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

[ghettosynth]

you automatically deprive yourself of this basic motivation to express something of your own, to perform something you have created yourself as a work of art or piece of music.

"piece of music" is doing so much work there. By not building a piano out of the tree in your back yard you automatically deprive yourself of this basic motivation to express something on an instrument of you own, to perform on something you have created yourself as an instrument.

By not growing the tree in the back yard you automatically deprive yourself of this basic motivation to express something using materials that you grew yourself.

Shifting labor from one domain to another allows cognitive energy to flow to where someone finds it more useful. Every single KVR member who uses a DAW or a sequencer that they didn't build themselves leverages this.

[enroe]

By not building a piano out of the tree in your back yard you automatically deprive yourself of this basic motivation to express something on an instrument of you own, to perform on something you have created yourself as an instrument.

By not growing the tree in the back yard you automatically deprive yourself of this basic motivation to express something using materials that you grew yourself.

Shifting labor from one domain to another allows cognitive energy to flow to where someone finds it more useful. Every single KVR member who uses a DAW or a sequencer that they didn't build themselves leverages this.

No, no, we've been here before: You're confusing the "tool" with "creativity"!

As a "tool," AI can improve an equalizer, optimize compression, analyze the
frequency response, etc. There will likely be entirely new, amazing tools that,
with the help of specific AIs, will provide new possibilities.

That's NOT what's meant here. This is about AI as a "creative machine"—
like SUNO, Udio, and others. And they bring a completely new quality, thus
crossing a red line. They are incomparable to anything in the past because
they are truly "creative": They generate—via text prompt—complete songs
in a completely new way!

And that's a huge difference, practically the "atomic bomb" for human
culture. (The word "atomic bomb" was used by an OpenAI employee to
describe this new quality.)

This is what we're talking about here: this "atomic bomb." Many musicians —
I think most of them — don't understand what a neural, self-learning network
can really do — and what that means for the future. See here.

[ghettosynth]

By not building a piano out of the tree in your back yard you automatically deprive yourself of this basic motivation to express something on an instrument of you own, to perform on something you have created yourself as an instrument.

By not growing the tree in the back yard you automatically deprive yourself of this basic motivation to express something using materials that you grew yourself.

Shifting labor from one domain to another allows cognitive energy to flow to where someone finds it more useful. Every single KVR member who uses a DAW or a sequencer that they didn't build themselves leverages this.

No, no, we've been here before: You're confusing the "tool" with "creativity"!

No, you are creating definitions that suit your prejudice. If you do not know how to use a tool creatively, then the limitation is not the tool. Moreover, I was addressing your false reasoning. Not inviting you to a debate for which you are not prepared.

When you play the piano, you are denying yourself the ability to be creative in instrument design. When you don't grow the tree you are denying yourself the ability to be creative in making materials for instrument design.

This is a silly pseudo-intellectual attempt to frame creativity as it suits you. There is no "we" here, you are crafting a box for yourself. Nothing more.

[enroe]

@ghettosynth:

Of course, you are welcome to refuse any differentiation or closer
examination - I don't want to give any tutoring or waste any time
on that.

[ghettosynth]

@ghettosynth:

Of course, you are welcome to refuse any differentiation or closer
examination - I don't want to give any tutoring or waste any time
on that.

Yes, the walls of your box are very close to you. You should be able to see them clearly. That, BTW, is a strawman. I didn't refuse "any" differentiation, I refused your absurd attempt to invent one that suits your prejudice. Honest differentiation has value, in fact, you should try it, you might then learn something about creativity.

[enroe]

@ghettosynth: Okay, you're on my ignore list (very, very few people manage that!).

[jamcat]

Steve Lillywhite, for example, launched the careers of bands like U2, The Psychedelic Furs and XTC.

Don’t forget Siouxsie & the Banshees and the Chameleons. Steve Lillywhite produced “Hong Kong Garden” and “In Shreds” which were the first recordings from both of these legendary bands.

[BONES]

This is NOT about cover versions! It has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Of course it is. If you didn't write the song, how can it possibly convey your feelings? Performing a song you have worked on for countless hours with an AI sounds to me like a much better way to express your feelings that taking someone else's song and hoping for the best.

But by using an AI, which has no (human) feelings, and referring to it, by
playing such songs, you automatically deprive yourself of this basic
motivation to express something of your own, to perform something you
have created yourself as a work of art or piece of music.

What a load of absolute f**king bollocks! A piano has no human feelings yet it can be used to express them, can it not? Your DAW has no human feelings, yet you are able to use it to express yours, are you not? So why should it not be possible to use an AI to express your human feelings? Your argument makes no f**king sense.

You're naively clinging to a kind of neurally learned, artificial feeling. That
might sound good, but it's no longer human nature at all.

I'm not clinging to anything. I have no desire whatsoever to express my "human feelings" through songwriting. I express my feelings on stage, in no uncertain terms. The songs are just window-dressing.

And that's exactly what I mean: By sliding into the hell of AI, you're making
a Faustian pact with the devil.

Except you aren't because you're not ceding control to the AI, you are using it as a creative tool. You're telling it what to say, word-for-word if you choose to, and giving it instructions as to what moods and feelings it should convey. If it fails to deliver that, then you either give up or keep trying until the AI gets it right, in much the same way you might worry over a synth sound or a melody line until it is working exactly as you want it to. Only you're doing it on a macro level, an overview, and leaving the AI to fuss over the micro-scale refinements.

[pdxindy]

If AI really does replace a large part of music creation, who is actually going to buy plugins anymore?

My speculation is that AI will reduce the plugin market by about 80%

And traditional DAW's will mostly be replaced by software like Suno and Ace Studio... or the traditional DAW's will change to be AI centered themselves in order to survive.

[ghettosynth]

@ghettosynth: Okay, you're on my ignore list (very, very few people manage that!).

Did you tell everyone? Here, I'll help you out. HEY EVERYONE, I am on enroe's ignore list now and he wants you to know.

I think they heard now, I did a bit of yelling in there for extra effect.

[Zeisner]

And traditional DAW's will mostly be replaced by software like Suno and Ace Studio... or the traditional DAW's will change to be AI centered themselves in order to survive.

How if almost nobody is willing (or able) to spend the aditional costs? So far, the only people who have subscriptions to AI services are researchers, everybody else is using free accounts. I doubt that including ads will result in the revenue AI companies are looking for.

[pdxindy]

And traditional DAW's will mostly be replaced by software like Suno and Ace Studio... or the traditional DAW's will change to be AI centered themselves in order to survive.

How if almost nobody is willing (or able) to spend the aditional costs?

Ace Studio 2.0 is easily affordable. Even the Pro version is only $22/month (purchase plan). Lots of people spend more than that on DAW and Plugin purchases.

[ghettosynth]

And traditional DAW's will mostly be replaced by software like Suno and Ace Studio... or the traditional DAW's will change to be AI centered themselves in order to survive.

How if almost nobody is willing (or able) to spend the aditional costs?

Ace Studio 2.0 is easily affordable. Even the Pro version is only $22/month (purchase plan). Lots of people spend more than that on DAW and Plugin purchases.

Yes, but, and it's a big but. More of an and than a but, but I like saying but and saying "a big and" just doesn't quite have the same punch. The entire music industry has been flirting with subscriptions, it's a common complaint here. One of the advantages, to them, of AI is that it is far more difficult to execute without cloud compute support. Hence, they will find AI features attractive as part of the pathway to getting users to accept subscriptions.

Also, labor in the music industry will migrate more and more to AI. If you are trying to make money making music, you will continue to be squeezed from all sides. If that's you, then yes, you will gravitate to the first environment that can squeeze out the work that you produce with the lowest labor and time pressure costs.

I predict in five years time, or less, that most of you who are still around will be starting threads like "Which AI DAW subscription is the best in 2032", and they will go on for pages, and pages, and pages, and pages, and pages...and pages.

[BONES]

This is about AI as a "creative machine"— like SUNO, Udio, and others. And they bring a completely new quality, thus
crossing a red line.

No, that's what makes them good at being creative. Do you not see the basic contradiction in your argument? The only red line anything has crossed is an arbitrary line that you have created in your own mind.

They are incomparable to anything in the past because
they are truly "creative": They generate—via text prompt—complete songs
in a completely new way!

Yes, and they are really, really good at it, too. That's what makes them worth working with.

And that's a huge difference, practically the "atomic bomb" for human
culture.

Why? It's not preventing you or anyone else from being creative. It's just a bit of competition for us all. Competition is healthy, it spurs us on to greater things.

[jamcat]

The only thing AI seems to be the "end of" is writer's block.