7 ms·

>I feel like the introduction of AI music is shortchanging musicians: musicians have made the AI generation possible, it pushes them aside, and they don't get a

>I feel like the introduction of AI music is shortchanging musicians: musicians have made the AI generation possible, it pushes them aside, and they don't get a cent from it. Much like visual artists, graphic designers, and soon authors.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Exactly right. Pretty much everyone who has had faith in the system that there is at least some fairness in content creation.
talldayo 2y ago
Except not really. I'm still going to keep consuming art made by humans, even subconsciously, and I'm going to keep enjoying it. AI has no ground-truth for enjoyable content if not the successful works humans have made and tested already. Perhaps the quantity advantage has turned in favor of robots, but I'll be damned if you can name one AI-generated pop song that everyone knows by heart. And truth be told - musicians are an excellent example of how a hostile industry can fuck over the working man long before AI enters the equation. Established musicians needed to be managed, and that management typically came from a label that would sign you if you weren't rich enough to go indie. Then, you're effectively contracted talent that has little to no ownership of your own life work. You are expected to provide all of the emotional gravitas while retaining none of the artistic control, and it only got worse in a digital era that further highlighted how valueless physical music had become. Artists had to make their money off tours and merch sales while simultaneously honoring arbitrary record deals demanding X amount of music over Y period of time.
- visarga 2y ago
  > AI has no ground truth for enjoyable content if not the successful works humans have made and tested already. Yes it does, your own AI generated pieces are based in your prompt, not purely generated by AI. So they are meaningful to you, but still worthless to others. They can generate their own AI shit. What I mean is that AI content is useful if you had a hand shaping it.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    My prompt is meaningless. When I tell AI to proofread my writing or to generate a boilerplate email, pretty much no part of my prompt makes it into the final product. It's a seed of entropy that gets a literary flywheel spinning, but I'm not so pretentious as to assume my 3-word query is somehow unique or even influences the tone of the output. It's not "my" response just because I gave it a question. Pretty much the past 5 years of model finetuning has been predicated on the idea that AI cannot reliably steer itself in the right direction. Models perform better in almost every way when you seed them with additional, non-unique and human-generated training data.
    - visarga 2y ago
      No, what I said is something else - when you set the prompt, you can find the generated output meaningful for you precisely because you set it up. Other people don't need your generated texts or images because they can prompt their own. It is basically one-time use content, for one person.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Perhaps the quantity advantage has turned in favor of robots, but I'll be damned if you can name one AI-generated pop song that everyone knows by heart. One year away, two max.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    I heard people say that 5 years ago when BERT hit public access.
- stackghost 2y ago
  The real danger with AI is that it saturates the market/lowers the profitability for real artists/authors/whatever until it's no longer possible to make a career of being one of those things at which point things collapse and suddenly almost no actual humans are writing novels.
blibble 2y ago
don't forget software developers I only ever required attribution didn't stop OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and Amazon shitting all over even that minimal condition parasites

vouaobrasil 2y ago

Exactly right. Pretty much everyone who has had faith in the system that there is at least some fairness in content creation.

talldayo 2y ago

Except not really. I'm still going to keep consuming art made by humans, even subconsciously, and I'm going to keep enjoying it. AI has no ground-truth for enjoyable content if not the successful works humans have made and tested already. Perhaps the quantity advantage has turned in favor of robots, but I'll be damned if you can name one AI-generated pop song that everyone knows by heart. And truth be told - musicians are an excellent example of how a hostile industry can fuck over the working man long before AI enters the equation. Established musicians needed to be managed, and that management typically came from a label that would sign you if you weren't rich enough to go indie. Then, you're effectively contracted talent that has little to no ownership of your own life work. You are expected to provide all of the emotional gravitas while retaining none of the artistic control, and it only got worse in a digital era that further highlighted how valueless physical music had become. Artists had to make their money off tours and merch sales while simultaneously honoring arbitrary record deals demanding X amount of music over Y period of time.

visarga 2y ago
> AI has no ground truth for enjoyable content if not the successful works humans have made and tested already. Yes it does, your own AI generated pieces are based in your prompt, not purely generated by AI. So they are meaningful to you, but still worthless to others. They can generate their own AI shit. What I mean is that AI content is useful if you had a hand shaping it.
- talldayo 2y ago
  My prompt is meaningless. When I tell AI to proofread my writing or to generate a boilerplate email, pretty much no part of my prompt makes it into the final product. It's a seed of entropy that gets a literary flywheel spinning, but I'm not so pretentious as to assume my 3-word query is somehow unique or even influences the tone of the output. It's not "my" response just because I gave it a question. Pretty much the past 5 years of model finetuning has been predicated on the idea that AI cannot reliably steer itself in the right direction. Models perform better in almost every way when you seed them with additional, non-unique and human-generated training data.
  - visarga 2y ago
    No, what I said is something else - when you set the prompt, you can find the generated output meaningful for you precisely because you set it up. Other people don't need your generated texts or images because they can prompt their own. It is basically one-time use content, for one person.
CamperBob2 2y ago
Perhaps the quantity advantage has turned in favor of robots, but I'll be damned if you can name one AI-generated pop song that everyone knows by heart. One year away, two max.
- talldayo 2y ago
  I heard people say that 5 years ago when BERT hit public access.
stackghost 2y ago
The real danger with AI is that it saturates the market/lowers the profitability for real artists/authors/whatever until it's no longer possible to make a career of being one of those things at which point things collapse and suddenly almost no actual humans are writing novels.

blibble 2y ago

don't forget software developers I only ever required attribution didn't stop OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and Amazon shitting all over even that minimal condition parasites