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.