4 ms·

Considering 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

Considering 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 ago
  Probably 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      Groups 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.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
afavour 3y ago
The list is made of up names tuned for publicity. If they didn't include prominent names Arstechnica probably wouldn't write it up and we probably wouldn't discuss it. From the Artists Rights Alliance web site [1]: > We are an alliance of working musicians, performers, and songwriters fighting for a healthy creative economy and fair treatment for all creators in the digital world. It sounds like a great many of the people you're describing who aren't seeking millions are members of this alliance. Personally I don't want to live in a world where the only way to produce art is in your spare time, around some other full-time job. I think there's a middle ground where artists are able to earn a living without becoming millionaires. Capitalist society has never come up with a great answer for that but I think this alliance is right to be worried that AI might further deteriorate the possibility. [1] https://artistrightsalliance.org/about_us https://artistrightsalliance.org/about_us
ImHereToVote 3y ago
It's hard to do art when you don't have a roof over your head. It takes a long time to master an art. Time that could be used at work instead. If doing art is no longer a viable career path then only the children of the rich will be able to pursue it.
- giantg2 3y ago
  That's basically how it is today. Making money off of art seems to be primarily driven by networking. So the rich are already more likely to break out in the business since they have connections. I don't think I know any middle or lower class parents encouraging thier kids to pursue music or art as a career.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Art has never really be a viable career path except for the exceptionally talented and lucky few. With YouTube and other social media, it's probably never been better. I'm not interested in AI art, and feel that the defintion of art should be "created by a human" but I'm sure many don't care.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Whether something is "art" or not is kind of separate from whether it can be sold as a product. I would love it if software could generate, for example, an infinite number of episodes of my favorite TV show from the 90s, so long as the generated stories/plots were convincingly indistinguishable from the "genuine" show with real actors. Does that count as Real Art™ according to the art police? Who knows? Would I buy it? Yes.
  - fhd2 3y ago
    That sounds like a fitting definition of art. I do think it is a viable career path though: Maybe you won't make things with 100% freedom 100% of the time, but you can apply the skills built for your art in profitable endeavors. I know a few artists making their living as designers for example. I don't think I know any _rich_ artists that aren't incredibly talented and/or lucky, but it's not about being either rich or poor. Now with LLMs recycling existing content, less of those skills might be needed so there is a risk that it _will_ become about being either rich or poor. That, I find tragic.
999900000999 3y ago
The bigger issue is if I run my machine learning bot on your piano albums, and then reuse that music. It's technically not yours anymore, and I can license the music out to whoever I want. I think a good middle ground would be to immediately put all AI generated art in the public domain. I'd love to be able to just ask Chat GPT 5 to recreate The Chronic in French or Straight out of Compton in Japanese. But the issue is I shouldn't be able to sell that content as if it's a result of my work.
- misja111 3y ago
  Honestly many of those artists didn't reach fame because they were such brilliant singers or composers. They were also not bad, but their strong point was building an image, performing live and gathering a large fanbase. You could sample their music for all you want but it would never sell anywhere near the originals.
- raven105x 3y ago
  To be fair, this is no different than what's done by a human artist. Virtually every song composed today is inspired by or based on, in some manner or other, a previous work of art. This is exactly what machine learning does - a novel recombination of what has been previously observed (ie., "reusing the music" - building upon that which is) Whether this process is done by a human or not is irrelevant. ML, for the most part, does exactly what humans do. There are currently very few capabilities which ML performs that humans do not - namely, blatant plagiarism. People whining about their exact job being done by a machine is as old as time. Farmers, industrial revolution, the printing press (scribes whined), etc. Nothing new here. New jobs will be created to replace the lost ones. We've arguably been in a "BS economy" for quite some time now.
  - lbotos 3y ago
    And to be clearer -- We have licensing mechanisms now in music (they aren't perfect) but when you remix/interpolate/sample the original artist gets their cut. The "risks" of Machine learning with large models is you won't know who you are even sampling, which exposes you to unknown risk.
bdcravens 3y ago
Behind every millionaire musician is a supporting staff consisting of folks making 5 (or low 6) figures.
meristohm 3y ago
The voices of popular/wealthy musicians reach further than most of the other people making music, so I appreciate them for this, even if it might be selfishly motivated. What will it take to get to a point where people can make art independently of livelihood?
- Kiro 3y ago
  > What will it take to get to a point where people can make art independently of livelihood? We're already there. I've made hundreds of songs in my life and haven't earned a penny. It's all good.
  - mcguire 3y ago
    What do you do to make money?
    - Kiro 3y ago
      I have a normal job, like 99.9% of all musicians.
- joenot443 3y ago
  > What will it take to get to a point where people can make art independently of livelihood? Did you finish reading my comment? I'm the exact person you're talking about. I've never made a cent from any of my art, yet I plan to continue making music until the day I die.
lc9er 3y ago
I, too, have made albums (at my expense) and also believe the best art is coming from names most people have never heard. But that doesn't mean other artists don't deserve protection from exploitative streaming services and music venue monopolies. Tech bros and LiveNation would happily cannibalize the music industry for immediate profit, if they could. It's rather snobbish and self-centered to declare that musicians don't deserve protections from corporate greed, just because of your tastes and/or it doesn't have an impact on your hobby.
default-kramer 3y ago
Reading the open letter, I don't think they are concerned with AI compositions dominating the charts. The open letter mentions "massive quantities of AI-created 'sounds' and 'images' that substantially dilute the royalty pools" and "We must protect against the predatory use of AI to steal professional artist' voices and likenesses, violate creators' rights, and destroy the music ecosystem." So I think the more realistic threats are things like: Generating drum samples instead of buying them. Generating jingles/ads instead of hiring a composer. Spoofing a famous person's voice/likeness for some promotional blurb instead of paying them.
mcguire 3y ago
At the risk of sounding too "woke", I have to point out that many people are not in the privileged situation of being able to afford to create music, art, or writing without getting a financial reward from it. If they have something interesting or novel to express, they do not have the free time to express it in hopes of a occasional reward.
rhelz 3y ago
AI is a threat to Billie Eilish and Pearl Jam's livelihood? Well, given that Billie Eilish, Pearl Jam, etc, have been more than a threat to MY livelihood as famous rock-star :-) I can sympathize, but frankly, that's just the way it is. You have the right to compete, but you don't have the right to suppress competitors. Being king of the hill isn't a lifetime achievement award. Now that we don't need artists to create derivative music, perhaps we won't have so much derivative music created. I wish them well, because frankly, it's not just them--everybody is going to have to prove they can be more valuable than an AI.
imbnwa 3y ago
>Considering 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. And you think anyone would listen or gather the opinion of the litany of unknown artists out there? Like, yes, its important that people who are well-known voice themselves on subjects like this.
dr-detroit 3y ago
[dead]

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 ago
Probably 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Groups 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.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

afavour 3y ago

The list is made of up names tuned for publicity. If they didn't include prominent names Arstechnica probably wouldn't write it up and we probably wouldn't discuss it. From the Artists Rights Alliance web site [1]: > We are an alliance of working musicians, performers, and songwriters fighting for a healthy creative economy and fair treatment for all creators in the digital world. It sounds like a great many of the people you're describing who aren't seeking millions are members of this alliance. Personally I don't want to live in a world where the only way to produce art is in your spare time, around some other full-time job. I think there's a middle ground where artists are able to earn a living without becoming millionaires. Capitalist society has never come up with a great answer for that but I think this alliance is right to be worried that AI might further deteriorate the possibility. [1] https://artistrightsalliance.org/about_us https://artistrightsalliance.org/about_us

ImHereToVote 3y ago

It's hard to do art when you don't have a roof over your head. It takes a long time to master an art. Time that could be used at work instead. If doing art is no longer a viable career path then only the children of the rich will be able to pursue it.

giantg2 3y ago
That's basically how it is today. Making money off of art seems to be primarily driven by networking. So the rich are already more likely to break out in the business since they have connections. I don't think I know any middle or lower class parents encouraging thier kids to pursue music or art as a career.
SoftTalker 3y ago
Art has never really be a viable career path except for the exceptionally talented and lucky few. With YouTube and other social media, it's probably never been better. I'm not interested in AI art, and feel that the defintion of art should be "created by a human" but I'm sure many don't care.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Whether something is "art" or not is kind of separate from whether it can be sold as a product. I would love it if software could generate, for example, an infinite number of episodes of my favorite TV show from the 90s, so long as the generated stories/plots were convincingly indistinguishable from the "genuine" show with real actors. Does that count as Real Art™ according to the art police? Who knows? Would I buy it? Yes.
- fhd2 3y ago
  That sounds like a fitting definition of art. I do think it is a viable career path though: Maybe you won't make things with 100% freedom 100% of the time, but you can apply the skills built for your art in profitable endeavors. I know a few artists making their living as designers for example. I don't think I know any _rich_ artists that aren't incredibly talented and/or lucky, but it's not about being either rich or poor. Now with LLMs recycling existing content, less of those skills might be needed so there is a risk that it _will_ become about being either rich or poor. That, I find tragic.

999900000999 3y ago

The bigger issue is if I run my machine learning bot on your piano albums, and then reuse that music. It's technically not yours anymore, and I can license the music out to whoever I want. I think a good middle ground would be to immediately put all AI generated art in the public domain. I'd love to be able to just ask Chat GPT 5 to recreate The Chronic in French or Straight out of Compton in Japanese. But the issue is I shouldn't be able to sell that content as if it's a result of my work.

misja111 3y ago
Honestly many of those artists didn't reach fame because they were such brilliant singers or composers. They were also not bad, but their strong point was building an image, performing live and gathering a large fanbase. You could sample their music for all you want but it would never sell anywhere near the originals.
raven105x 3y ago
To be fair, this is no different than what's done by a human artist. Virtually every song composed today is inspired by or based on, in some manner or other, a previous work of art. This is exactly what machine learning does - a novel recombination of what has been previously observed (ie., "reusing the music" - building upon that which is) Whether this process is done by a human or not is irrelevant. ML, for the most part, does exactly what humans do. There are currently very few capabilities which ML performs that humans do not - namely, blatant plagiarism. People whining about their exact job being done by a machine is as old as time. Farmers, industrial revolution, the printing press (scribes whined), etc. Nothing new here. New jobs will be created to replace the lost ones. We've arguably been in a "BS economy" for quite some time now.
- lbotos 3y ago
  And to be clearer -- We have licensing mechanisms now in music (they aren't perfect) but when you remix/interpolate/sample the original artist gets their cut. The "risks" of Machine learning with large models is you won't know who you are even sampling, which exposes you to unknown risk.

bdcravens 3y ago

Behind every millionaire musician is a supporting staff consisting of folks making 5 (or low 6) figures.

meristohm 3y ago

The voices of popular/wealthy musicians reach further than most of the other people making music, so I appreciate them for this, even if it might be selfishly motivated. What will it take to get to a point where people can make art independently of livelihood?

Kiro 3y ago
> What will it take to get to a point where people can make art independently of livelihood? We're already there. I've made hundreds of songs in my life and haven't earned a penny. It's all good.
- mcguire 3y ago
  What do you do to make money?
  - Kiro 3y ago
    I have a normal job, like 99.9% of all musicians.
joenot443 3y ago
> What will it take to get to a point where people can make art independently of livelihood? Did you finish reading my comment? I'm the exact person you're talking about. I've never made a cent from any of my art, yet I plan to continue making music until the day I die.

lc9er 3y ago

I, too, have made albums (at my expense) and also believe the best art is coming from names most people have never heard. But that doesn't mean other artists don't deserve protection from exploitative streaming services and music venue monopolies. Tech bros and LiveNation would happily cannibalize the music industry for immediate profit, if they could. It's rather snobbish and self-centered to declare that musicians don't deserve protections from corporate greed, just because of your tastes and/or it doesn't have an impact on your hobby.

default-kramer 3y ago

Reading the open letter, I don't think they are concerned with AI compositions dominating the charts. The open letter mentions "massive quantities of AI-created 'sounds' and 'images' that substantially dilute the royalty pools" and "We must protect against the predatory use of AI to steal professional artist' voices and likenesses, violate creators' rights, and destroy the music ecosystem." So I think the more realistic threats are things like: Generating drum samples instead of buying them. Generating jingles/ads instead of hiring a composer. Spoofing a famous person's voice/likeness for some promotional blurb instead of paying them.

mcguire 3y ago

At the risk of sounding too "woke", I have to point out that many people are not in the privileged situation of being able to afford to create music, art, or writing without getting a financial reward from it. If they have something interesting or novel to express, they do not have the free time to express it in hopes of a occasional reward.

rhelz 3y ago

AI is a threat to Billie Eilish and Pearl Jam's livelihood? Well, given that Billie Eilish, Pearl Jam, etc, have been more than a threat to MY livelihood as famous rock-star :-) I can sympathize, but frankly, that's just the way it is. You have the right to compete, but you don't have the right to suppress competitors. Being king of the hill isn't a lifetime achievement award. Now that we don't need artists to create derivative music, perhaps we won't have so much derivative music created. I wish them well, because frankly, it's not just them--everybody is going to have to prove they can be more valuable than an AI.

imbnwa 3y ago

>Considering 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. And you think anyone would listen or gather the opinion of the litany of unknown artists out there? Like, yes, its important that people who are well-known voice themselves on subjects like this.

dr-detroit 3y ago

[dead]