It is impossible to "win" this legal battle.... And you should give up thinking you can.

[yydr_cc]

Well, that certainly sounds like an idealized vision for a utopian society, and may be a worthy long range goal. But in the meantime, those of us who are trying to push back, or at least regulate, generative AI are doing so because:

A) creative jobs are being obviated for no justifiable reason other than greedy tech giants want in on the profits;

B) placing any art form under centralized monolithic control squashes opportunities for cultural diversity and expansion;

C) I don't want to live in a world where the music I stream, hear in movies and TV, and even in commercials, is generated by some non-musician pressing a button at a computer.

Generative AI has nothing to do with individual creative pursuits. I'll go on making music like I always have, regardless of AI. It does of course, threaten my income as a professional composer, but outside of myself, the bigger issue is that once AI-generated music seeps into all of the normal outlets for music in our world, we'll all be forced to listen to it.

In terms of live performance... remember Gorillaz? Basically 2 musicians who worked behind the scenes while the band's persona was represented by a quartet of 2D animated characters. Their live shows were basically the cartoon band projected on a screen, while the musicians remained hidden. With today's improved 3D and holographic technology, it's not a stretch to imagine an AI "artist" playing live shows in a similar manner. I feel sorry for today's younger generation.

I have no problem with fighting back - that is what I advocate - but sectional protest at what is a societal change will have limited success - which may of course be fine in the short term. But only in the short term

re live performance - there have been avatar concerts for ages in Japan. They have had success but have not supplanted live performance
and note there are actual musicians playing

 

[Post Singularity]

I agree to a point, but Ai will not stop music making it will just take over a whole lot of paid production. It wont replace live performance for example and it wont really replace composition outside of certain types of music production as commodity.

My point is that as AI in music is just one small componenet of a larger displacement of jobs it behoves us - as people not only as musicians - to address this oncoming displacement at a societal level. By doing so we will allow musicians and other artists to continue producing their art in forms that may be rewarded by public acclaim if not by direct payment. Payment will have to be at the societal level - the example I gave is universal basic income but there are other ways

For UBI to work , it needs to be implemented everywhere at the same time . Image the flood of immigration to the country that will do it first . Open AI CEO is working on worldcoin that seems to be aiming at implementing UBI and digital ID at the global level . UBI would also have to be paired with some sort of credit score system . I can see a future with UBI happening ( a mix of cognitive capitalism for a very small % and a form of communism with a lot of restrictions for everyone else ) but it would have to be under some sort of unelected global government . ( deepfakes need to kill our democracies first lol )

And I agree AI isn't only going to disrupt art / music and the transition will inevitably be brutal ( with or without things like UBI )

There might be a way to make that transition even more brutal but for those who are seeking to profit from AI . If a substantial minority of the population ( around 20 % maybe ) start fighting to survive by creating an extreme chaos , it could work or at least slow things down .

 

[CGR]

It's both.

Clearly technological advances have resulted in better, faster, and more efficient ways of doing things throughout human history, and have made many human jobs and skills obsolete along the way.

This is the nature of progress, and generally speaking, it has benefitted humanity over the long run. When technology, including AI, is applied to humanity's problems, the results can be wondrous and provide significant improvements to the quality of our lives. Great.

But when did the creation of music become a problem that needed an AI solution? We're we running out of musical ideas? We're composers not writing advertising jingles fast enough? Are film directors and producers tired of having to deal with tempermental composers? Are fans and audiences bored with human performers?

Sadly, the true answer comes down to plain old GREED. If an AI company can provide unlimited "new" music to commercial clients and fans, then they are in a position to earn all the profits normally assiciated with that music.

Spotify loves their new AI-generated playlists, because when listeners stream them, Spotify doesn't have to pay royalties to anyone. Think about all the people/business that get shorted when a single AI song is generated: songwriter(s), musicans, recording, mixing, and mastering engineers, graphic artists and photographers, and even instrument makers and sample library and plugin developers.

It wouldn't be so horrible if the impacted human jobs were mindless, menial, and undesirable. But that's not the case. These were never jobs and tasks that were crying out for replacement or in need of improvement. They're being threatened simply because of blind greed.

Someone figured out that if they can develop an AI tech that can generate music on par with human creators, then they can keep all the money associated with the production and distribution of that music for themselves. Starve out the artists and talent, and all you're left with are monolithic organizations that own and control all creative product. That's not a world I want to live in.

AI is not the villain here. It's the greedy tech giants that want to leverage AI to corner cretive markets for their own selfish monetary gain.

^ This

 

[AudioLoco]

The ONLY reason of existence of AI music is to make loads of money to a couple of people that own the alogos (based on theft).

No other reason for it to exist.

 

[elucid]

But when did the creation of music become a problem that needed an AI solution?

For me, this is the heart of the issue. If ever there was a solution in search of a problem it's manifest in AI-generated music.

And the suggestion that I should simply roll with the inevitable just doesn't sit well at all. That's not to say I know what to do about it unfortunately.

 

[justthere]

Open AI CEO is working on worldcoin that seems to be aiming at implementing UBI and digital ID at the global level .

Oh, absolutely we should turn this over to sociopathic tech bros. What could possibly go wrong? They are always so responsible with the well-being of others. Let's not even question their benevolent intentions.

UBI would also have to be paired with some sort of credit score system .

Because since the poor have such great credit, they should absolutely be limited in their ability to be lifted from poverty.

The problem with UBI isn't that it would conceivably end poverty - that sounds great to me. The problem is that in this particular instance - putting people on some minimal subsistence-level paycheck so that tech bros can do what they want, and for no other reason than that - it also creates a population whose jobs were lost to AI that have to do what they are told to do in order to receive their dole. And it moves money to the elite in charge of the AI. Is there any example of a "communist" state ever in the history of the world that didn't have a wealthy elite at the top to whom normal rules didn't apply? Someone could school me on it. And wouldn't that obviate the need for a voting populace? Wouldn't it make education less necessary?

I'm absolutely shocked - shocked, I tell you - at the number of composers who don't make money at composing who desperately want some new hack that gives them relevancy - and apparently at any cost, regardless of the impact on the art form they love or other people who can actually do this job.

 

[yydr_cc]

Oh, absolutely we should turn this over to sociopathic tech bros. What could possibly go wrong? They are always so responsible with the well-being of others. Let's not even question their benevolent intentions.

Because since the poor have such great credit, they should absolutely be limited in their ability to be lifted from poverty.

The problem with UBI isn't that it would conceivably end poverty - that sounds great to me. The problem is that in this particular instance - putting people on some minimal subsistence-level paycheck so that tech bros can do what they want, and for no other reason than that - it also creates a population whose jobs were lost to AI that have to do what they are told to do in order to receive their dole. And it moves money to the elite in charge of the AI. Is there any example of a "communist" state ever in the history of the world that didn't have a wealthy elite at the top to whom normal rules didn't apply? Someone could school me on it. And wouldn't that obviate the need for a voting populace? Wouldn't it make education less necessary?

I'm absolutely shocked - shocked, I tell you - at the number of composers who don't make money at composing who desperately want some new hack that gives them relevancy - and apparently at any cost, regardless of the impact on the art form they love or other people who can actually do this job.

actually it is only with UBI that you have competition for labour. THere is no need for UBI to be at subsitence level either. Putting UBI in the hands of the private sector would be a disaster in the same way that most every private/public partnership has been a disaster for the public

My point is not UBI or bust - rather that there is no stopping AI/robotics taking over almost all jobs. The struggle for fairness must be at the global rather than local level - thinking only of yourself is not going to work for very long

 

[GtrString]

I think it's possible to win a legal battle against AI developers, but that we should give up thinking that we should.

Do you even realize how bad AI generated music really is in its current state? Even if it improves beyond our imagination, it would still not be great, even good.

I'm not on this wagon at all. I think we should educate ourselves into understanding what AI music can, what it can't, how it can improve and what it will never be able to do. Knowledge always wins.

 

[justthere]

actually it is only with UBI that you have competition for labour.

We seem to have it now also.

THere is no need for UBI to be at subsitence level either.

That's what the "basic" means.

Putting UBI in the hands of the private sector would be a disaster in the same way that most every private/public partnership has been a disaster for the public

Surely.

My point is not UBI or bust - rather that there is no stopping AI/robotics taking over almost all jobs. The struggle for fairness must be at the global rather than local level - thinking only of yourself is not going to work for very long

First - it's not true there is no stopping it - or, rather, that's a bit binary for what needs to happen. Regulation happens all the time. Regulation doesn't disappear as an option just because people think of AI as a single great wave as opposed to a host of smaller ones.

Second - who's talking about thinking only of oneself? Where are you going with that?

The folks who seem to be thinking only of themselves are the ones ready to hand over other people's livelihoods so they can get ahead, no?

 

[justthere]

I'm not on this wagon at all. I think we should educate ourselves into understanding what AI music can, what it can't, how it can improve and what it will never be able to do. Knowledge always wins.

Well, I agree with that. So here's something - any process at all, given time and resolution, can be modeled. Here's something else: that app you may wind up using to generate music for you, so you can meet ridiculous expectations of the industry and compete for a shrinking piece of the pie, is learning what questions you ask so it can ask the same questions itself. Consequently: once your input isn't needed anymore, you're unnecessary. But it doesn't matter what you think it can't do well. It matters what the folks driving the bus think is good enough. While you are engaged in a (certainly understandable) philosophical and aesthetic exploration of what AI can do, you'll likely be doing that with no income from music. Nor will any of your descendants.

 

[Post Singularity]

Oh, absolutely we should turn this over to sociopathic tech bros. What could possibly go wrong? They are always so responsible with the well-being of others. Let's not even question their benevolent intentions.

Because since the poor have such great credit, they should absolutely be limited in their ability to be lifted from poverty.

The problem with UBI isn't that it would conceivably end poverty - that sounds great to me. The problem is that in this particular instance - putting people on some minimal subsistence-level paycheck so that tech bros can do what they want, and for no other reason than that - it also creates a population whose jobs were lost to AI that have to do what they are told to do in order to receive their dole. And it moves money to the elite in charge of the AI. Is there any example of a "communist" state ever in the history of the world that didn't have a wealthy elite at the top to whom normal rules didn't apply? Someone could school me on it. And wouldn't that obviate the need for a voting populace? Wouldn't it make education less necessary?

I'm absolutely shocked - shocked, I tell you - at the number of composers who don't make money at composing who desperately want some new hack that gives them relevancy - and apparently at any cost, regardless of the impact on the art form they love or other people who can actually do this job.

No there is no example of a communist state without a totalitarian wealthy elite . Yes they don't want people to be able to keep voting , with things like the ability to do " deepfakes " they are creating a major and unprecedented problem for democracies . That is why I think that we shouldn't fight within the limitations of their rules .
I am sure they will poorly handle the transition so we might have a chance to " disrupt " them , if it stays at the legal battle level , they will surely win .

 

[Post Singularity]

The struggle for fairness must be at the global rather than local level - thinking only of yourself is not going to work for very long

I am afraid that you are on the same page as big tech on this . No longer having elected governments in what used to be democratic countries is a terrifying perspective .

 

[yydr_cc]

We seem to have it now also.

not really as a general rule, only for those sectors of the economy where there is a scarcity of labour. Otherwise there is no competition, - and that's for a big chunk of the economy

That's what the "basic" means.

no it isn't what 'basic' means - most UBI proponents and commentators position UBI at a level above poverty. 'Basic' more properly refers to a shared baseline

 

[pixel]

as I point out there is a mechanism - UBI - and there is a movement to implement it. Support or not, accept that capitalism has won, or not. Strangely enough the US (and the west) are not the only game in town.

Do you really believe that 'AI bros' will pay billions to support unemployed people so they can do... leisure? Do you really think that they will pay people in countries all over the world equally? Do you really believe that they will do it just because they have big hearts and "they care so much about others"?

Even if this were the case, are you really going to be happy that your life is in the hands of some ultra-rich 'AI bros' who can cut off your income from one day to another just because "why not"? Or even better, cut income in entire countries, just for fun. Who would stop them? Their conscience?

UBI would change humanity into cattle and make 'AI bros' our owners, literally.

 

[yydr_cc]

Do you really believe that 'AI bros' will pay billions to support unemployed people so they can do... leisure? Do you really think that they will pay people in countries all over the world equally? Do you really believe that they will do it just because they have big hearts and "they care so much about others"?

Even if this were the case, are you really going to be happy that your life is in the hands of some ultra-rich 'AI bros' who can cut off your income from one day to another just because "why not"?

UBI would change humanity into cattle and make 'AI bros' our owners, literally.

I think you are replying to someone else.

 

[pixel]

I think you are replying to someone else.

No no, I'm replaying to you, about UBI that YOU mentioned.

 

[yydr_cc]

No no, I'm replaying to you, about UBI that YOU mentioned.

But what is this talk of AI bros. I don't get the link

 

[pixel]

For UBI to work , it needs to be implemented everywhere at the same time . Image the flood of immigration to the country that will do it first . Open AI CEO is working on worldcoin that seems to be aiming at implementing UBI and digital ID at the global level . UBI would also have to be paired with some sort of credit score system . I can see a future with UBI happening ( a mix of cognitive capitalism for a very small % and a form of communism with a lot of restrictions for everyone else ) but it would have to be under some sort of unelected global government . ( deepfakes need to kill our democracies first lol )

And I agree AI isn't only going to disrupt art / music and the transition will inevitably be brutal ( with or without things like UBI )

There might be a way to make that transition even more brutal but for those who are seeking to profit from AI . If a substantial minority of the population ( around 20 % maybe ) start fighting to survive by creating an extreme chaos , it could work or at least slow things down .

Yep, a credit score system would be inevitable in the case of UBI. What a great future to look forward for

 

[pixel]

But what is this talk of AI bros. I don't get the link

Because they're promising UBI and only they could pay it. Who else? Governments? From which money? Taxes? What taxes? Surely not from people's income and spending. The tax would come only from AI companies. So in that case they would own governments.

 

[yydr_cc]

Because they're promising UBI and only they could pay it. Who else? Governments? From which money? Taxes? What taxes? Surely not from people's income and spending. The tax would come only from AI companies. So in that case they would own governments.

That's not a sensible understanding of govt and economies at all.