5 ms·
> AI have shown to most capable in what we consider creative jobs no it creates shit thats close enough for people who are in a rush and dont care. ie, you ne
by KaiserPro 1y ago
> AI have shown to most capable in what we consider creative jobs
no it creates shit thats close enough for people who are in a rush and dont care.
ie, you need artwork for shit on temu, boom job done.
You want to make a poster for a bake sale, boom job done.
Need some free music that sounds close enough to be swifty, but not enough to get sued, great.
But as an expression of creativity, most people cant get it to do that.
Its currently slightly more configurable clipart.
- rowanG077 1y ago> AI creates novel algorithms beating thousands of googlers. Random HNer on an AI post one day later > Its currently slightly more configurable clipart. It's so ridiculous at this point that I can just laugh about this.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- voidspark 1y agoComparing music and algorithms is nonsense. AI music is disposable generic soulless trash, even if it is technically correct, in accordance with the rules and conventions of music theory. AI generates Muzak. Totally generic and derivative. There is no AI equivalent to Kurt Cobain, or James Brown, or Tori Amos.
- rowanG077 1y agoThere is no AI equivalent to Kurt Cobain or any other artists because 99% of what they are is not at all about their musical skill but all about marketing. There are thousands of musicians just as skilled if not more than Kurt Cobain or James Brown yet who don't have their fame. I also have no doubt an AI will outperform most musicians in short order in the foreseeable future. The step from making no music at all, to making acceptable music is gigantic compared to making acceptable music to making great music.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- voidspark 1y ago[dead]
- KaiserPro 1y agoTwo people from different backgrounds have differing opinions on different systems. This just in, the response was also to an entirely different context. > rowanG077: Holy shit look how different the opinions are! LOL HN is so wild.
- brookst 1y agoSerious deja vu to the late 70’s and early 80’s when “real musicians” said exactly the same thing about synthesizers and drum machines.
- krapp 1y agoThe difference, of course, being that synthesizers and drum machines are instruments that require actual skill and talent and can be used to express the unique musical style of an artist, whereas AI requires neither skill nor talent, and it cannot generate anything with actual artistic direction, intent or innovation, much less a unique creative style. AI is never going to give the world a modern Kraftwerk or Silver Apples or Brian Eno. The best an AI "artist" can do is have the machine mimic them.
- brookst 1y agoStill the same thing. The argument then was that synths weren’t “real instruments” and that sequencers meant people weren’t “real musicians”. AI relies on prompting. In the hands of a skilled artist it is just another tool. In the hands of an amateur hack, it is no different than giving a drum kit to a 4 year old. The tool is not the art. It never was.
- voidspark 1y agoThose are instruments played and sequenced by humans. Meaningless comparison.
- KaiserPro 1y agoLook, in the hands of a skilled artist, generative fill is really useful. In the same way that the synth is superstitious is banging. Sampling, when in the hands of a legend is also spectacular, see the prodigy and a break down of the samples they used. (or any half decent hiphop band) Then you get akon who just sped up a single sample put a beat on it and shat out some halfarsed shit.
- tom_m 1y agoThey were right in many cases. You can choose to pick out the small percentage of musicians who were successful there or you can recognize the many that were never known. You can do the same for photography. People keep lowering expectations or demands on quality because things get easier and humans always prefer the easy option.