Rick Rubin on AI (& now Graeme Revell, too)

[machinesworking]

The amount of credit we give ourselves for having an inner dialogue just proves what utter narcissists we are

The amount of credit you give yourself for tossing word salad like you're saying something is next-level. You have yet to make a single cogent argument on any point. This kind of shite in particular; this is an argument? This construction, a strawman: what amount of credit? Who is this we and what are you on about? I talk about a level of thought you won't consider and you go to these lengths to make it look shitty? That's all you. You need to sidestep what consciousness is entirely in order to believe some nonsense about a form of technology you don't appear to have a grasp of for shit in a type of childlike magical thinking; so you're at pains to reduce it to something you can dismiss with nary a thought: this time it's consciousness is but the capacity for an inner dialogue. This is deeply ignorant and ultra stupid. So you disagree with the most prominent thinkers that say "Consciousness is not computational". You might investigate that, but you know better. You're a fool.

You're so up your own ass, and apparently so enamoured of this fantasy about "AI" you're stuck, unreachable. This was never an exchange of ideas, it's me trying to enlighten the room and you thinking you know it all and posturing, so I feel no further need to hold back. Dunning-Kruger rules OK.

AGAIN: we can't locate consciousness. It is not a brain function, it is not physical.

At the quantum level potential becomes actual when the observer enters the picture, and the wave function collapses. This is beyond the grasp of classical physics entirely.
I think everyone willing to think should hear this:

I quoted Robert Sapolsky, he's an expert in his field, a neuroscientist, among other things.

You're going for quack science here, you're clue might be your own words:

AGAIN: we can't locate consciousness. It is not a brain function, it is not physical.

Plus, anyone who starts quoting quantum physics in regards to the human mind and in defense of consciousness, that's as suspect as it gets. Flatly it's Burning Man level wishful thinking.

The fact you're getting mad and resorting to ad hominum is a clue that you might be angry because you know you don't know, that your relying on what amounts to astrology level logic to attack my simple premise: the human brain is not that special, there's nothing that amazing about the way that humans arrive at decisions.

You believe in magic, you're trying to cloak that in quantum physics, because like most of us you don't understand quantum physics, yet somehow me stating that we will eventually replace ourselves and not buying into magical thinking makes me a fool.

and just stop with the ad hominem, it doesn't help your case, and makes me aware that you know you're aware of how anti science arguing turtles all the way down is.

[Zeisner]

It's fascinating to see how much effort people put into to not talk about AI in all those AI threads. Pretty much every single can of worms gets opened to not touch the subject itself.

[Bombadil]

People, especially us opponents, are passionate about our conviction that AI in music comp is anathema.

[VariKusBrainZ]

You cant sensibly discuss something everyone comprehends differently

[Bombadil]

True. The basic facts can be debated. AI doe not generate new music.

[Zeisner]

AI doe not generate new music.

It can't generate new genres nor can it generate new styles because it's too primitive to do that. It can't even create a new (enjoyable) sound like amplifiers with their additional overtones or digital equipment with low bit depth and aliasing. Artifacts must follow certain psychoacoustic patterns to be learned and accepted. Current AI artifacts are too erratic for that. (Early AI prototypes had much more periodic artifacts similar to early lossy compression codecs - which makes sense because both are related).

[BONES]

Nobody cares about that shit, in case you haven't noticed. It's the same argument that was used against virtual instruments and how long did that last as a valid criticism? It's also not a critique of the music itself, but of people's perceptions/expectations.

so should using AI to clone a popular artists voice to increase probability of market penetration of your song be legal or illegal?...do you consider it immoral or unethical?...

Clearly it is wrong on all those fronts. It's basically identity theft.

what if you can only make money by selling it, but you cant earn royalties on it, does that change your view?...what about if you cant monetize it at all but can publish it and disseminate it, does that change your view?

It would depend on your motivation. If you were doing it as the equivalent of fan fiction, no-one was profiting from it and you weren't damaging the reputation of the original artist, then I see it as harmless enough. But as soon as you put it on Bandcamp, Spotify or YouTube, you cross a line.

Another scenario might be that you do it with the artist's permission, in which case there are no issues at all. If someone wanted to copy us, for example, I'd feel a bit sorry for them but I'd be fine with it. If they made lots of money from it, I wouldn't expect them to give us any, just as I let someone re-release my first single and never asked for a penny from the exercise. They put in the work, they earned the reward. I didn't even get a copy of the vinyl and I'm fine with all of that. In fact, it was very flattering that they wanted to do it in the first place and I was happy just to have it back out there, 29 years on.

People, especially us opponents, are passionate about our conviction that AI in music comp is anathema.

That's just you parading your ignorance and prejudice for any informed person to see, like some hillbilly redneck MAGA supporter.

The basic facts can be debated. AI doe not generate new music.

Of course it f**king does, the evidence of it is everywhere. Again, you're like a MAGA supporter who refuses to see reality.

[Bombadil]

I's a parader o' ignorince! Jes' call me Cletus.

[vurt]

hmmm. i thought you'd be taller.

[Bombadil]

Last measured, 1.91 meters, or 6‘3“. Unless I‘ve started to shrink with old age.

[BONES]

I went to look at a boat yesterday, for my sister, and the owner told me twice in 20 minutes that he was 6'3" but I'll swear he wasn't more than half-an-inch taller than me and I'm right on 6'. I can only assume he was bullied at school.

[eassae]

[Bombadil]

Lol!
Believe me, Mr. Bones. I was always the tallest in my classes, people would be afeared of me before they met me (then they were even more scared, hahaha) because I‘m not a stringbean, and I tend to scowl. GRRRR! Lololol.

[BONES]

It's fascinating to see how much effort people put into to not talk about AI in all those AI threads. Pretty much every single can of worms gets opened to not touch the subject itself.

That's because they might have to confront the unpalatable truth that Ai is really good at being creative. You're just an engineer, a technician, so you wouldn't understand creativity but it seems that a lot of people's entire vision of their own worth is tied up in believing that their creativity is something marvellous that makes them special, even though they exhibit no signs at all of any creative ability. Perhaps that's why AI terrifies them so, because they realise that it only needs to be the tiniest little bit creative to be more creative than they are? Which, of course, it already is.

OTOH, there are people like me, who are a little more confident in their creative ability, who are at least willing to look into it, to see what it might have to offer. Truly creative thinkers who see it as an opportunity rather than a threat. Which is not to say that I think I have more creative ability than anyone else, just more confidence and understanding of my abilities and limitations. That said, often being unaware of your limitations leads you into new territories others might not think to explore.

I prefer to concentrate on the spaces in between, I look to fill the gaps in the existing cannon. e.g. Between Frontline Assembly and Skinny Puppy there is room for thousands of other artists to not just exist, but to thrive, without copying anyone else or stepping on other artists' territories. NOVAkiLL might remind you of other artists in the genre but we don't sound like any of them. Using AI won't change that because it is still us providing the creative guidance, the AI is just doing what we direct it to do.

If anything, I think working with AI is distilling what we do down to its purest essence because we are forced to put a lot more thought up-front into what we actually want, rather than following a rambling path that may or may not end up where we were hoping to go. OK, you'll suggest that the rambling path can lead you into new territory and that's true. What's also true is that working with AI presents an order of magnitude more opportunities for those kinds of serendipitous diversions. It's a different process, with different opportunities, but it's no less valid as a creative tool. You just have to have the guts to throw yourself into it and be prepared to put in the effort if you want to get the best results. To be fair, I'm not that guy but my bandmate must definitely is.

[BONES]

It can't generate new genres nor can it generate new styles because it's too primitive to do that.

Of course it can. It's been doing it for us for months now, largely because it doesn't seem to understand the different sub-genres within our genre, so it freely mixes styles that no human would think to do. So you get a little bit of Linkin Park, which itself borrows heavily from Depeche Mode, a bit of Spetnaz, who rip Nitzer Ebb off wholesale, and some Stabbing Westward all mixed up into something that isn't any of those things any more. Those are renders we generally reject because it's not what we're after, but it does that kind of stuff all the time.

Just as it has no trouble at all doing onomatopoeia, as I showed you yesterday. I thought showing you how wrong you were might have led to you reappraising your position. I suppose I should have know that, in true Pam Bondi style, you'd have just doubled down on your ignorance and stupidity instead. And people wonder why I have such a dim view of Humanity.

True. The basic facts can be debated. AI doe not generate new music.

Except that it does and it can do it in seconds to a standard that would take you or I weeks or months. That is a simple fact and until you accept it, you won't be able to participate in a rational discussion. What does my head in is why it should be so hard to accept what is right in front of you. There is so much AI music out there now that you can't deny what it is and what it can do.