heisenberg
having uncertain feelings
I try to stay out of this thread but today I lost my resolve. Ugh.
The ABBA/Bjorn interview is worth watching.
The ABBA/Bjorn interview is worth watching.
AI-generated music just around the corner: How do you feel about it?
- Thread starter Ivan Duch
- Start date
Alchemedia
Decomposer
We're all victims and everyone will suffer one way or another. However, only the artists will appreciate the ramifications of the death of aesthetics.And the subscription is more than the receptionist’s hourly rate
The receptionists are the true victims here.
Alchemedia
Decomposer
"The simulacrum is never what hides the truth - it is truth that hides the fact that there is none.
The simulacrum is true."
--Ecclesiastes
The simulacrum is true."
--Ecclesiastes
chocobitz825
Senior Member
we're always going to be consumers. The market likely will keep us in this loop of creation and consumption of content. AI will just do the thoughtless easily consumable stuff. not art per say, just content. Without the ability to compete with the thoughtless automated output of AI, ideally, the rest of us will find other ways to make money in our lives, and then be free to express whatever we want as creative artistic beings.
Alchemedia
Decomposer
Charlie Kaufman Warns That Hollywood 'Garbage' Is the Only Thing That Makes Money
The storytelling that caused billions to fall in love with movies and TV is in jeopardy.
nofilmschool.com
chocobitz825
Senior Member
“At this point, the only thing that makes money is garbage. It’s just fascinating. It makes a fortune, and that’s the bottom line. It’s very seductive to the studios but also to the people who engage and become the makers of that garbage, especially if they’re lauded for the garbage because they don’t have to look inward or think long about what they’re doing.”Charlie Kaufman Warns That Hollywood 'Garbage' Is the Only Thing That Makes Money
The storytelling that caused billions to fall in love with movies and TV is in jeopardy.
That's the job AI stole. being "lauded for the garbage".
JacquesMathias
Senior Member
Yeah, at this point, it’s getting impossible to make a living from composing. At least for a mere mortal like myself. I gave up already.And here, my friends, is the next stage. Pretty OMG from me:
AI music for your creative universe | Loudly
Loudly is the leading AI-powered music platform for creators. Create, customize and discover music with the power of AI. Discover a catalogue of 100,000+ royalty-free audio, tracks and loops. Start free now!www.loudly.com
By the way, I published a AI music video a month ago, where I made a joke about cue and song generators. We’ll get there pretty soon! It would be fun if it wasn’t tragic.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Ivan Duch
Senior Member
Yeah, just listened to this, definitely OMG. The music is boring, repetitive, and generic, exactly what many media producers ask for. To be honest it's the sort of music I hate writing and try to avoid like the plague, but I can see that and future generations of that tech replacing royalty-free libraries for sure.And here, my friends, is the next stage. Pretty OMG from me:
AI music for your creative universe | Loudly
Loudly is the leading AI-powered music platform for creators. Create, customize and discover music with the power of AI. Discover a catalogue of 100,000+ royalty-free audio, tracks and loops. Start free now!
That app won't be filling concert halls, but could very well leave a few composers without a job.
One thing I'm hating about the whole thing is that the AI illustrations tools are completely useable by illustrators (although that's been causing issues within the industry because many illustrators aren't doing it openly and are causing problems for their clients). There are interesting tools like Invoke or others that allow you to do a rough sketch of a drawing and the AI takes care of rendering it and then you can start redrawing on top and rendering again. In that way, the AI becomes an assistant.
But these tools are not for composers, composers can't write music with them for copyright reasons, the rights are kept by the app creators, and they're being created for replacing composers.
That said, it's weird because if AI-generated content doesn't have a copyright I don't understand how can they keep it. Maybe someone can clarify that.
Last edited:
chocobitz825
Senior Member
I have a feeling about how the corporate heads will use AI to whip out content, but for now, I still feel we artists have some unique ways to use it for composing. After teaching ChatGPT the core of music theory and the overtone series, I have a harmony assistant that can spit out a chord sequence, or review chord progressions I've made for alternative inversions, passing chords, etc. Also found a way to teach it how to write xml guitar tabs. None of these are imperative tools, but they're interesting experiments in how AI could speed us up or inspire us.
Alchemedia
Decomposer
That will always be the case, however, now more than ever, it can no longer be relied upon as a viable source of income.
AnhrithmonGelasma
Senior Member
Some sites and programs do let you use it royalty free or keep the supposed "copyright"---in some cases for a fee. For example Soundful wants $50 / song (provided both as individual track stems and as AI mixed/mastered version). Or Orb Composer, which is ML based and has been around for a while now---I thought it gave better results before the 1.5 update, but the older version is buggy and crashes frequently. Supposedly they're going to come out with Orb Orchestra sometime soon.
How much is copyright?
Currently our copyright is starting at $50.00/track and includes the full ownership of the track licenses as well as a STEM pack with purchase! Music Creator Plus members have the ability to purchase
help.soundful.com
chocobitz825
Senior Member
I don't think anyone is safe from their jobs being replaced by automation. This is unfortunate, but content creators and consumers seem to be the new market. There are so many people and so much money being exchanged online for "content". People in the industry are just slow to find a way to use that market and the recent tools to sidestep the industry and find new ways to operate. I mean, an indie film can look as good as Hollywood blockbuster at a fraction of the cost given it has the time and relevant funding for the tools it uses. It's not all doom and gloom, it's just no longer the hayday. I would love to see what some of the best directors could do if they just directly financed, or crowdfunded and made the films they wanted to make instead of the stuff studio notes demanded they do. Composition concept albums matching digitally created stories and animation made just for that composer's art....how beautiful could it be?
I'm optimistic that creativity will prevail.
Just FYI, I made a tool like this for composers, which is free and was trained only on permissively-licensed files (mostly public domain). You can check it out here: https://vi-control.net/community/th...for-co-creative-composition-in-reaper.142313/
OP
OP
Ivan Duch
Senior Member
This is very interesting! I'm downloading it now.
From a data point of view, the long term of AI generated "art" is a losing proposition. Short term will see some success, but long term won't. Here's why: AI is 100% dependent on human created content to learn from. Once the human content pool dries up because its all been forced out of the market by AI content, AI will only have its existing and no-longer-expanding universe of human created content that it already learned from, plus its own content, which is simply a "rearrangement of the furniture" found from the now static human content pool. AI only really works when its universe of learned human content is expanding. Once that universe ceases to expand, for music in particular, everything it generates will begin to sound eerily familiar, though technically different. And that's just from the data perspective.
From the artistic perspective, people expect to hear a point of view and/or expect conveyance of feelings/emotion from artist to listener. AI can be programmed to do the former and already in fact is used to push specific world views. But it will never be able to accomplish the latter. Its only capable of a false facsimile which will be easily recognizable over time and people will quickly become bored with it. Of course AI can be used by an artist as a sort of over-glorified thesaurus and that's not a bad thing imo, but beyond that, AI has no feelings of its own and it does not hesitate to explain that when asked.
From the artistic perspective, people expect to hear a point of view and/or expect conveyance of feelings/emotion from artist to listener. AI can be programmed to do the former and already in fact is used to push specific world views. But it will never be able to accomplish the latter. Its only capable of a false facsimile which will be easily recognizable over time and people will quickly become bored with it. Of course AI can be used by an artist as a sort of over-glorified thesaurus and that's not a bad thing imo, but beyond that, AI has no feelings of its own and it does not hesitate to explain that when asked.
JacquesMathias
Senior Member
I couldn’t agree more! What are your view on sample libraries production and sales? Do you think the revolution that is ALREADY happening will impact people’s choice? I Can invest U$1000 as long as I know I’ll be getting it back sometime, however, if there is no work, no projects, why would I buy such an expensive thing?
In 1-2 years from now, we’ll have a “RPG background cues generator.”
It will spread to every corner of the industry. Yes, it will mostly suck, but, most people don’t care.
So, in your view, will it impact the industry of Sample Libraries creation and selling?
Its still the wild west with respect to copyright. None of the cases have bubbled up to the Supreme Court yet for final ruling (at least not that I'm aware of). One school of thought is that AI generated content is owned by the app owner. Another is that it is owned by no one since the app relies on learned content. Another is the IP is owned by the owners of the content that an AI work was generated from. And yet another school of thought is that AI generated work is a derivative work of the person who creates the prompts to generate output.
Last edited:
AnhrithmonGelasma
Senior Member
"AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, rules a US Federal Judge
... Judge Howell wrote that copyright has never been granted to work that was “absent any guiding human hand,” adding that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”
... That’s been borne out in past cases cited by the judge, like that one involving a monkey selfie. To contrast, Judge Howell noted a case in which a woman compiled a book from notebooks she’d filled with “words she believed were dictated to her” by a supernatural “voice” was worthy of copyright.
Judge Howell did, however, acknowledge that humanity is “approaching new frontiers in copyright,” where artists will use AI as a tool to create new work. She wrote that this would create “challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary” to copyright AI-created art"
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13292779/acastro_181017_1777_brain_ai_0002.jpg)
www.theverge.com
OTOH the US Supreme Court loves giving power to corporations and has flagrantly disregarded precedent, empirical reality, and rationality before....
... Judge Howell wrote that copyright has never been granted to work that was “absent any guiding human hand,” adding that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”
... That’s been borne out in past cases cited by the judge, like that one involving a monkey selfie. To contrast, Judge Howell noted a case in which a woman compiled a book from notebooks she’d filled with “words she believed were dictated to her” by a supernatural “voice” was worthy of copyright.
Judge Howell did, however, acknowledge that humanity is “approaching new frontiers in copyright,” where artists will use AI as a tool to create new work. She wrote that this would create “challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary” to copyright AI-created art"
AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, rules a US Federal Judge
“Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”
www.theverge.com
OTOH the US Supreme Court loves giving power to corporations and has flagrantly disregarded precedent, empirical reality, and rationality before....
Ned Bouhalassa
Senior Member
Respectfully, I believe that you’re forgetting about the continued evolution of AI; it will not stop getting better, faster.
