AI assistant/copilot for ableton live

[v4p0r]

I have more aversions to styles than to technologies. So, if AI causes any acoustic pattern, I feel affected. E.g. I don't like compressed high bands on singing, or too many loud lip, tongue and moaning sounds, when it's too much. If there will be more of that, I will notice, but it doesn't matter to me. I think the mainstream "acoustic patterns" might become more with AI, but there is already too much music for me to notice this anyway.

I kind of have the same negative emotions to "artifacts to the melodic content". In some AI tracks I heard smeared transients (that's some AI tech causing it?) and knew I will dislike AI tracks with that - but if AI developers fix all of the stuff I don't like, for whatever reason, I take it.

AI for scripting DAW-things is just great for me. I need that. Especially for making tools for experiments and converting things, and batch processing. Or just asking chatgpt about ffmpeg again and again.

[VOODOO U]

I guess taken literally that could mean one AI agent instructing another one to generate music.

How can one A.I. agent instruct another to generate music without human input?

But what I really meant was entire songs created with just a little bit of input from a person,

Oh did you? Sorry. My bad.

[andypryce]

Blocked. There is exactly zero examples of what people call "AI" that I will tolerate, and I dont need to explain my reasoning here because the entire world, basically, understands the threats and risks of this slop.

Art is a human behavior, not a product. GTFO with this trash.

I don't f want guitar lessons

[waxtrax]

That's perfect!

[stamp]

As far as AI being a tool to help create art, while one person may prompt an AI system with something extremely generic such as "create a song in the style of XYZ" (which is perfectly valid), another person will continue to refine the prompt, such as "change the bassline to a pattern based on the D major scale" or "reduce the amount of percussion by 23%". In each of these cases, AI is used as a tool to create art, which is no different in concept than using a MIDI controller to trigger sounds on a virtual instrument.

Are you serious?

[Milkman]

Blocked. There is exactly zero examples of what people call "AI" that I will tolerate, and I dont need to explain my reasoning here because the entire world, basically, understands the threats and risks of this slop.

Art is a human behavior, not a product. GTFO with this trash.

I don't f want guitar lessons

You dont want to learn how to make music? You want an application that late-stage investors have told you is 'artificially intelligent' to do it for you? And you want others to think this is a popular position they, too, should adopt? lmao this is hilarious entirely at your expense. Thanks for this. =P

"AI" companies are already discussing bailouts with nation states. Do you realize what this means, just in general? Perhaps the auto-plagiarism engines arent the best near term investment, lol.

[v4p0r]

So when art is human behavior, I assume you don't mean _using_ AI is the essential process that creates this music in this case. You mean, the essential (or substantial) process that makes this AI music is the AI acting itself, right? And thus, the argument, one could say, in general, is about low effort products?

If so, I don't yet understand the argument so easily. Do you think consumers will gain interest in low effort products? Why should one care about it, if the consumers can't be fooled to buy trash so to speak? It looks like you think they can just be fooled to consume low quality (or plagiarized) music. Maybe that is some market(ing) issue I am not aware of.

If consumers gain interest in bad quality music, is it an ongoin process that has started before AI was a thing? TBH that's kind of my viewpoint as explained before. There is just some thing like music in combination with other art that changes its music qualities. The consumers are interested in different (or lower) qualities when the overall art becomes different. So, for me it's like - "I'm outta here, I don't like it this way" when there is music I don't like - or when AI has been used.

(Using AI is the indicator for me that the product is of a different category than I'm interested in, e.g. a game or something where the priority is not the complementary music but the gameplay, even though game developers would argue that they try to find the best music they can have.)

Concerning "Feater" - I think when you know how the DAW works you don't want the conversations with AI assistant anymore, because they slow down the music making. I think Feater propably is an educational product, and I did not assume it was designed to influence the music.

The product proposal, among other features, is to make the workflow faster, and maybe that's the problem here? It sounds like one is supposed to keep using AI, and there the question comes up, whether this will have an effect on the music. I personally would certainly like to stay independant when expressing myself. At least I want no cloud software.