3 ms·
This is actually inline with the parent commentor's point - let your kids be creative and try to produce something. Don't (1) ask a machine to automate the cre
by vineyardmike 2y ago
This is actually inline with the parent commentor's point - let your kids be creative and try to produce something.
Don't (1) ask a machine to automate the creativity and (2) then give it to your kids to consume in a non-interactive manner.
- SkyPuncher 2y agoBut it's not. My argument is my kids would never even attempt to do this without the machine's involvement. Making original music the "legacy" way involves days/weeks/months/years of learning. It's just not realistic to argue that they should make music from scratch.
- vineyardmike 2y agoI’m not arguing they should be doing things from “scratch” (although kids have been making music from scratch for all of mankind). If you think a child needs weeks or months to have fun making music some weekend, you’re taking it too seriously. A kid can bang around in GarageBand for an hour or two and have fun making something. It doesn’t need to be good enough to monetize on Spotify, and if that’s their goal.. then years learning may actually be the reasonable approach. Kids making something, with any tool, is better than consuming something. Because making something is creative. They don’t need to know music theory to have fun making things, it doesn’t even need to be good. The AI tool should allow a kids creativity to go further, not replace it. The original post was about a parent using an LLM to write a podcast to entertain their kids, which is just another way for kids to passively consume low-quality crap. The proposed alternative was to make a “podcast” with your kid, using any tool you have available at home. The point was don’t automate the creativity and leave your kids to consume passively.