He didn’t say bad. It’s technically incredible which doesn’t mean it can’t be morally abhorrent at the same time.
Ok - so how this approach to "creation" is bad, once the result is good? I don't touch the whole "stolen" issue here, lets assume it was all legitimately trained...
Why should I assume when it categorically wasn’t.
Yeah it is a bit hard to give AI creation credit while it emulates mathematically all of the music available on the internet, sometimes blatantly using voices of famous singers, dead or alive.
That’s a fair view and when everyone can do exactly the same with the minimum effort and zero actual skills, what then will set you apart? What makes you worth paying vs the next person?
Sorry, its seems you are not aware that AI does need expertise and effort for actual work, and results vary wildly between users, immediately revealing their level.
AI will learn from experts and quickly allow everyone to obtain similar results with much less work and knowledge . So that " actual work " is mostly needed for machine learning .
Hence why the beta is "free". Ugh. Humans are actually trading their expertise for curiosity
This is not how it works. Even meeting the best robot in the world - you would still have to explain him WHAT you need. Direct brain connectivity?? The results will start to be tenfold more varied between people.
AI will make managers of all of us! The horror!
You gave a brief to a machine. Thus, YOU created fuck all, regardless of how skillful your brief(s) may be.
Except the line is fuzzy. People work with loops, arpeggiators, and various other algorithmic content generators all the time and yet that generally does not call into question the status of the resulting "composition."
Setting up a generative algorithm would be the equivalent of inventing an ai not giving simplistic instructions to an existing one that will end up producing very similar results for all users . Generative tonal music implies some musical knowledge if you want to avoid a cacophony or a " modern " contemporary classical music from the 50's type of sound .
That doesn't really answer the problem of the fuzzy boundaries. And I don't think that setting up a generative algorithm is necessarily more complicated than devising a prompt for an AI. Or rather, it's perfectly possible to set up a very simple generative algorithm on par with a simple prompt for an AI. It is likewise conceivable that a very complex prompt, on order with a more subtle, more complicated generative algorithm, could be given to the AI. Indeed one could more or less give the same prompt to the AI that you'd program for the generative algorithm. Not to mention which that cacophony of 1950s and 60s music did not exclude it from the domain of "composition," though it did raise the question for some, I suppose, of whether it was indeed music.
That may be so, but you are very much in the minority on this, and there is a boatload of commercial music that leans heavily on such devices.
Arpeggios and loops have been used in " modern " music long before the box became a thing . Samplers and synths have always been seen as instruments by most and some always thought that it was cheating : synths generate music automatically , sampler are used to steal other people's music ... that is a very different debate .... Now the " it has always been this way " argument does not work here , it would be hard to tell musicians : " you have used drum loops In your music in the past , you now have to accept AI because it is the same thing "
I'm making no claim that you have to accept AI. In fact, I've been pushing back against it, suggesting composers need to stop dreaming of using AI to replace other musicians and creative labor in their music making. I am making the claim that because algorithmic devices run deep in contemporary music making, the lines are fuzzy and so it will be hard to form a cogent argument against AI. Arguments against AI inevitably disqualify other practices that are perfectly common. So what do we do about that?
Consider the song that's been #1 on the charts for the last few weeks.... "The song is built entirely around a sped-up sample of Rodney O and Joe Cooley’s “Everlasting Bass,” a 1988 synths-and-scratching classic that’s been sampled dozens of times by everyone from Lil Wayne to Three 6 Mafia. ... [using] this well-worn sample in 2024 is, I’d argue, a statement in itself: The beat is legit, but the lyrics are what matter."
