Can AI (Artificial Intelligence) even compete?

[Lunarkittn]

Hey you all,

everywhere I look, this subject seems to come up from time to time and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. The debate never really resonated with me, because I don't quite get the point, I feel. I understand that this is a serious subject, especially to those who work professionally in the field of music production. Maybe I'm not seeing the issue, because it doesn't effect me in a meaningful way like that. So let me start by saying, that if you feel threatened by AI as a professional, this might not be the right opinion piece to read, because it might demoralize you.

I always felt like I have something to say about it, that doesn't seem to be discussed in this way. So I want to take this opportunity to share my prespective, and hopefully get to read your perspective as well.

When I click on a video for example, of someone adressing this issue, it often feels overly dramatic to me and kind of strange. What does your music mean really to you, if you are so concerned by the idea that a computer can spit out a mash of data in the form of a pretty lofi sounding and often uncanny and weirdly offputting audio file that mimics music.

I understand that for many this is a buisness and is tied to existential fears. I don't want to downplay that or sound harsh. And again, if that is where you are coming from, this isn't the right opinion piece for you to read. I'm approaching this subject from the perspective that ultimativly music is not about money, but about human experiences first and foremost.

Music is a celebration of human experiences and human interactions. It is an exachange of many things that are human. I'm struggleing not to come across as overly harsh, but frankly if you feel like your work could possibly be replaced by an AI, I wonder what you think you have been doing all along. To me it feels that this centiment comes from a direction of self deception and by extention a deception of ones audience as well.

I believe to see this reflected in many expressions like 'I'm doing this like that, because nobody can hear the difference anyway.'. To me it is ultimately about doing something that is real and really human, and not only about making something that gets close enough, where no one can hear the difference, to what you are trying to portray. If you have to cut corners and make things happen somehow, go for it, but if that becomes the focal point of the whole thing, what are you even producing.

To me it feels like AI is pointing out how the production of music has taken turns in a direction, that arguably might not have been desireable from the get go. Historically music has been an expression of local culture or exceptional genius, as an expression of a higher culture. Popular music in contrast has swallowed alot of opportunities for local culture to exist to begin with. Why go and listen to local musicians when you can easily overstimulate yourself with music, video and all the other things your computer, TV or smartphone offers you 24/7 on demand. And even if you want to go out and experience a live performance, you might go for a concert from the usual suspects of the music industry instead. Not to speak of every other metal band that 'wants to sound like slipknot' or whatever. I'm writing this with the understanding that nothing that popular culture has produced is an expression of high culutre, including the beatles or what ever your favorites are. If you disagree with me on this point, I want to make it clear that our viewpoints are diametrically opposed and I don't believe that we will come to a closer shared understanding by discussing this very point. To me popular culture without question is inherently low culture, period. (the fact that the music industry in the eyes of many has gone the way down the toilet bowl in the eyes of many doesn't help neither.)

AI does impressive stuff, that can be in it's own way be unique and interesting. It however is inherently not creative, can't be truely romantic, can't be sincere and many other things. And that for one simple reason, it is not a human expression. At some point, I'm tempted to believe, people will be oversaturated with this type of music (I was before AI music was a thing), that there is going to space for human expression in the form of music. And if human generated music that was so empty of these qualties such as sincerity for example, ceases to exist, how much of the loss is that really.

Maybe that is too harsh. Maybe it is misguided. It is my opinion and I'd like to hear yours.

[D Midas]

AKA……. We’re all cooked

[Tiles]

Only if you fail to see the opportunities and seize the possibilities. Constant change has always been the only constant in life.

[Zeisner]

AKA……. We’re all cooked

Only if you make slop. Because that's all AI can create.

[Bombadil]

“Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.”

― Douglas Adams

nothing has changed.

[Zeisner]

"The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own." - J.R.R. Tolkien

[jancivil]

When I click on a video for example, of someone adressing this issue, it often feels overly dramatic to me and kind of strange. What does your music mean really to you, if you are so concerned by the idea that a computer can spit out a mash of data in the form of a pretty lofi sounding and often uncanny and weirdly offputting audio file that mimics music.

The things Youtube suggests that I'll click on here are people informed about the technology and aware of where it is and what the issues are, or if outside the field are scientists with a viewpoint. I don't care what consumers think, potential users and all of this opinions on opinions. I got bored of the legal ramifications of it on Spotify or Youtube fooled or spoofed by copies and all this.

So-called AI and its so-called generating music has nothing to do with my music. I'm not monetizing it on my YT channel, I'm not going to advertise product, no one is going to train AI on my music and make it difficult for me to publish it, none of it.

I think it's very important to understand what it is. At the moment on this forum it appears the majority of people believe it's something it demonstrably isn't. It isn't a form of intelligence and it does not generate anything. It manages a rehash and can curate what it'd been trained to focus on into specific known genres and types. It may seem brilliant in its ability to throw things together into a product but it doesn't know anything, other than 'this is a good enough copy'. It has no ideas. It does not experience. It doesn't know what anything is like, ie., it knows from no qualia. When you pose a search term to Google and its "AI Overview" is prepared to chime in, this brief moment when it's collecting data and finding proper prevalence that looks like the answer, where you see the word "thinking" and an animated ellipsis you're being lied to.

I've heard rather little of the product. Couple years ago Adam Neely presented something and it was exactly what it was meant to be (it was music for some kind of commercial, it was meant to be modern and slick/sophisticated, and if that's the experience you want there it is. I could give a shit. He was annoyed by how weil it nailed what it meant to be. I heard part of one thing which took some title or concept from Frank Zappa and a very average generic funk groove under a very unambitious song was its result. I found it too boring to spend more than ten seconds with really, there couldn't be a more pointless and empty an exercise. It could not have been more antithetical to the name Zappa in music.

Here a member prompted Suno to provide "Bach piano sonata". It def can distinguish what is Bachian about the patterns it aped, and had in general appropriated harmonic rhythm in that style, but it showed me it doesn't understand the music on any but a total surface level. The first motif felt displaced, it shouldn't be at 1 in the bar of 4/4, so an instant f**k no from me. I don't know to what extent the limit of the prompt is meaningful, or if it can be made to spit out something more reasonable if helped somehow.

I've read about unfortunate artifacts in an "AI" mix, but I've not encountered that.

So is it competitive? with what. What are the goals. If the goal is genuine anything the answer is a hard no. If one makes generic pointless music that's designed to totally fit in with all the other disposable trash, one might be in trouble moving forward.

[jancivil]

Only if you fail to see the opportunities and seize the possibilities. Constant change has always been the only constant in life.

fatuous drivel

[vurt]

it can't compete with me. ie it won't change my enjoyment of what i do and how i do it.

[Bombadil]

Me neither. It isn't like I'm sitting here dying to try it.
The only thing I want machine learning for with music, at this point, is clean stem splitting.

[foosnark]

First, it's not a competition.

Second, no.

[D Midas]

I took the red pill this week ….
Experienced it first hand
Wax poetic to the moon
This has only just begun and it’s gone too far
We are cooked

[enroe]

Hey you all,

everywhere I look, this subject seems to come up from time to time
and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. The debate never
really resonated with me, because I don't quite get the point, ... ... etc. etc.

Hmm, yes. If I may briefly summarize you. You say:

1. The whole AI discussion contains too much unnecessary
alarmism and too much excitement!

2. Popular music – that is, all rock, pop, and electronic music,
starting with the Beatles – is rubbish anyway, so nobody
needs to worry about it.

3. AI is capable of reproducing such trashy music. But it cannot
create truly genuine, soulful music itself.

4. As a true, self-playing musician, one doesn't need to fear AI.
Because AI can't generate true expression in music.

Do these four points adequately outline your opinion? I think so.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is "just" a forum post on KVR, so I'll keep it brief.

Secretly, I wonder how old you are. And whether you're only into
classical music. But now to the points:

1. You say: The whole AI discussion contains too much
unnecessary alarmism and too much excitement!

It's a bit like the man who has a stroke and then says: "This whole
rescue operation, and then straight to the hospital -- it's all too
much for me -- alarmism and fuss -- when almost nothing
happened."

If you go through life like that, you'll soon be dead.
----------------------------------------------------

2. You say: Popular music – that is, all rock, pop, and electronic
music, starting with the Beatles – is trash anyway, so nobody
needs to worry about it.

That's a completely different topic, so I'll ignore it for now.
----------------------------------------------------

3. You say: AI is capable of reproducing such trashy music. But
it cannot create truly genuine, soulful music itself.

Here is my answer: Yes and no.

"Yes," because AI obviously doesn't have real feelings like we
humans do and can't connect them with music. That's correct
so far.

"No," because AI is really something different than simply "a
big computer with many databases." AI consists of "neurons"
that form a neural network and can therefore learn on their own.
Much like a small child, only a million times faster, and with a
million times more input.

This means that in just a few years, AI will be superior to any
human and any producer in composing and creating songs. In
quality and speed. And that applies to every genre – rock and
pop, electronic, ambient, etc., as well as jazz or classical music.
Anyone who ignores this will be at point (1), see above.
----------------------------------------------------

4. You say: As a real, self-playing musician, one doesn't need
to fear AI. Because AI can't generate true expression in music
anyway.

Hmmm, yes, here too it's a case of yes and no.

"Yes," because as a person and as a musician, you can of
course still record your compositions. We at "enroe" even do
that whenever possible, with real acoustic instruments and
microphones. And most people here in the forum will continue
to make "their" music.

"No," because we have to differentiate: In the big world
out there, where masses are entertained, where Spotify clicks
count, where CDs are produced and mega-concerts are held,
there AI will hold the reins in the future. And — as far as music
is concerned — ONLY AI! It may not be able to have real feelings,
but it has learned to rearrange the emotional music of people
in such a way that it simply sounds fantastic and emotional to
people.

It's easy to see: Times will change completely: Music for the
masses, the next generation, will be AI music – completely
natural. Self-playing musicians will be a fringe group and an
anachronism.

[Bombadil]

Glad I’ll be shuffling off my mortal coil by the point of no return.
The emerging Brave New World built of Dystopia upon Dystopia holds zero interest for me.
Just another symptom of the deep rot brought to us by the Tech Bros.
Truly makes me ill. It’s another application of this:

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.” ― George Orwell.
The ‘boot’ being, in this case, AI. It can be nothing else than a boot erasing a human endeavor.

[Zeisner]

The emerging Brave New World built of Dystopia upon Dystopia holds zero interest for me.

It won't last long, thanks to the upcoming collapse of industrial civilization. It's like an automated killswitch.