What's new

Aiva - Artificial Intelligence Composition: beta starting today

MartinH.

Senior Member
I'm curious to know what it is about "high tech" that makes it so prone to claims of diminished quality?
Check out this video:

And go to this video, but scroll way down in the comments till you see one by "Carlos Huante" and read that entire comment thread. It's quite long but imho well worth it:

You don't really need to watch the second video to understand what they're talking about, though it's interesting to see some hands on examples of what current tech can already do.


It's a bit hyperbolic, but every generation seems to fight change, and the next generation defends it until their norm becomes outdated, so I'm trying to understand when music officially was killed by technology. It's a very old regurgitated line. What academic standard sets the quality of music? While we sit here condemning the concept of AI music, we might find that in another 50 or so years, academia might be studying it in depth and teaching about how new complex musical concepts were born from it. Wouldn't be the first time.
Imho it's a little more nuanced than "*** was killed in 19** by ***".


I'm not gonna put much energy into fighting the change, because it's pointless for me. I wouldn't even make a dent. I'll try and adapt, and already have downloaded an example implementation of pix2pix and made some experiments training it on image data most relevant to my own field of work. When I have time to get back to it again, I'll start experiments on modifying it and trying out different approaches, trying other models, getting better understanding of the potential and limitations of the current tech. But if I find something cool/useful, I'll just keep it for myself. I refuse to rush this inevitable change along, because I still think it's gonna have devastating consequences for all creative industries that can't even remotely be foreseen.
I perfectly understand and share the fascination for the implementation side of it, and I hope to have an in-demand programming skillset when/if my old job gets pushed out of the market by AI, but I can't bring myself to have much optimism for the situation at large. Basically hoping for the best, but bracing for the worst...
 

chocobitz825

Senior Member
Check out this video:

And go to this video, but scroll way down in the comments till you see one by "Carlos Huante" and read that entire comment thread. It's quite long but imho well worth it:

You don't really need to watch the second video to understand what they're talking about, though it's interesting to see some hands on examples of what current tech can already do.




Imho it's a little more nuanced than "*** was killed in 19** by ***".


I'm not gonna put much energy into fighting the change, because it's pointless for me. I wouldn't even make a dent. I'll try and adapt, and already have downloaded an example implementation of pix2pix and made some experiments training it on image data most relevant to my own field of work. When I have time to get back to it again, I'll start experiments on modifying it and trying out different approaches, trying other models, getting better understanding of the potential and limitations of the current tech. But if I find something cool/useful, I'll just keep it for myself. I refuse to rush this inevitable change along, because I still think it's gonna have devastating consequences for all creative industries that can't even remotely be foreseen.
I perfectly understand and share the fascination for the implementation side of it, and I hope to have an in-demand programming skillset when/if my old job gets pushed out of the market by AI, but I can't bring myself to have much optimism for the situation at large. Basically hoping for the best, but bracing for the worst...
Completely fair, and I agree to Mike Verta’s point that tech gives choice but that does not equate to skill. I suppose I do challenge the standards of skill. It’s a problem I have with academia and art and relates to the comments from Carlos.

It’s potentially sinister because it gives the same abilities to people with less skill than the old guard. Others in the comments say it’s “art WORK” and talk about how they worked to get their skills and people with lesser skills using new tech can take the work from more experienced people. This perspective never considers how hard and/or impossible it was for people to even get those skills before now. Whether people were locked out for prejudicial justifications, or whether it be financial or just the fact that the things they wanted to do were not widely accepted as art at the time. I agree with the comment that says this turns art into a democracy. Which goes back to my point about the subjective nature of “quality”. People say the quality has gone done, but if the consumers continue to sway toward the “lesser” product what does it really say about the market and the things people value? This is why I keep saying we’re arrogant to think people love music as much as we do. They don’t. Their buying habits show it.

It’s a broad topic but I want to stick with AI. It might give people with no formal music education or experience the ability to make music..and some fear it might give them the ability to make masterpieces...and I still say, “so what?”. Why are we so threatened by more people enjoying music? If we can defend it as an emotional and human experience, then why are we criticizing people for having a human experience and feeling emotions just the because the source was influenced by a machine? On a
Professional level, yes it sucks to lose work, but again that’s why it’s important for musicians to influence how AI can become a better tool, rather than just a replacement.

I don’t expect to change anyone’s minds here but I don’t see a reason to slow the progress of AI to protect the egos of analog/old school musicians. It’s a free market. If the market doesn’t value your skills, and goes for a cheaper alternative it shows you exactly what your skills and your sense of quality actually means to the market. Alternatively, if the point is about the purity of art being tainted, AI can not stop people from doing art. It would have literally no impact on people doing whatever art they choose. These argument always seem to end in the fear that people will lose the attention, respect or money for what they do, but we then mask the conversation in claims about purity of art, quality and tradition.

Anyways I appreciate the various perspectives and conversation. The curiosity People have on the topic is refreshing and some of the points against are interesting as well. When our robot overlords take over, I hope they’ll be gentle lol.
 

chocobitz825

Senior Member
Is anyone arguing that?

Remember, pretty much every tool in human history can be used and abused.
“I've heard compelling arguments that all the hightech workflows drive the old-school analog guys out of the creative roles in big productions and that is detrimental to the bottom line quality of the product. “

I was responding to this ^
 

gyprock

Member
I see the continual rise of technology essentially averaging out the skill base. The untrained now have the tools to create something reasonable whereas the professionals are having their secrets revealed. This duality creates more competition for the professionals but also more work opportunities for the untrained. It just depends what side of the fence you are on.

Creative output from the untrained has also increased the diversity of what is considered acceptable or cool by the general public e.g. if a 4 bar loop behind a toothpaste commercial does the job, you don't need the skill level of John Williams to write a score for that commercial. Likewise, if it is acceptable to take a snap from your mobile phone and use if for a client's business card, you don't need a trained graphic designer and professional offset printer.

Where the skillset of the future (and today) lies is not in the tools but in the contacts and distribution channels. If you can quickly get your creative output into the hands of an audience, this is far more valuable from a financial career perspective than being able to write like Beethoven or John Williams in your bedroom.

We now live in a world where electricians get plenty of work but electrical engineers are out of work or where you have to pay a plumber a $90 call out fee just to come and look at your problem before any work even starts.

I saw an example where a legal (law) AI system solved a problem in 5 mins that took 4 paralegals 4 hours. The AI system also provided a fully documented solution with nearly every possible counter argument whereas the paralegals only provided one solution. So rather than go to university for 5 years to study law, save the money, buy the AI system and hire it out to a purchased database of paralegal contacts.

Or perhaps by a Komplete Kontrol M32 with Komplete 12 (all for less than $1,000) and then start building your database of TV commercial directors and producers. You will only need one finger to create output with the former but you will need 10 fingers to get on a computer keyboard to find the latter.
 

colony nofi

Senior Member
Uploading an influence is different from training.

Uploading an influence just asks the already trained AI model to be biased toward the influence uploaded, influence (at least in Australia) is not able to be copyrighted, there's already legal precedent.

It's the input training data that is important here, if that's public domain then the copyright question is closed.
Yes - I get your point. But its the *USE* of the work in a business context which is unclear. Just saying its an influence isn't a problem. However, uploading a version of a song - be it in midi form or as a wav file, and using it inside another piece of software - as a part of a business process, is potentially a problem. A little esoteric, but still important.

(And we could also talk LOADS more about influence in different territories outside of australia - or as in the case of the USA, the ability for production ideas/techniques/general "sound" to be tested in court and found to be in breach (although I've not kept up with the case I'm thinking about and I know it went to appeal...)
 

Desire Inspires

To the stars through desire....
I see the continual rise of technology essentially averaging out the skill base. The untrained now have the tools to create something reasonable whereas the professionals are having their secrets revealed. This duality creates more competition for the professionals but also more work opportunities for the untrained. It just depends what side of the fence you are on.

Creative output from the untrained has also increased the diversity of what is considered acceptable or cool by the general public e.g. if a 4 bar loop behind a toothpaste commercial does the job, you don't need the skill level of John Williams to write a score for that commercial. Likewise, if it is acceptable to take a snap from your mobile phone and use if for a client's business card, you don't need a trained graphic designer and professional offset printer.

Where the skillset of the future (and today) lies is not in the tools but in the contacts and distribution channels. If you can quickly get your creative output into the hands of an audience, this is far more valuable from a financial career perspective than being able to write like Beethoven or John Williams in your bedroom.

We now live in a world where electricians get plenty of work but electrical engineers are out of work or where you have to pay a plumber a $90 call out fee just to come and look at your problem before any work even starts.

I saw an example where a legal (law) AI system solved a problem in 5 mins that took 4 paralegals 4 hours. The AI system also provided a fully documented solution with nearly every possible counter argument whereas the paralegals only provided one solution. So rather than go to university for 5 years to study law, save the money, buy the AI system and hire it out to a purchased database of paralegal contacts.

Or perhaps by a Komplete Kontrol M32 with Komplete 12 (all for less than $1,000) and then start building your database of TV commercial directors and producers. You will only need one finger to create output with the former but you will need 10 fingers to get on a computer keyboard to find the latter.

I’m unskilled so I use all the tools I can to compensate for that. It’s faster and easier to use tech than it is to learn how to do things the older way.
 

Mike Fox

Senior Member
I’m unskilled so I use all the tools I can to compensate for that. It’s faster and easier to use tech than it is to learn how to do things the older way.
What's interesting is that there are people who don't have the skills in the traditional sense, but they are incredibly efficient with the technology, which in turn becomes a skill in of itself. I seem to notice this more amongst younger people, probably because they grew being surrounded by ever-changing technology. That's just where they feel comfortable, so they hone their skills in that direction.
 

chocobitz825

Senior Member
Remember Glassholes?

These would have been ass. Not hiney, buttocks, bum, arse - full-on ass:

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/07/11/apple-ar-glasses-reportedly-terminated-digitimes/

Currently
It’s just too hard to do well. Likely it needs next gen tech to work in a way that keep them small, portable and fast. I never got into glass, and I’m not crazy about the idea of AR glasses, but something will eventually take place of smart phones, and likely some combination of wearables will be the new norm.

So yeah, probably would have been ass...but that ass is gonna come some day from one of the big companies.
 

MartinH.

Senior Member
but something will eventually take place of smart phones, and likely some combination of wearables will be the new norm.
Why? Until we're at brain-implant levels of technology I don't see anything being more practical and ergonomic than a roughly phone sized device that fits into a pocket.
 

chocobitz825

Senior Member
Why? Until we're at brain-implant levels of technology I don't see anything being more practical and ergonomic than a roughly phone sized device that fits into a pocket.
My guess is the need for change will spark the change from smartphone. Maybe it will start with foldable tablet/smartphones when that gets ironed out. Already the smartphone market has hit a wall. You can add a new camera, and improve some of the internals, but overall not too much innovation is left in the current form. That stagnation leads to lowered sales and profit which means companies will keep trying to find the next big thing to hook people and their money.

We might not lose the form factor, but if they smooth it all out, maybe in the future the core of the processing won't be done on the "smartphone", but rather it would just be an ultra-thin glass display that syncs with another device that shoots data to your smartphone, watch and ar glasses, or whatever. Either way, I don't think companies will be satisfied with sticking to the smartphone after its decade long run is already showing signs of slowing down.
 

MartinH.

Senior Member
My guess is the need for change will spark the change from smartphone. Maybe it will start with foldable tablet/smartphones when that gets ironed out. Already the smartphone market has hit a wall. You can add a new camera, and improve some of the internals, but overall not too much innovation is left in the current form. That stagnation leads to lowered sales and profit which means companies will keep trying to find the next big thing to hook people and their money.

We might not lose the form factor, but if they smooth it all out, maybe in the future the core of the processing won't be done on the "smartphone", but rather it would just be an ultra-thin glass display that syncs with another device that shoots data to your smartphone, watch and ar glasses, or whatever. Either way, I don't think companies will be satisfied with sticking to the smartphone after its decade long run is already showing signs of slowing down.
You're not thinking like a cyberpunk-dystopia-worthy megacorp yet. In the future, they won't need innovation. Something like the iPhone, will just be a subscription which includes the hardware. You'll pay 1000$+ per year to "have an iPhone", and the tech will continue to get meaningless incremental improvements and minor optical design changes. And if you lose your phone or break it, you'll pay an additional fee to get a replacement. And barely anyone locked into their ecosystem will break out of it, even if the alternatives are way cheaper and less orwellian.
 

chocobitz825

Senior Member
You're not thinking like a cyberpunk-dystopia-worthy megacorp yet. In the future, they won't need innovation. Something like the iPhone, will just be a subscription which includes the hardware. You'll pay 1000$+ per year to "have an iPhone", and the tech will continue to get meaningless incremental improvements and minor optical design changes. And if you lose your phone or break it, you'll pay an additional fee to get a replacement. And barely anyone locked into their ecosystem will break out of it, even if the alternatives are way cheaper and less orwellian.
i cant wait! lol
 

Digivolt

Active Member
Why? Until we're at brain-implant levels of technology I don't see anything being more practical and ergonomic than a roughly phone sized device that fits into a pocket.
Smart glasses will be the next thing, after that comes neural interfacing with our minds, then after that comes the shedding of our physical form to ascend and live inside a glorified database :eek:

AI is coming and is the future, we can either accept and work with it, or get left behind as it takes over regardless of how we feel about it.

One thing I will say however is I don't think it will ever replace humans when it comes to art, because AI cannot replicate the imperfections and subtle nuances in art which make perfection, it's why so many software emulations of hardware fail to truly replicate because the code cannot account for the random imperfections, there is no way to emulate true random, not at the moment anyway maybe with quantum technology it may be possible at some point
 

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
What's interesting is that there are people who don't have the skills in the traditional sense, but they are incredibly efficient with the technology, which in turn becomes a skill in of itself. I seem to notice this more amongst younger people, probably because they grew being surrounded by ever-changing technology. That's just where they feel comfortable, so they hone their skills in that direction.
No doubt, but it takes a whole lot more work to become a great musician, and it's exponentially more difficult and rare if you don't grow up playing an instrument.

I love technology for what it is, but to me there's no comparison between the two (which is why I'm glad I went to Berklee just before the digital revolution got going - I was able to pick up the toys later).

Now, someone will probably point to an exception to what I'm saying, but that will only prove the rule. :)
 

chocobitz825

Senior Member
No doubt, but it takes a whole lot more work to become a great musician, and it's exponentially more difficult and rare if you don't grow up playing an instrument.

I love technology for what it is, but to me there's no comparison between the two (which is why I'm glad I went to Berklee just before the digital revolution got going - I was able to pick up the toys later).

Now, someone will probably point to an exception to what I'm saying, but that will only prove the rule. :)
If I could make one loosely related observation about this AI/Tech assisted digital generation that I found interesting....the current self proclaimed “producers”, DJs and beatmakers may have a very basic knowledge of musical theory and instrumentation, but it is interesting to see how many of them have very in depth, self-taught no less, understanding of frequency. They spend more time visualizing and arranging with an open virtual landscape, trying to match and manage frequencies in a way that is quite impressive. They may not think in “pitch” and complex harmony, but their sound design senses are worth some praise.
 
Last edited:

Mike Fox

Senior Member
No doubt, but it takes a whole lot more work to become a great musician, and it's exponentially more difficult and rare if you don't grow up playing an instrument.

I love technology for what it is, but to me there's no comparison between the two (which is why I'm glad I went to Berklee just before the digital revolution got going - I was able to pick up the toys later).

Now, someone will probably point to an exception to what I'm saying, but that will only prove the rule. :)
Being a great musician can mean a lot of things, and while formal training has it's place, a lot of people just don't need it to be great composers/musicians (while others greatly benefit from it, including myself!). Some people are just born with gifts, and think in abstract ways that formal methods of learning usually don't offer.

That's not a knock against formal education, because I'm willing to bet that most people would greatly benefit from being able to attend Berklee. ;)

I'll also add that what might be hard for one individual, may come quite easily for the next. Kurt Cobain and Paul McCartney pushed out masterpieces like it was nothing, yet most people who have all the formal education in the world can't come close to what they did.

It works both ways in the grand scheme of things, yet I completely understand that musicians like Kurt and Paul are the exception to the rule.

I think it's the people who are conventionally trained, as well as gurus in tech who are really going to bring some amazing results to the table. Mitis, for example has done some amazing things. I'm sure his music would not be nearly as good as if it wasn't for the fact that he's a classically trained pianist, or if he didn't have the tech thing down.
 
Last edited:

Mike Fox

Senior Member
If I could make one loosely related observation about this AI/Tech assisted digital generation that I found interesting....the current self proclaimed “producers”, DJs and beatmakers may have a very basic knowledge of musical theory and instrumentation, but it is interesting to see how many of them have very in depth, self-taught no less, understanding of frequency. They spend more time visualizing and arranging with an open virtual landscape, trying to match and manage frequencies in a way that is quite impressive. They may not think in “pitch” and complex harmony, but their sound design senses are worth some praise.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. These kinds of musicians think in ways that are much different than what they teach you in school. It's like a computer hacker vs someone who just graduated with a Masters in IT. Completely different wavelengths of thinking.
 

NYC Composer

Senior Member
I got to go with Mike Fox here.

I rented a room for a few years in a studio complex and became pals with some of the pop and hip hop producers in other rooms. Their instrument is ProTools, and they are amazingly good with it. A few guys in particular were really good instinctual musicians and writers who used the technology (samples, editing, Autotune, effects, various softsynths etc) along with rudimentary keyboard (and sometimes guitar skills) to come up with pretty damn good pop productions very quickly. Also, I have old ears but these guys were seriously better mixers than I am.

OT-In the long run, one company there did buy a CRAPLOAD of legal software, but in general I was pretty disheartened by the joyful thievery.
 
Top Bottom