If AI replaces musicians, does the entire plugin industry die with them?

[Sourcery4545]

Yeah replacing humans with ai is a good thing.
who needs humans when we have robots.
For god's sake, fertility rates are going down since half a century - won't take long, anymore.
I am not reading the other 42 pages of this thread, but good to know, that this belongs to another department of this forum.
So, the final question is, who is right?
who is the smartest? who is the best?
Every one is right, and every one has this good feeling of being right, of being the best.
Let's have a party til the fun is over.
Good luck with your destiny.

[Zeisner]

Does that matter?

It matters only if a client asks for it (Usually without a good reason). I agree with you, I don't think it's necessary. Less than ten percent of the current population is able to hear comb filtering anyway, they can't even differentiate between a tom and a snare. Most people just want (more or less) musical background noise to keep dopamine levels high enough to be able to continue breathing. It really reminds me of music exposure therapy for schizophrenia patients with negative symptoms.

[Zeisner]

For god's sake, fertility rates are going down since half a century - won't take long, anymore.

Not in all societies, some still have high reproduction rates. They will ultimately replace all the high-tech societies.

[VitaminD]

My original point was, at the start of this thread, and still is that the more formulaic the genre, the easier it is going to be to copy.

And as I explained, I think it's the other way around. AI has a lot of trouble keeping its focus, it tends to wander off-point quite regularly.

That shouldn't be a controversial statement, I think it is rather evident.

Only if you haven't spent any time using AI.

But I think for pure music, all the current AI models don't seem to have any design towards creating original works through fresh ideas and techniques.

The same is true of 99.9999% of humans, even artists, so it's hardly surprising that something made by humans, for humans, is the same. We provide the fresh ideas, the AI just executes on our prompts. And it doesn't use anything even remotely like a "technique" to do it. Techniques are irrelevant to the way it works.

It can only mash together what it has in it's dataset.

That is also completely incorrect. Unlike humans who work with samples and loops, it isn't mashing things together, it's creating something new from whole cloth.

If a new sound technique comes about in reality, say (as example) from speeding up a drum machine and applying micropitch shifts, and that technique wasn't recorded already in the dataset, how is the AI model going to invent that on it's own?

Only because it's not set up to, not because it wouldn't be capable. You can't ask it to do something you don't know exists and it won't do anything unless you ask it to.

It's not a creative tool in itself to create brand new things.

For what feels like the hundredth time, your DAW is not a creative tool in itself, yet we all manage to make music with 'em.

It's a mashup and averaging tool, to create semi-new things.

Which, perhaps only for the tenth time, still puts it ahead of most human created music, does it not? But the thing is, and this one is almost certainly for at least the hundredth time, you only get averaged results if you don't specify anything more. GARBAGE IN -> GARBAGE OUT.

I have the impression that AU (and to a greater extent NZ) exist in some kind of isochronic pocket that lags behind the rest of the world by a decade or two -- maybe a different kind of "On the Beach" experience is headed your way.

I dunno, I have worked out of offices all over the place - Sydney, Singapore, Bombay, Los Angeles and Montreal - there's still at least one big, expensive printer in the corner of every one of 'em. Every office still has a well stocked stationery cupboard.

And by the way, ghettosynth: The task was to have a LLM create an idea. Citing someone's idea is NOT creating an idea.

You really dont' care at all how completely f**king stupid you look, do you? I've shown you a handful of unique ideas Co-Pilot generated for me in a few seconds. You've had a week or so to prove they aren't original, so maybe it's time accept that you're f**king wrong and that continuing to ignore reality just makes you look like a prize fool?

The DAW could become a creative tool though, in itself, with the adoption of AI generative features.

I don't necessarily agree that current mashup and averaging based AI really puts it ahead of most human created music. Even with the prompt. It's just a new representation of what is already present. It didn't add any uniqueness or distinction to it's output. As you say, Garbage In -> Garbage Out. I suppose we could say the baseline output is based on a dataset that is generally more appealing to most listeners though, if that is what you meant.

Humans have unique aspects that allow them to take unique, creative actions. Namely we have the option to decide, to make spurious decisions even. Which makes us spontaneous and chaotic at times.

The AI is a prompt (today) that follows a ruleset and regurgitates data based on that ruleset, the dataset, and the prompt. It doesn't have a mind of it's own so to speak. So I disagree it is truly creating something new from whole cloth. Even with the human guiding it, the output is still limited by it's pre-recorded dataset of songs and ruleset. At best today it is like a mega sampler.

It can't create happy accidents in the studio. It doesn't even know what a studio really is, or affect elements in the studio. A lot of the uniqueness of music has happened in that way. People spontaneously trying something new, whether intended or not.

Maybe in the future, someone will design one with more ability to design or to at least give the illusion of new design? An AI model today still doesn't know like a human knows. If you use one enough, it will become very obvious.

I still think it is going to damage society in creative thinking ability over time.

[VitaminD]

For god's sake, fertility rates are going down since half a century - won't take long, anymore.

Not in all societies, some still have high reproduction rates. They will ultimately replace all the high-tech societies.

Yep, our plight is mostly in the technologically advanced nations. A lot of the 3rd world is still popping out babies left and right (and not aborting them).

[Sourcery4545]

yeah, this is all scientific covered, already.
When I was young, china had a law, that only one child was allowed.
Now, they do not have this law anymore, because they do not need it:
China's fertility rate has dropped to a record low of approximately 1.0 births per woman as of 2023-2025.

So, the third world countries of today wilbe the next tiger economies of the near future, maybe.
As soon, "the poor countries" get richer, the fertlility rate is going down.

I think we have a problem here:
Ai is our final opponent and most people are embracing it.

[Zeisner]

Ai is our final opponent and most people are embracing it.

Arrogance, laziness, greed, narcissism, egocentrism, solipsism, sociopathy, sadism, stupidity - those are the final bosses of the high-tech societies. AI is just a catalyst.

[martinjuenke]

Well:

IMG_0564.jpeg

[Sourcery4545]

As I mentioned, people (here) are embracing AI.
This place here is mostly pro ai, so I can not be part of this community, here.
I have to leave now and forever.
I am not helping my enemies.
Maybe you should look here to get a realistic idea where ai will lead us to:
https://www.moltbook.com/

[Zeisner]

[Sourcery4545]

what a relief. Now I can go clubbing

[Zeisner]

what a relief. Now I can go clubbing

To all the shitty AI music? Really?

[ghettosynth]

As I mentioned, people (here) are embracing AI.
This place here is mostly pro ai, so I can not be part of this community, here.
I have to leave now and forever.
I am not helping my enemies.
Maybe you should look here to get a realistic idea where ai will lead us to:
https://www.moltbook.com/

You don't understand how moltbook works. I don't really know how else to explain it to some of you, it's all been said before. Probably a realistic way to see moltbook is that it's a bit like KVR where the posts that you see are indirect reflections of the mindset of the humans running the agents as opposed to the humans themselves. There are plenty of things to be concerned about with AI, regulation, and non-regulation, but this is not it. You aren't seeing intelligence emerge, you aren't seeing AGI, you are seeing humans with a bit of time on their hands who may, or may not, use agents to help them in some way, have a bit of fun in a hobbyist sense of the word.

In fact a really great way to think about it is that it's just like the music Cafe. It's the reflection of people enjoying a hobby while sharing an illusion that it is somehow more serious than it is.

[Sourcery4545]

yeah, I just read your first and your last words - I do not have time any more.
Time is over.
Yeah I do not know moltbook and I do not care.
It is like a music cafe - no way! encroyable!
Maybe I will visit the Mariana trench - I want to know how deep it can go down, now.

[Zeisner]

Moltbook is just a joke, a prank. OpenAI has to pretend it's serious to push the image of AGI being right around the corner, that's why they hired Schlicht. They need to keep the hypetrain going to attract investors and keep the bubble from bursting which would take all other of Altman's projects with it (and of course his fortune).