# AI and the future of the 'Artist' vs the 'Creator' - TADay Talk Radio Podcast



## Daniel James

Hey all,

I don't believe I ever shared one of these here but I thought, given some of the recent discussions here, it might be a nice one to introduce you all to the concept. the TADay Podcast works like a talk radio show where we have a topic, I put forth a premice, and my opinions on it. Then viewers call into the show live to share their views. Its a fun concept and people seem to get quite into the discussion.

Anyways the topic for this one is AI, and how it will turn the concept of an artist (that being someone who creates art in a field with artistic craft) vs a creator (a person who uses all the arts to create a singular artistic vision)

My views on the topic are covered in depth in the video so I wont type it all out. Please do feel free to engage in the discussion here or on there if you would like. 



-DJ


----------



## Mike Fox

Really cool topic!

So, the main argument seems to be that there will be so many clones in such a short amount of time that it will be nearly impossible to identify and give credit to the original artist?

That’s interesting, because people generally don’t start copying other musicians or artists until after the artist’s unique sound has already been established, and that usually doesn’t happen overnight.

I’ll use the band Korn and the Nu Metal genre as an example.

Korn had their own style, their own sound, and it wasn’t until their second album where you started seeing cookie cutter bands trying to be just like them. Korn paved the way for all those Nu Metal bands, but it wasn’t an overnight response.

So that’s the catch. Sure, AI is going to be able to make countless copies, but it usually takes some time for people to realize what the next big thing is, and I don’t think AI will be able to predict that (it will probably be creating new and popular genres all on its own though!).

Furthermore, there’s a human element that AI is really going to struggle with.

For example, Kurt Cobain had one of the most distinctive singing voices of all time, and that was a huge part of his biological makeup.

Even if AI is programmed to perfectly imitate his voice, it’s still only an imitation, and AI may still be dependent on humans for that source of originality and inspiration.

Again, AI will probably be self generating, and will be making music that humans had never heard before, but I certainly don’t think that will make the human element obsolete.

I could even see people getting tired of AI generated music, the same way some people got sick of digital music and went back to vinyls, or even how a lot of guitarists get sick of using digital emulations and go back to using tube amps.

One thing is for sure, composer jobs are out the window.


----------



## Daniel James

Mike Fox said:


> Really cool topic!
> 
> So, the main argument seems to be that there will be so many clones in such a short amount of time that it will be nearly impossible to identify and give credit to the original artist?
> 
> That’s interesting, because people generally don’t start copying other musicians or artists until after the artist’s unique sound has already been established, and that usually doesn’t happen overnight.
> 
> I’ll use the band Korn and the Nu Metal genre as an example.
> 
> Korn had their own style, their own sound, and it wasn’t until their second album where you started seeing cookie cutter bands trying to be just like them. Korn paved the way for all those Nu Metal bands, but it wasn’t an overnight response.
> 
> So that’s the catch. Sure, AI is going to be able to make countless copies, but it usually takes some time for people to realize what the next big thing is, and I don’t think AI will be able to predict that (it will probably be creating new and popular genres all on its own though!).
> 
> Furthermore, there’s a human element that AI is really going to struggle with.
> 
> For example, Kurt Cobain had one of the most distinctive singing voices of all time, and that was a huge part of his biological makeup.
> 
> Even if AI is programmed to perfectly imitate his voice, it’s still only an imitation, and AI may still be dependent on humans for that source of originality and inspiration.
> 
> Again, AI will probably be self generating, and will be making music that humans had never heard before, but I certainly don’t think that will make the human element obsolete.
> 
> I could even see people getting tired of AI generated music, the same way some people got sick of digital music and went back to vinyls, or even how a lot of guitarists get sick of using digital emulations and go back to using tube amps.
> 
> One thing is for sure, composer jobs are out the window.


I think you underestimate the saturation point. There will be a point where the average person can use music making AI. With technological advancement its inviteble. When they can do that, its no longer about trends being established. The second someone hears something they like they will be able to make something similar that suits their needs more. Due to how easy it will be, the weeks it would take for imitations to appear would be much shorter, hours, minutes even.

So the saturation of people doing the same thing I think would just be too vast to the point you wouldn't know where the original came from because you would be more likely to hear a copy first. 

Hopefully you catch my point. I mean look at art breeder. All of these faces look amazing, but the second someone makes something different and cool, its is replicated.

As a visual example notice how the original image (the big one) is copied but adjusted slightly. This is what the future of AI music will be. Now if I was to present one of those small variations to you first, would you have been able to tell which one was the original?








-DJ


----------



## pinki

Art is process not product.


----------



## Daniel James

pinki said:


> Art is process not product.


Right now. But when there is no value in the process is it still art?

Also I get the sense of self satisfaction when one drops a 'truth bomb' but it doesn't really further the discussion without a bit of extrapolation on what you mean in that and how it applies (or in your case not) to the discussion on AI. Art is a process not a product? what do you actually mean by that and is it compatible with my above question about the process itself no longer having no value.

-DJ


----------



## Trash Panda

One thing that gets lost in the idea behind AI and machine learning is it requires human input to tell the AI if the end result of its analysis and output is good or not.

So unless someone figures out how to get reliable crowd sourced machine learning verification, AI has a long way to go before it can evolve fast enough in subjective fields like music to get things right enough.


----------



## Daniel James

Trash Panda said:


> One thing that gets lost in the idea behind AI and machine learning is it requires human input to tell the AI if the end result of its analysis and output is good or not.
> 
> So unless someone figures out how to get reliable crowd sourced machine learning verification, AI has a long way to go before it can evolve fast enough in subjective fields like music to get things right enough.


Once it has a large enough sample set (an I am talking over years) of music that works, it wouldn't be too huge a leap of logic to take the thought from that point, to it being able to make a pretty solid guess as to things we like and don't like.

That will still be down to subjective opinion of course. If the AI writes a death metal track and you like bubblegum pop you wont all of a sudden like it because an AI made it. But an AI will absolutely be able to listen to the millions of genre tracks (by that I mean tracks in a genre where they adhere to unwritten 'rules' in what consitutes that genre, ie metal has drums guitar harsh vocals, riffs, pop has electronic beats, airy or crystal vocals, a catchy lead line etc) and be able to learn which ones became popular and what characteristics they share.

Given a few years I think, particularly in genres with 'rules', it will be able to know what we like or not. Just based on the statistical data of what tracks within that genre get the most attention. Very easy data to track and study for an AI.

-DJ


----------



## Trash Panda

I do not disagree that it won’t get there eventually. I’m just not convinced it will be any time soon as long as human input is required for each and every checkpoint of the AI to refine its algorithm.


----------



## Daniel James

Trash Panda said:


> I do not disagree that it won’t get there eventually. I’m just not convinced it will be any time soon as long as human input is required for each and every checkpoint of the AI to refine its algorithm.


Oh for sure, Sorry I thought you were implying the negative. But you are absolutely correct! the biggest issue about all this is the timeframe.

We don't know where its going but we know it ends with no jobs.

-DJ


----------



## Trash Panda

Daniel James said:


> Oh for sure, Sorry I thought you were implying the negative. But you are absolutely correct! the biggest issue about all this is the timeframe.
> 
> We don't know where its going but we know it ends with no jobs.
> 
> -DJ


Sure, but that could be said about every industry eventually. At some point we’ll all be working the Titan salt mines to satisfy our Google Algorithm overlords in their endless war against the Apple AI Consortium.


----------



## Mike Fox

Daniel James said:


> I think you underestimate the saturation point. There will be a point where the average person can use music making AI. With technological advancement its inviteble. When they can do that, its no longer about trends being established. The second someone hears something they like they will be able to make something similar that suits their needs more. Due to how easy it will be, the weeks it would take for imitations to appear would be much shorter, hours, minutes even.
> 
> So the saturation of people doing the same thing I think would just be too vast to the point you wouldn't know where the original came from because you would be more likely to hear a copy first.
> 
> Hopefully you catch my point. I mean look at art breeder. All of these faces look amazing, but the second someone makes something different and cool, its is replicated.
> 
> As a visual example notice how the original image (the big one) is copied but adjusted slightly. This is what the future of AI music will be. Now if I was to present one of those small variations to you first, would you have been able to tell which one was the original?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -DJ


I think what you're saying is true, at least on a small scale.

But on a macro level, everything that's been copied in music has been copied because of the giants that came before us, and their contributions were so incredibly impactful and influential that it shaped the very perspective of musicians, and pop culture as a collective, and it's that impact that motivates others to follow in their footsteps. 

I'm saying this needs to happen FIRST before people even know _what_ to copy. Otherwise, where does the motivation lay? 

The average person already has all of the tools to make music with no experience required (loops, phrase libs, etc.), yet that doesn't really seem to stand in the way of trends forming. Maybe I'm missing the correlation?

But my hope in humanity is pretty bleak, especially with the way social media (Tik Tok and like) is giving fame and fortune to people for doing the dumbest shit. It's the social influencer that's going to have the biggest impact on the masses, not some profound musician, and I think AI is going to play a huge hand in that role.


----------



## Daniel James

Trash Panda said:


> Sure, but that could be said about every industry eventually. At some point we’ll all be working the Titan salt mines to satisfy our Google Algorithm overlords in their endless war against the Apple AI Consortium.


So we shouldn't have the discussion at all? I don't get your logic. Its too far away to care or its going to happen so why bother discussing it.....with the alternative being? head in the sand?

Yes it will happen to everyone, but we can adapt to the world as it changes. That is the point of this discussion. Just because its going to happen everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't be addressing our small corner of it ourselves. I just don't get that logic.

-DJ


----------



## Mike Fox

Trash Panda said:


> At some point we’ll all be working the Titan salt mines to satisfy our Google Algorithm overlords in their endless war against the Apple AI Consortium.


This.


----------



## Mike Fox

Another point I would like to make,

Let's say that the market is so saturated that you can't make heads or tails of who the original artist is. 

It seems like we could formulate a new system that would ensure credit, like some sort of copyright system on steroids lol!

For real though, if it ever became that much of an issue, I'd like to think that we would have some system in place to counteract the murky waters.


----------



## Daniel James

Mike Fox said:


> I think what you're saying is true, at least on a small scale.
> 
> But on a macro level, everything that's been copied in music has been copied because of the giants that came before us, and their contributions were so incredibly impactful and influential that it shaped the very perspective of musicians, and pop culture as a collective, and it's that impact that motivates others to follow in their footsteps.
> 
> I'm saying this needs to happen FIRST before people even know _what_ to copy. Otherwise, where does the motivation lay?
> 
> The average person already has all of the tools to make music with no experience required (loops, phrase libs, etc.), yet that doesn't really seem to stand in the way of trends forming. Maybe I'm missing the correlation?
> 
> But my hope in humanity is pretty bleak, especially with the way social media (Tik Tok and like) is giving fame and fortune to people for doing the dumbest shit. It's the social influencer that's going to have the biggest impact on the masses, not some profound musician, and I think AI is going to play a huge hand in that role.


But we are already losing connection to the 'elites' of music. Back when the music labels controlled the industry we put value in a smaller amount of artists, because they were all you had access to. They were able to shift the landscape because of a lack of options.

Slowly as time has progressed and we have access to ALL the music in the world, we are starting to move away from entire world shifts on quite the same scale. For example how many 'famous' artists are there these days who have seemingly huge and successful careers, that you just simple have never even heard of before. 

Thats with technology being at the level it currently is. Yes we have loops and presets but you still need a degree of craft to turn that into music. When its 'sliders' or some easier UI element I cant think of yet, even your nan could write music, then all bets are off. The second someone hears something they like, they will copy it, and that (I think) will propagate on such scale and so rapidly that the credit of originality will be lost in the ocean of oversaturation. There will be no personal incentive or value in being original if AI can immediately imitate. (of course we are not discussing legal issues in this discussion because that would make it to unwieldy to discuss but I am aware this would also play a part)

You can't plan for the future by applying todays logic to it. 2020 looks little like 2010 and even less like 2000 or 1990. Given hindsight, would it have been prudent to be planning for 2020 with the tech of 2010? Now think what tech we will have in 2032. I mean we didn't even have iphones until 2007. Imagine planning for the iPhone world with the tech of the 90's 😂

imagine In 1997 saying to someone within the next 10 years your camera, photos, entire music library, the internet, your email, your calendar etc etc will all be available in your pocket without wires. It would be hard to see. So in discussion I think its usually more useful for forward planning to assume the technology will be more powerful and be more available sooner. Because previous trends put us right in an expontial technological advancement curve.

-DJ


----------



## Daniel James

Mike Fox said:


> Another point I would like to make,
> 
> Let's say that the market is so saturated that you can't make heads or tails of who the original artist is.
> 
> It seems like we could formulate a new system that would ensure credit, like some sort of copyright system on steroids lol!
> 
> For real though, if it ever became that much of an issue, I'd like to think that we would have some system in place to counteract the murky waters.


I did mention that in my previous post about legality. But look at the problem in your situation. If people can legally guard their work with an AI, there will be a limit to how close you get. And someone will be able to immediately create something on the limit but legal. Until we reach a point where there is no more ground to build on, so to speak. Then what.

Its gunna get bumpy!

-DJ


----------



## Macrawn

I've thought a lot about this idea before and I agree with your position. I think people are compartmentalized right now in certain fields, 
but it won't be long until we start getting artists that when we look at them we will look at them through a variety of work, not just say visual art. It will be creations in a range of mediums that come together as a message, or integrated creations. I think we will be looking at great creators eventually without the label of visual artist or musician. 

Reminds me of say da Vinci who is recognized for a range of creations. People like that are generally not recognized much today because you have to be at the high end of one field. 

I think that AI is great for mimicking what already exists. It's impossible for it to invent a genre (at least now maybe not in a couple decades) because a new genre is born out of a situation or context. Artists are out in front of that and see the context or meaning before other people do and create a genre (basically I interpret a genre as people trying to emulate or copy an idea). It can't be programmed yet into AI if it isn't in existence yet. And if a project wants to be similar to something that already exists AI is going to be able to do that kind of thing no problem. 

But I do think creators can take these tools and create innovations and new genres out of them by tying the work together into that context of the human condition or vision that is much more specific than those generalizations that AI can mimic right now or in the near future. 

Experts at the high end will continue to exist but it will be harder and harder to get there. 

I saw someone testing out this program that writes lyrics for you, and the truth is it nailed like most EDM, and I love you, or my girlfriend dumped me songs perfectly. So many songs are just generalizations of these feelings without any deep context. So tiring and predictable and mainstream. 

I guess that is also the side effect of the AI. There will be loads more trash created that has to be weeded out somehow. But perhaps it will also raise the standard of professional work too because if AI can do it alone without a good creator behind it, it will be of zero value.


----------



## Mike Fox

Daniel James said:


> But we are already losing connection to the 'elites' of music. Back when the music labels controlled the industry we put value in a smaller amount of artists, because they were all you had access to. They were able to shift the landscape because of a lack of options.
> 
> Slowly as time has progressed and we have access to ALL the music in the world, we are starting to move away from entire world shifts on quite the same scale. For example how many 'famous' artists are there these days who have seemingly huge and successful careers, that you just simple have never even heard of before.
> 
> Thats with technology being at the level it currently is. Yes we have loops and presets but you still need a degree of craft to turn that into music. When its 'sliders' or some easier UI element I cant think of yet, even your nan could write music, then all bets are off. The second someone hears something they like, they will copy it, and that (I think) will propagate on such scale and so rapidly that the credit of originality will be lost in the ocean of oversaturation. There will be no personal incentive or value in being original if AI can immediately imitate. (of course we are not discussing legal issues in this discussion because that would make it to unwieldy to discuss but I am aware this would also play a part)
> 
> You can't plan for the future by applying todays logic to it. 2020 looks little like 2010 and even less like 2000 or 1990. Given hindsight, would it have been prudent to be planning for 2020 with the tech of 2010? Now think what tech we will have in 2032. I mean we didn't even have iphones until 2007. Imagine planning for the iPhone world with the tech of the 90's 😂
> 
> imagine In 1997 saying to someone within the next 10 years your camera, photos, entire music library, the internet, your email, your calendar etc etc will all be available in your pocket without wires. It would be hard to see. So in discussion I think its usually more useful for forward planning to assume the technology will be more powerful and be more available sooner. Because previous trends put us right in an expontial technological advancement curve.
> 
> -DJ


Please stand-by. I’m doing the dishes right now and i need to get a beer.


----------



## Trash Panda

Daniel James said:


> So we shouldn't have the discussion at all? I don't get your logic. Its too far away to care or its going to happen so why bother discussing it.....with the alternative being? head in the sand?
> 
> Yes it will happen to everyone, but we can adapt to the world as it changes. That is the point of this discussion. Just because its going to happen everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't be addressing our small corner of it ourselves. I just don't get that logic.
> 
> -DJ


I think you’re jumping to conclusions or I’m explaining this poorly. I’m not arguing with you about having the discussion. I’m just not concerned about synthesized AI being an “our lifetime problem” because of the realities and limitations of AI and machine learning requiring human input to understand context. If someone figures out how to program contextual understanding without requiring a human to say the output is right or wrong, then that all goes out the window.

I think we’re more likely within our lifetimes to see a breakthrough in neural mapping that allows humans to upload their own neural map into a machine, giving us AI that is artificial in it’s an intelligence powered by electronic chips instead of mushy grey brain matter, but based on the minds of actual humans rather than artificial in learning from nothing.

Like John Williams uploading his brain and having that map be able to output the score to some far flung Star Wars sequel long after he has left this plane of existence.


----------



## chocobitz825

This only matters to the business of music, not the art of music. People can keep creating great music and be appreciated for it. you probably just won’t make much money from it.


----------



## mscp

This: 

He needs no introduction. He doesn't really mention the music industry, but he does go on about the liberal arts...may be worth listening to him a bit. Just skip through the political part and you should be able to hear his insight on the future of jobs, AI, ...


----------



## Mike Fox

Daniel James said:


> But we are already losing connection to the 'elites' of music. Back when the music labels controlled the industry we put value in a smaller amount of artists, because they were all you had access to. They were able to shift the landscape because of a lack of options.
> 
> Slowly as time has progressed and we have access to ALL the music in the world, we are starting to move away from entire world shifts on quite the same scale. For example how many 'famous' artists are there these days who have seemingly huge and successful careers, that you just simple have never even heard of before.
> 
> Thats with technology being at the level it currently is. Yes we have loops and presets but you still need a degree of craft to turn that into music. When its 'sliders' or some easier UI element I cant think of yet, even your nan could write music, then all bets are off. The second someone hears something they like, they will copy it, and that (I think) will propagate on such scale and so rapidly that the credit of originality will be lost in the ocean of oversaturation. There will be no personal incentive or value in being original if AI can immediately imitate. (of course we are not discussing legal issues in this discussion because that would make it to unwieldy to discuss but I am aware this would also play a part)
> 
> You can't plan for the future by applying todays logic to it. 2020 looks little like 2010 and even less like 2000 or 1990. Given hindsight, would it have been prudent to be planning for 2020 with the tech of 2010? Now think what tech we will have in 2032. I mean we didn't even have iphones until 2007. Imagine planning for the iPhone world with the tech of the 90's 😂
> 
> imagine In 1997 saying to someone within the next 10 years your camera, photos, entire music library, the internet, your email, your calendar etc etc will all be available in your pocket without wires. It would be hard to see. So in discussion I think its usually more useful for forward planning to assume the technology will be more powerful and be more available sooner. Because previous trends put us right in an expontial technological advancement curve.
> 
> -DJ


Alright, dishes are done, got my brewsky, I'm ready to rock! 

Yeah, there's way more popular artists today than there ever were, for sure. Most of them I've never heard of mainly because I'm just old. 

But going back to the average joe owning AI tech that creates music for them. My question is, why would so many average joe's suddenly be interested in becoming a musician? Would it be for followers? Supporters? Subscribers? For these average Joes to even pursue music, I'd imagine there would have to be some sort of incentive for them, so what is it? Because learning the art of music sure as hell ain't it, lol! If everyone is an AI musician, then composers are going to get way less recognition than they are getting now, so I think that might prevent the saturation from being sustainable. 

At the end of the day, it's going to be the musician writing real music without the assistance of AI, because they connect with it, because they enjoy it, because it's a part of who they are. I've been playing guitar far most of my life, and no way in hell is AI going to replace that, even if it meant that music beyond my skill level could be produced. Pressing a button VS coming with a new riff? Yeah, no thanks!

Even though someone might be able to construct a symphony by holding down a button, you're still going to have musicians and composers who are doing things live and in the real world. People will want to hear the next Kurt Cobain pick up his acoustic guitar and sing for them in the same room. People will want that intimacy and that energy, and that sort of human connection, and people won't be able to create that by pressing a button.

Hell, it might even become a joke and looked down upon for people to "compose" music with AI in the future. "Wow! Look what that musician did, Mom! He pressed a button!"

It's those types of aspects that might heavily effect the saturation we speak of.


----------



## Mike Fox

chocobitz825 said:


> This only matters to the business of music, not the art of music. People can keep creating great music and be appreciated for it. you probably just won’t make much money from it.


This is exactly how I envision it always being...

...that is of course unless AI completely wipes us out, lol!


----------



## chocobitz825

Mike Fox said:


> This is exactly how I envision it always being...
> 
> ...that is of course unless AI completely wipes us out, lol!


I like to assume that AI will be so much better than us, that it won’t inherit our habit of “wiping” things and people out. 😝

as for AI music, I think most people won’t use generative music for selling, but rather for personal consumption and sharing. In my imagination music is generated automatically to match the user as a interactive soundtrack to your life. No doubt huge pop projects will still exist but those will likely be AI related as well. Where our skills may still be useful is in influencing AI and extensions that can help give a sound from an artist to add to your palette. I’m sure there are still places for us to work but AI and automation are meant to eliminate the grunt work. Our field of music has plenty of that, meaning the rest is about character and innovation.


----------



## Snarf

Daniel James said:


> so I wont type it all out.


You should have typed up a short summary since this is getting off-track already, lol. Please watch the first 15 minutes or so at least, people!

This is not another thread about _whether _AI will get to a point where it can reliably replace humans for 99% of artistic tasks (including music). That's an interesting discussion too but it's just a starting point assumption here.

DJ makes a distinction between 'Artists' and 'Creators':

'Artists' are those who specify in a particular creative process/craft, such as composing, painting, 3D modelling, etc.
'Creators' have passion for creating stuff in general. They make everything themselves according to their own vision, e.g. solo game developers who do the art, music, coding etc. (iirc the game Undertale was made this way).

*For the sake of argument, DJ assumes there will be a future in which AI can reliably compose music (and any other craft) that is indistinguishable from that made by humans*, or at least 'good enough' for the purposes of this 'Creator'. In this future, Creators will be able to get their vision from their head into the world without needing to hire specific collaborators. They can create movies, games, whatever creative endeavor they desire, more or less on their own.

The main questions DJ raises seem to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong @Daniel James):

1. On a practical level, what happens with the Artists/craftspeople in this future, where 95% of them are essentially obsolete?

2. More broadly, what happens to the concept of an 'Artist' in this future?

3. What happens to art & media in general in this future?

EDIT: I wasn't sure if I should mix myself in this discussion, but imo this is a much more interesting topic than the old question of whether AI can become advanced enough in the first place (or how in how much time).


----------



## mscp

Snarf said:


> *For the sake of argument, DJ assumes there will be a future in which AI can reliably compose music (and any other craft) that is indistinguishable from that made by humans*, or at least 'good enough' for the purposes of this 'Creator'. In this future, Creators will be able to get their vision from their head into the world without needing to hire specific collaborators. They can create movies, games, whatever creative endeavor they desire, more or less on their own.


There's absolutely *no direct way *of even drawing far-fetched philosophical assumptions about it without contemplating about the ramifications of the 4th industrial revolution within the liberal arts...but that would involve derailing the thread a bit to go back to his original point.


----------



## chocobitz825

Snarf said:


> You should have typed up a short summary since this is getting off-track already, lol. Please watch the first 15 minutes or so at least before commenting people!
> 
> This is not another thread about _whether _AI will get to a point where it can reliably replace humans for 99% of artistic tasks (including music). That's an interesting discussion too but it's just a starting point assumption here.
> 
> DJ makes a distinction between 'Artists' and 'Creators':
> 
> 'Artists' are those who specify in a particular creative process/craft, such as composing, painting, 3D modelling, etc.
> 'Creators' have passion for creating stuff in general. They make everything themselves according to their own vision, e.g. solo game developers who do the art, music, coding etc. (iirc the game Undertale was made this way).
> 
> *For the sake of argument, DJ assumes there will be a future in which AI can reliably compose music (and any other craft) that is indistinguishable from that made by humans*, or at least 'good enough' for the purposes of this 'Creator'. In this future, Creators will be able to get their vision from their head into the world without needing to hire specific collaborators. They can create movies, games, whatever creative endeavor they desire, more or less on their own.
> 
> The main questions DJ raises seem to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong @Daniel James):
> 
> 1. On a practical level, what happens with the Artists/craftspeople in this future, where 95% of them are essentially obsolete?
> 
> 2. More broadly, what happens to the concept of an 'Artist' in this future?
> 
> 3. What happens to art & media in general in this future?
> 
> EDIT: I wasn't sure if I should mix myself in this discussion, but imo this is a much more interesting topic than the old question of whether AI can become advanced enough in the first place (or how in how much time).


Don’t we have this model already? What happens to digital visual media?

you’ve got the big productions on movies and tv, then you’ve got the minor creators who have a platform and spend hours creating for it like on YouTube…then you have tiktok. Bulk algorithmic creation and consumption. It provides plenty of templates, some people get unique with the tools, others mimic the works of others.

music will likely be the same. On the basic consumer level, music will become a social experience. It won’t rid us of artists, if anything it will create more (of various skills and levels.) those with the right circumstances will stand on top making lots of money. The rest will find some ways to be profitable but mostly will find their niche market and survive there. The rest will just enjoy the freedom of music as a shared experience.


----------



## Mike Fox

I just hope AI keeps making sample libraries. Jaeger was dope!


----------



## Rich4747

I may be way off here but isn't AI actually the collective talent of the world in data format? if so that should not be taken lightly. imo


----------



## Bluemount Score

Just passing by to say that I really enjoy this discussion. Intense topic I'm trying to get a better idea about.


----------



## SergeD

Well, let's the AI music spread the world, to the point that people get bored and come back to real organic music. Some years ago an AI player beat the best Chess players and then what? Nothing, chess players are still competing and nobody cares about Deep Blue and friends.

But it's a fact, composers will have to "compose" with this new trend for a while.


----------



## Soundbed

I look forward to watching the video.

I expect one day video editors for reality tv will be able to replace my tv cues within their video editing workstations. I assume they will choose the category of scene (e.g., dramedy), dial in a couple settings, and music will get generated that fits the “beats” of the dialog and edits (tempo, phrasing) and bumper endings/transitions into the next scene or stingout to commercial. 

Eventually I assume our whole lives could be scored, like a reality show. Someone on future social media could make a sad face and we hear a sad chord. Happy face, happy chord. They can “play” music with their faces or the tone of their voices. A new kind of reality tv.

I’ve been adjusting to these possibilities over the last couple years and thinking through how to adapt.


----------



## darkogav

A polarizing topic. And 2 hours of it too.


----------



## b_elliott

Disclaimer: I love DJ but still have not made it thru his video this despite two tries.

Since we are somewhat hip to AI, you might be interested in listening to Lex Fridman (AI out of MIT) interviewing Eric Weinstein. Deep into its 3 hours, Eric mentions he'd like to see the likes of Jimi Hendrix or Art Tatum brought to the AI neuro research world. Hendrix would "see/think" differently than the average AI researcher. That is a hopeful concept.

Now turning to a darker 1984-AI future: What if the bigger problem is that humanoid art is illegal outside of AI. Period. All Artists are illegal people.

LAW: Unless you listen to AI generated music you are a punk requiring punishment/correction. (A Clockwork Orange first riffed on that theme.)

The future's grandest AI mantra: "It Don't Mean a Thing If You Ain't Got That Code" (ie., AI algorithms approved by CCP and other detestables.)

Hopefully this doesn't get me banned. Just sayin'....
edit: fixed link and cued Weinstein to save your time


----------



## darkogav

So I guess what they are saying is AI will make everybody become like that wedding photographer, who also happens to be a videographer, and also can make the weeding invitations as well as make a website for your wedding. I mean, all you really need is a computer and a printer, right? And you are in business and on your way to the big times, to conquer the small business world. It's as simple as that.


----------



## jneebz

Mike Fox said:


> It seems like we could formulate a new system that would ensure credit, like some sort of copyright system on steroids lol!


Blockchain.


----------



## MA-Simon

chocobitz825 said:


> People can keep creating great music and be appreciated for it


I mean, yeah. That is already not the case.
Just look at how much programmers make in basic, non-famous positions v.s. artists.


----------



## MA-Simon

darkogav said:


> So I guess what they are saying is AI will make everybody become like that wedding photographer, who also happens to be a videographer, and also can make the weeding invitations as well as make a website for your wedding. I mean, all you really need is a computer and a printer, right? And you are in business and on your way to the big times, to conquer the small business world. It's as simple as that.


You joke. But that is exactly what my studies were about. Communication designer. I had all of those courses + copy writing, illustration, music and 3D. Most places I work some combination of these skills are expected.


----------



## darkogav

MA-Simon said:


> You joke. But that is exactly what my studies were about. Communication designer. I had all of those courses + copy writing, illustration, music and 3D. Most places I work some combination of these skills are expected.


You can also tell them you can make the horderves. Just go to Costco and buy some frozen ones and put them in the oven and take them with you on the day you go there with your video camera. No one will notice.


----------



## MA-Simon

darkogav said:


> Costco


Shure, but I would do that at Aldi or Netto.


----------



## Al Maurice

Whether we like it or not, music making simply wouldn't have been possible without technology.

Now we use computers with DAWs and notation editors to make music using VIs. And before that pen and paper, instruments and tape. 

What's the difference here, we just have one more tool to play with. 

We will still make music, just in a different way.


----------



## Mike Fox

Al Maurice said:


> Whether we like it or not, music making simply wouldn't have been possible without technology.
> 
> Now we use computers with DAWs and notation editors to make music using VIs. And before that pen and paper, instruments and tape.
> 
> What's the difference here, we just have one more tool to play with.
> 
> We will still make music, just in a different way.


I think it will depend on how involved AI is going to be.

Are we talking AI that still requires musical know-how and significant human input? Or will it be so automated that your Grandma can press a button and create a track?

But i do i think you’re correct in that AI will be another tool, because a lot of musicians will be using it as more of a minor assistant rather than a full blown slave that does everything for them. I’d like to think so, anyway.


----------



## Mike Fox

SergeD said:


> Well, let's the AI music spread the world, to the point that people get bored and come back to real organic music. Some years ago an AI player beat the best Chess players and then what? Nothing, chess players are still competing and nobody cares about Deep Blue and friends.
> 
> But it's a fact, composers will have to "compose" with this new trend for a while.


I could definitely see this being a very likely scenario. AI hits the music scene, people soak it up, the market gets saturated, but then people realize it’s not as rewarding as writing music without it, or playing a real instrument for that matter.

The sustainability of AI saturation in music is what I question most.

I do believe that composing jobs will be automated for the most part though, but maybe that will inspire musicians to become better at their craft.


----------



## Noeticus

The real problem is when AI lawyers and legislators make music created by humans illegal.

Eric Idle said that he is not worried about artificial intelligence, but that he is worried about artificial stupidity.


----------



## Soundbed

View attachment Max Headroom.mp4


----------



## turnerofwheels

Some related points of (hopeful) clarity rather than answers, since I did dabble with this already in school:

1. I'd distinguish between AI and other kinds of algorithmic (I include aleatoric) music, which has been around for centuries in various forms. Generating an ostinato, whether you are doing it by hand or by computer--you know the effect, how to achieve it, and you follow the process. It's no coincidence that ostinato-driven minimalism in the 1960s folds over with process music. You're already following predetermined algorithms whether you draw it out by hand or tell the computer to generate it.

It's also a common misconception to say algorithms write the music. When I work with algorithmic music, I am creating an environment or situation, composing with codes/rulesets, computer or not. I still have an idea of what I'm getting because I created the conditions for the output. I might change the process and experiment with the outcome, and learn what the relationship between my changes and the output is.

AI definitely changes this quite a lot.. even though I can train AI, and work with it, and maybe over time, once I intuit how the AI works, get a better idea of what to expect when I train it and learn it's particular quirks, so to speak


----------



## turnerofwheels

2. I was in a different music department than what folks are talking about here.. All of these topics are at the forefront of some music schools. Xenakis and people at ircam+grm created the concepts that led to granular synthesis and time stretching as one easy example, not to mention process music etc...

Back in the 2000s I was hanging around grad friends in Providence who were playing with neural networks to generate music, and training AI to respond to reappropriated power gloves. It was about crafting narrative (change) with AI. The AI becomes more of a collaborator that you train and work with and that is the present approach (as far as I can tell, I might be more out of the loop now).


3. Music education (not necessarily school of course) is also perceptual/sensory training. I can't tell you how many times I have heard people transcribe music without 7ths because they never paid much attention to jazz harmonies, or heard buskers who played Take 5 in 4/4, or how many newbs can't differentiate a hi hat from a snare or pull out harmonies, even if they are still affected by them. The only way to really adequately get past all of that is to get hands on. Also, if the AI can merely imitate but not craft an appropriate narrative over time, composition skills would still be required to fill in those gaps.

You'd still have to check your mixes too. AI mastering does the job cheaply, but it's got nothing on a real mastering engineer who crafts the music to fit the narrative flow of a track.. even though times are harder on mastering engineers now

So adding to your questions, one question could be partially how much society values any complexity, narrative, flow or ornateness in detail in art whatsoever when someone can pay $15 a month to AIMusicFriends.com to generate an epic score for their cat video. Naïve curation could become the new kind of low quality work, as well as shoddy narrative direction


----------



## shadowsoflight

Really interesting topic. On the one hand, I like the idea of being able to integrate various art forms as a "creator" without having to be an expert at all (or any?) of them. I could, for instance, one day create an epic space battle to go along with one of my tracks, even though I don't have time to do modeling/animating/effects etc. (Okay, okay, I realize that this specific example might be a ways off :D )

On the other hand, I think these sorts of trends are concerning - because society as a whole doesn't do a great job of valuing people, just economics. I believe that there would still be a place for real composers, but that it would be very niche. In the short term we will see changes to how composers work - by using AI to enhance workflows - but eventually it will reach a tipping point where we are just curating and tweaking AI outputs, which will itself reach a tipping point where the music is great right off the bat. But I strongly believe we will be in for a massive (hopefully not too traumatic) societal shift somewhere in there, since this problem will start to apply to almost every type of work.

This discussion reminds me of a video by CGP Grey on the state of automation:


----------



## turnerofwheels

Also:

This may face attempts at regulation, if it's even possible to contain. We're talking about technology that makes today's deepfakes and already bonkers information warfare look like Byzantine trebuchets by comparison. When you can generate anything the eyes and ears take in, it won't be isolated to music or Disney movies

Optimistic response: Maybe artists could carve a path through that slog

Pessimistic realist response: Welcome to the final stage of the simulation. All hail our not benign, corporate, hyperreality generating AI overlords


----------



## chocobitz825

Automation has replaced plenty of industries…in the end has anyone really sworn off McDonald in favor of homemade or gourmet food when convenience is the priority? Is anyone talking about going back to the days when cars where built by people?

the average person won’t know and won’t care if AI makes their music. They care about convenience and entertainment. Music is not that important.


----------



## darkogav

chocobitz825 said:


> Automation has replaced plenty of industries…in the end has anyone really sworn off McDonald in favor of homemade or gourmet food when convenience is the priority? Is anyone talking about going back to the days when cars where built by people?
> 
> the average person won’t know and won’t care if AI makes their music. They care about convenience and entertainment. Music is not that important.


What is an "average" person?


----------



## DimensionsTomorrow

I’m a professional translator in the finance industry and we are facing similar trends. Machine output is still not quite good enough for professional Japanese translation requiring a very high level of accuracy, but is getting scarily good. I’m already being given these tools by my company to improve efficiency/output, but some day it will probably be a matter of quality control (you need someone bilingual to check the output), rather than doing it from scratch. In our case, the people that are being hit hardest seem to be freelancers as we need them less and less.

I’m guessing the music industry (TV/Film) might end up with a similar model of in-house experts driving the tools and ensuring professional quality and probably doing a lot of non-music production work on top of it (which is what we do now as well).


----------



## chocobitz825

darkogav said:


> What is an "average" person?


The average consumer of music. Someone who doesn’t consider themselves an artist, or fanatic of music. A person who participates in the social experience of music, but has no extended interest in it like composers, performers and fanatics.


----------



## Al Maurice

AI in science has been used extensively for numerous years, as a tool for predicting and checking out premises. I can see that in music it could prove handy for quickly trying out thematic ideas before committing. 

If it's used as a means for automation, then that's a whole different matter and may be a cause for concern.


----------



## Bluemount Score

darkogav said:


> What is an "average" person?


A person that's not on VI-Control


----------



## AudioLoco

We are totally screwed ... ideally there should be a UN level agreement to ban AI from any form of art.
As a law. Martial law.

There is nothing good that could come from it to humanity, apart from non artist entities looking to make easy money.

I look with disgust to developers working on this, it's not like they are working on a heart surgery machine or something...


----------



## Dewdman42

There are significant ways in which AI could theoretically be used to help artists be more productive with the parts of the process which are not raw creativity but are rote and methodical, and time consuming to do, leaving the artist free to create. 

But…. First there are very few people in this world that actually understand how and where to distinguish between the creative part of art production and the procedural parts that could streamlined. Instead we see a lot of early AI efforts to actually replace the creative part; which I view as suicide of humanity if it ever gets good enough to replace people entirely from a practical perspective of money.

Secondly, even if they could distinguish between creativity and procedural assistance in AI, in the case of music production, a lot of paid people make a living mainly being paid for their time to do all the boring procedural parts with only a few brief moments occasionally for the raw creative energy to come out. If those boring procedures are handled by AI, then there will be much less need for advanced education in music and 30 years of piano lessons, etc. There are scores of people out there possessing the raw creative energy to create wonderful music and other forms of art if they but had the procedural knowledge and skills to realize their creative ideas. So this would lead to an explosion of new artistic output but a lot of unemployed professionals that are no longer needed to realize human creativity. 

However my observation is that most of the AI efforts seem to be trying to use AI to replace human creativity, which I think is a fatal error for humanity. So far it simply cannot compete with the human mind and possibly never will, but it might get good enough eventually that “good enough” original music will essentially become free and then we will never again have many humans spending time to develop true human creative musical ideas, because nobody will pay for it. It will just become a completely lost art form and music will just be an ever present commodity that is always there and nobody knows how or why


----------



## Soundbed

While some immediately think about how to "regulate" these tools, that impulse is foreign to me, sort of like regulating pencil and paper.

It's not a question of "when" AI will arrive at the doorstep of musicians. It's already here.

Mixing
The machine learning aspect of AI is already available in many of the mixing tools musicians use today including iZotope Ozone and Neutron.

I'm not sure which other mixing tools are using true AI (by definition) but there are plenty out there and again: they are already in use today by tens of thousands of musicians and producers.

The mix of a piece can greatly alter an audience's perception and emotional response.

Effects
Zynaptiq Adaptiverb is an example of a Reverb that uses AI. There are probably more. From an Attack Magazine article,



> Zynaptiq calls Adaptiverb a “harmonic tracking resynthesis reverb” that uses a bionic sustain resynthesizer built using “an AI technique similar to that used to enable self-driving cars to avoid collisions”. It synthesizes a reverb tail using a network of hundreds of oscillators that learn to recreate just the pitched part of the incoming sound. It also has a ray tracing reverb module that again uses AI to simulate the paths sound waves take from a virtual sound source to a virtual listening position in a 3-D room model, except that it does 16,000 of these at the same time. We’d be lying if we said we knew exactly what this meant but one listen to the kinds of reverbs Adaptiverb is capable of proves the famous quotation by Issac Asimov that, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. from https://www.attackmagazine.com/reviews/the-best/the-best-ai-assist-plugins/



Choosing Sounds
Other tools help virtual drum programmers weed through their huge sample collections to select drum samples (which is arguably part of the creative process) like XLN Audio XO (https://www.xlnaudio.com/products/xo) and Algonaut Atlas (https://algonaut.audio/atlas-1-main/).

Apparently Jamahook Sound Assistant does this at an even more advanced level.

Choosing Pitches and Rhythms
Finally, tools are already on sale to help pick which notes to use in your compositions, too. Some of them even expect a bit of money in exchange for the right to use their "Composer Assistant" services. Examples include: 





__





Orb Producer 3 – Orb Plugins







www.orb-composer.com








__





AIVA - The AI composing emotional soundtrack music


AIVA, the Artificial Intelligence music composer that creates original & personalized music for your projects.




aiva.ai












Flow Machines


Flow Machinesの公式ウェブサイトです。プロジェクト、ハウツー、アーティストインタビューなどを掲載しています。




www.flow-machines.com





From the Flow-Machines website: 



> Generally, the process of making a song includes composition, lyrics, arrangement, performance, mixing and mastering, but Flow Machines Professional specializes in composition. In recent years, in music production, a method called Co-Writing has been increasing, in which each creator, such as melody, track, arrangement, and songwriting, collaboratively composes by making use of their specialty. With Flow Machines Professional, we have created a new Co-Writing that fuses human creativity with AI music by selecting original melodies proposed by AI with the creator’s sense and promoting music production.


----------

