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

[BONES]

So AI replaces the musician and the plugin developer, lol. It can make songs. It can make plugins. It can make more good songs and more good plugins. Conceivably, in short order, human-made songs and plugins could become one percent, or one billionth of a percent, of the total content out there. That seems to be the trajectory of the world. At some point, human-made things may become the tiniest sliver of the content available.

And then... what?

Then humanity will become free. We'll be able to do whatever the hell we like. We won't have jobs unless we want to have jobs, we can spend all day at the beach or seeing the world or whatever else might take our fancy. We'll have created a utopia for ourselves.

Do we love humans more than beauty itself, more than usefulness itself?

It would certainly seem so.

So do we give KVR a music/humans section and a music/AI section? A plugins/human section and a plugins/AI section?

Digital apartheid?

There is some soul/spirit/deep layer in us that needs connection, not merely output.

Speak for yourself. I'd be perfectly content if every last one of you keeled over and died tomorrow. I'd probably have to head out to sea for a few months until the stench of putrifaction died down but after that I'd be free to get on with whatever I felt like. There'd be more than enough of everything to last me the rest of my life and no-one left to piss me off. It would be Nirvana!

But then what if virtual reality eventually seeks to replace that connection too, and does it well enough to trick the brain?

Or what if people grew the f**k up and realised they are not the centre of the universe? Too much to hope for, I fear. Better just to be done with them.

The AI makes the plugins. Then you engage with it like an Urs bot from u-he.

Do you have to engage with Urs when you're using Hive or Zebra? It's that pointless cult of personality and the over-hyped bullshit that puts me off a lot of companies.

The question becomes, “Do we still care what is real?”

Did we ever? People seem perfectly willing to ignore facts in favour of bullshit that makes them feel better about themselves and the world.

But it does not have that deeper consciousness of values, relationship, conscience, or connection to transcendent truth.

Right, because those things have served Humanity so well over the Aeons. They are nothing more than twisted manifestations of our vestigial herd and mating instincts. It is long past time we grew beyond them.

This is why truth matters. Machines may possess intelligence, but they do not possess that higher spiritual capacity by which man is joined to truth, conscience, relationship, God, and the eternal nature of reality.

These are all things that distort reality, that undermine truth. These are human constructs that, in essence, are the root of all evil in the world.

Im talking about the actual law, eg Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

There is no such law in this country so if we're playing at being pedantic cockheads, I'm more than happy to join in. Unless or until you've thoroughly looked at copyright laws in every country, you can't prove your case. i.e. You lose.

Hans Zimmer and Daft Punk would tell you different.

No, they wouldn't. Hans Zimmer has visuals and dialogue to go with his music. His work reinforces the emotional weight of a scene, it doesn't create it. And Daft Punk is garbage. Pure product.

You don't always need lyrics to write music

But you do to write a song and a song will always resonate more strongly with an audience than a piece of music. You don't see people waving their cigarette lighters over their heads at a performance of Mozart's Requiem, despite the best efforts of 80 musicians, do you?

jeff beck did a cover version of a day in the life, threw away the lyrics

Which is probably why no-one's ever heard it.

Google it.

Why? I've seen the evidence in half-a-dozen different places. You're the guy who needs to see it for himself, not me. But just in case you're too retarded to be able to look things up for yourself, here are a couple of links -

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ai-generat ... cant-tell/
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigatio ... 025-11-12/

probably because they wanted to express it using words. and that's OK, but BONES passing it off as not having real emotional impact without lyrics is what pisses me off the most.

Sorry, mate, but that's just the facts of the matter. The piece of music you chose has f**k-all emotional impact compared to the Ai generated piece you chose to use as a comparison. That you can't see that makes me wonder about your sanity, if I'm honest. I mean, FFS, you chose an AI generated ballad, a style that's all about emotional impact, and compared it with your little dance music piece, a style not in any way associated with emotional impact. It's what I'd have done to prove my case if I wanted to be a little bit manipulative. It might have made some sense if you'd given us one of your ballads but you didn't, so it doesn't work, I'm afraid.

[Shane Sanders]

"Speak for yourself. I'd be perfectly content if every last one of you keeled over and died tomorrow. I'd probably have to head out to sea for a few months until the stench of putrifaction died down but after that I'd be free to get on with whatever I felt like. There'd be more than enough of everything to last me the rest of my life and no-one left to piss me off. It would be Nirvana!"

Dude! Just . . . dude. This makes me feel such sadness. Of course, I support your right to speak this way and to hold such convictions, but it's such a stark, LaVeyan point of view. I dearly hope one day a heart of stone is replaced with a heart of flesh, so to speak.

[hardyharrharr]

what if you get a tootache? all dentists will be dead. ever had a toothache?
what if mosquitoes transfers diseases from 9 billion carcasses to you? doctor who would be useless dead
what if you get avian flu from a tyrantasaurus rex that steven spielberg brought to life
what if a pelican poops into your mouth while you are gaping at the sky at sea and you get diarrhea and you ran out of toilet paper
what if before everybody died, jimmi hendrix kissed you because you are a guy and jimmi saying "excuse me" doesn't help?

i may be able to write a songs about this if i eat enough of the opposite of potato chips but i don't think i could convey it purely by music
you ever try saying "kiss my ass" using a flute?

[ghettosynth]

jeff beck did a cover version of a day in the life, threw away the lyrics

Which is probably why no-one's ever heard it.

It's quite good. Also, there's no denying the melody is good. However, when I hear it, what I'm hearing is the lyrics to the song. You cannot argue that the melody conveys information with respect to some specific feeling, independent of lyric, if that melody is widely associated with a culture hit.




Note that I think that this idea that music conveys universal information outside of the music itself is largely false. What it conveys is association to a culture footprint. That's why house music can have meaning to people who were there, but someone else might think it just sounds like someone left the drum machine running.

I'm sure that some people think that Taylor Swift's songs are emotional.

[hardyharrharr]

i bet valley girl would say "like, um, fer sure, fer sure"
frank zappa is such a sellout

[hardyharrharr]

i hope jan civil shows up and spank me

[Hipster Bales]

You know what BONES, screw this. if you wanna call me retarded, then so be it. I was trying to prove how any genre can have an impact without lyrics (the melody acts as the voice), but whatever, asshole

[enroe]

So AI replaces the musician and the plugin developer, lol. It can make songs. It can make plugins. It can make more good songs and more good plugins. Conceivably, in short order, human-made songs and plugins could become one percent, or one billionth of a percent, of the total content out there. That seems to be the trajectory of the world. At some point, human-made things may become the tiniest sliver of the content available.

And then... what?

Then humanity will become free. We'll be able to do whatever the hell we like. We won't have jobs unless we want to have jobs, we can spend all day at the beach or seeing the world or whatever else might take our fancy. We'll have created a utopia for ourselves.

Wow, one hardly dares to do anything that might interfere with your soaring flight of imagination.

[BertKoor]

You know what BONES, [...] whatever, asshole

Bravo. You finally gave him the reaction he wanted. With endorphine blast 'n all he's craving for.

[whyterabbyt]

Im talking about the actual law, eg Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

There is no such law in this country

that's why its an example, fuckwit. Or do you not know what eg means?

so if we're playing at being pedantic cockheads, I'm more than happy to join in.

Nah, you're not playing at that. You're permanently a pedantic cockhead.

Unless or until you've thoroughly looked at copyright laws in every country, you can't prove your case. i.e. You lose.

Your grasp of logic is as moronic as ever.

[whyterabbyt]

But then, the 1976 Copyright Act states that “the fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright” and lists, as one of four non-exclusive factors that must be considered in determining whether a particular use is fair, "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes."

Nonprofit educational, eh?

Sounds a bit like that research and analysis exemption I mentioned earlier. Lets see if its considered equivalent to (not) 'for money')

Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below.

Hmmmm. So its not US law that nonprofit educational purposes are exempt from copyright.