. Lots of parallels here actually.
- rurp 3y agoI wouldn't agree with that, there are plenty of levers available to limit tech, especially for anything resource intensive like AI. Electric cars could have been mainstream 100 years ago without a concerted effort to stop them. Plus Napster as the sibling mentioned, and many more examples.
- artninja1988 3y ago>Electric cars could have been mainstream 100 years ago without a concerted effort to stop them Huh? What's the source
- alwaysrunning 3y agoIt seems their main complaint is that AI companies have used their copyrighted music to train AI. >It alleges that some of the "biggest and most powerful" companies (unnamed in the letter) are using the work of artists without permission to train AI models, with the aim of replacing human artists with AI-created content. How is this any different than HS kids using their music to learn to play a song, an instrument, write music? Isn't this done today on a much larger scale by humans?
- afavour 3y ago> How is this any different than HS kids using their music to learn to play a song, an instrument, write music? ...the high school kids aren't selling it?
- alwaysrunning 3y agoAI isn't selling their music either.
- afavour 3y agoYou really don't think record labels will use AI to avoid paying royalties to artists? Because they will. The objection to AI usually isn't literally an objection to the technology. The artists body releasing this statement aren't concerned about people producing AI-driven remixes in their bedrooms. They're concerned about big businesses using AI to cut the artist out of the artistic process and further centralise profit.
- voidfunc 3y agoArtists that figure out how to leverage the tech will succeed. I'm really bored with the whole "plight of artists" argument lately.
- neverrroot 3y agoFunny, how some of them have a whole lot to thank the computer for augmenting their music, but now… nope, bad bad computer. We won’t survive, with our meager millions. Right, not!
- dontreact 3y agoLooking at the the list, I think only a very small fraction of the 200 that signed are millionaires. Only the millionaires can get attention for this by signing.
- punyearthling 3y agolol autotune made some of these artists.
- slibhb 3y agoComputers that are better at chess than us didn't ruin chess. I bet music/art will be the same.
- akkad33 3y agoThat's a nice analogy. We don't listen to artists just because it is entertaining. Artists have a persona and something unique to communicate and that's what people latch on to
- preommr 3y agoOh no! Not the celebrities, quick someone sing "Can you imagine" /s There's a level of irony that the the true problem is for smaller artists, but they buried the lede so that they could put the focus on big name celebrities.
- forinti 3y ago> Artists say AI will "set in motion a race to the bottom that will degrade the value of our work." I would argue that pop music has (mostly) been a continuous industry-sponsored race to the bottom for many decades now. So this might be just another step.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bufferoverflow 3y agoCongratulations, you've noticed that AI will take away jobs. What a novel idea.
- ompogUe 3y ago(Visual) artist, here. In art school they (responsibly, I thought) told us "it's very difficult to survive as an artist", so: a.) Go to grad school and become a teacher b.) and/or, Become good at writing grants c.) and/or Don't quit you day job Seeing all the hoo-ha about (visual) artists getting all up in arms about AI, my opinion is: if are you actually creative, not just concatenating things from "inspiration" web sites, then don't worry too hard. You'll find new questions to answer and new media to answer them in. wrt musicians, I'll give any music try, ai or not. I'd be less interested in buying swag or seeing live performances of ai, and know a LOT of musicians who do it for love, so don't see them drying up altogether.
- asmnzxklopqw 3y agoThreat to their wealth, not to their livelihoods
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago""This assault on human creativity must be stopped," they write." This is only relevant "if you are a human".1 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20TAkcy3aBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20TAkcy3aBY Why would so-called "tech" companies launch an assault on human creativity. They are intermediaries (middlemen) that sit between the artist and the audience and conduct surveillance and sell online advertising services. They produce no art or other "content" themselves. Artists like the ones in the article can sell recordings and/or concert tickets. They have something to offer that people will pay for. But what do so-called "tech" companies have to sell, except online ad services. Most people in the world have paid money for music but how many have paid money for an online ad.