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

[Tiles]

Exhibit three: there are now AI tools that could trace back actual songs used for the AI generated music. So there's a direct 1:1 reference to original track and the synthesized Suno AI track.

Note: I'm not against remixing and such, that's fine and has happened all the time -- the difference is that the originators were both acknowledged and paid. This is not what Suno does with the stolen property.

That's not how those tracing methods work.

If you're referring to attribution or similarity tools, they can sometimes detect overlap or influence patterns, but that's not the same as a 1:1 mapping or showing that a specific track was directly used or embedded in the output.

Training data influence and direct sample reuse remains fundamentally different things. A model can reflect stylistic or structural similarities without containing or replaying original recordings.

Also, "remix with acknowledgment and payment" is a licensing model choice, not a technical equivalence to how generative training works.

[Etienne1973]

... Suno does with the stolen property.

As long as there no laws, there's no such thing as "stolen property" through AI tools.

It is the left and wise, left leaning liberals with a long view who are rightly demanding regulations for AI.

Neoliberal technocrats and right-wingers are doing everything in their power to prevent, as always, laws.

In my opinion, regulations must be implemented urgently for a safe and fair future with AI.

[ksandvik]

I agree. Also, the public opinion, especially with the younger generation, is going against the blatant wildwest approach to AI just now. I understand them, not fun graduating and knowing that you have to compete with AI agents.

[BONES]

But if AI is so flawed, why would this be a problem? It's only a problem if Ai is much, much better than you seem to think it is, so why should anyone be concerned? And what's this "wild west" of which you speak? We've seen that at least some AI companies can be trusted to take due care, like Anthropic, so where, exactly is this "wild west"? It seems to me to exist mostly in empty cavity inside your skull.

Bandcamp's terms of service which any user of the site agree to abide with explicitly prohibit the use of any of its songs to be scraped or otherwise used to train an ai model.

That's just them being dickheads, it has no legal standing. You don't have to look at, let alone read, the Ts & Cs in order to download or listen to anything. I'd spent hundreds of dollars on music on Bandcamp before I even bothered to create an account, which I only did so I could put some of my own stuff up. And regardless of what Bandcamp might think, I am 100% happy for AI to train on my/our music and it's my music, not theirs, so Bandcamp can shove it up their f**king arses.

Do you know how the US copyright rules work? Do you know why various artists that use samples have other pay royalties to the originators?

Do you know that's an entirely separate issue? Because it is and it has no bearing on how an AI is trained. And if an AI used a sample of something else to generate a song, which somebody then put up on line, do you know who'd be legally responsible? (Hint: It would NOT be the AI or the company who made it.)

That's incoherent. A person listening to a song is different than an ai "listening". There input generates output that can be applied in ways mere "feelings" or enjoyment can't.

Those observations are of no consequence, legally or even morally. There is nothing in any copyright or other IP law that says you have to enjoy music while you are listening to it. It would be akin to a publisher suing someone for working out how to play a cover version without buying the sheet music.

Are you questioning her sexuality?? Ha ha ha ...good one BONES!

Honestly, I've always assumed she(?) was female but it occurred to me as I was typing that comment that it was an assumption on my part and that "Jan", as in Jan Hammer, can also be a male's name, so I added the question marks. The avatar doesn't give much away.

Is she even posting lately? Don't think she wants to talk to me. Purely and simply... I have outcooled her!!!

She's been pretty involved in some of the AI discussions.

The patterns learned are not learned, rather used.

No, they are not and you will never find an example to contradict this. Go on, give it a go, you are much more likely to find an example of a human artist unintentionally copying something they heard without realising it. I mean listen to the first 30 seconds of this song -



Now listen to this one (in case you don't pick it up instantly) and tell me Hunters & Collectors didn't rip Boston off wholesale -



But to the best of my knowledge, H&C got away with cleanly, even though anyone with half a brain can hear what they did in about one second.

As such you are dealing with samples, whether they are mixed or not. If this was midi information reshuffled I would agree, but Suno did not steal midi, rather music under copyright rules.

I'm pretty sure Suno has been trained on MIDI. After all, it can spit out MIDI if you want it to, can't it? But it definitely, 100%, does NOT use samples at all, in any way.

Exhibit three: there are now AI tools that could trace back actual songs used for the AI generated music.

Where? We've run all our AI songs through an AI powered song checker and they've all come out as being completely and utterly human made. But it's like getting a magician to work out how another magician's trick is done, it proves nothing.

In my opinion, regulations must be implemented urgently for a safe and fair future with AI.

Why? I see no reason for it at all.

[whyterabbyt]

And if an AI used a sample of something else to generate a song, which somebody then put up on line, do you know who'd be legally responsible? (Hint: It would NOT be the AI or the company who made it.)

False. If a company's product has directly(*) generated a derived work without permission, and made that available to someone who puts that derived work online, the company is legal responsible for redistributing a derived work. Its irrelevant to that whether someone else redistributes it further. End of story.

(* ie where the product/company has access to the original work, not the end-user)

[Hipster Bales]

Honestly, I don’t think AI will survive in the music industry anyway, as it still has pretty terrible artefacts in the mixes

[BONES]

MP3s over Bluetooth used to sound f**king awful too, give it a few weeks.

Bandcamp's terms of service which any user of the site agree to abide with explicitly prohibit the use of any of its songs to be scraped or otherwise used to train an ai model.

You don't need an account to listen to, or even to buy, music on Bandcamp so there is no mechanism for ensuring anyone ever sees, or even knows of the existence of, any terms and conditions. Oh, and by the way, the Bandcamp "Terms of Use" do not contain the word "artificial" or "intelligence" in them anywhere ("ai" appears 122 times but only as pat of a word), so you're completely wrong on that front anyway. In fact, the first sentence of the terms of use starts "Welcome to the non-legally-binding...". Further down it says "You may browse the Site and view Content without registering" and if you don't have to register, Bandcamp can't prove you ever saw the Ts&Cs. Software companies have lost this argument in court more than once, on the basis that nobody bother reading them, and they had lawyers draw up their terms of service.

[Hipster Bales]

It's still respectful to abide by those terms.

[ghettosynth]

"We had to cut freelance hiring by over a third", (emphasis mine) So, your business, which outsources labor rather than employ people, is not able to maintain your same profits now that the people they used to hire temporarily as a cost cutting measure over hiring them as employees is being threatened by cost cutting measures brought on by technology? Is that right?

Not really. It's project-based work, you never know from month to month how many people you are going to need. When you have a big project, you might need 200 artists for a year but once that big job is out the door, you might struggle to find ork for 20 artists until the next big project comes along. Until you get to the size/reputation of Weta or ILM, you need to have a highly flexible workforce.

It's also a bit of a misconception that freelancers are cheaper than employees. In my job before last, I was earning about $280 a day as a full-time employee while freelancers were being paid $500+ a day. There is no way that my sick leave and paid holidays made up that shortfall. I've spent most of the last 25 years bouncing between freelance and full-time - full-time for a bit of certainty and freelance to make lots of money when there was a lot of work around.

But it's all down to how you choose to see it. AI might enable work that would have gone off-shore, say to China or Vietnam, to remain in the hands of local companies. i.e. AI can make local production more competitive in the global marketplace.

Fair, my indignation got set to runaway mode. It happens. However, The remainder of my point is solid, moreover, it is still a choice that is fueled by a need to remain independent, hence, uncommitted. The need for flexibility is at the opposite end of the need for stability. The employer maintains their stance by need, as you described, the employee can find value in that, but they still are taking on the risks of the choices. To be clear, I've done plenty of contract work, it is indeed often by choice with no expectation of stability. The demand for protectionism is a request for externally enforced stability in a context where intrinsic risk has allowed something or someone else to enter the market.

When I take Ubers, and no, I never take taxis anymore, I often talk to drivers about this. They are usually happy to discuss why they think that it's great for them. Flexibility is key and their situation often means a regular job would never work. Most that I've talked with have no interest in being employees. They are, however, quite aware that it is technology that facilitates their opportunity to work independently.

Moreover, as you point out, it's not necessarily false that sustained employment is an option, it just demands scale. Oh no, the market is doing what markets do. Oh well.



https://www.fideres.com/new-york-taxi-medallions/

[TechHaus]

OMG bracing for this one....


Is AI Taking over Pop Music?

- Billboard Hot 100: Debuted at #66.

-Apple Music: Hit #1 on the Alternative and Los Angeles Top 25 charts.

- Shazam & Instagram: Reached #1 on the US Shazam, Viral Shazam, and Instagram Trending Sound charts



My first time actually listening to this song, even though I've known about the buzz for a week or so. You can hear it in the top end. And the mushiness of all the instruments.

I ask again does anyone have any suno tracks they can share where the sound quality is good?

[TechHaus]

Honestly, I don’t think AI will survive in the music industry anyway, as it still has pretty terrible artefacts in the mixes

Yes, play a real song / mix next to an ai song and it is obvious how bad they sound.

[pk-1]

Honestly, I don’t think AI will survive in the music industry anyway, as it still has pretty terrible artefacts in the mixes

Yes, play a real song / mix next to an ai song and it is obvious how bad they sound.

Of all the arguments you might bring against AI music, this is the least convincing one.

We had gramophone records, transistor radios, MP3 players, and now smartphone speakers. Didn't matter. A lot of music, particularly "popular" music, is immune to bad sound quality.

[TechHaus]

We had Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill, too. Sounds like ai / mp3 quality on those background tracks.

You're right...

I can just "hear it" immediately and am turned off by the bad sound. Glad I wore ear plugs and still plug my ears with my fingers when a firetruck or ambulance drives by.

[Hipster Bales]

Honestly, I don’t think AI will survive in the music industry anyway, as it still has pretty terrible artefacts in the mixes

Yes, play a real song / mix next to an ai song and it is obvious how bad they sound.

Tell that to BONES or anyone who uses AI to generate music.

Music production is great to learn, especially when you're as young as I am.

Here's an example of a human mix (my song "Hemsworth")
https://soundcloud.com/hipster-bales/hemsworth

Here's an example of an AI slop mix
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=omy0Q ... QJk9nUhyfH

(and yes there are bad human mixes as well, but at least they tried)

[Hewitt Huntwork]

The plugin market was oversaturated before the burgeoning AI boom. Prices are way lower than 10 years ago because of competition and ease of distribution.

But as AI makes making music more convenient, it's also making the creation of plugins more convenient. I think there will be affordability benefits for those of us who still work the old fashioned way.

It will be an evolution. Not a birth and not a death.

And hipsters will still play their ukuleles, the tallest kid in the marching band will still play the tuba, and Sting will keep turning the crank on his hurdy-gurdy.