AI disqualifies anyone as a musician! It's like playback.

[guitarzan]

Don't Do the Neural (Slight Return)
https://www.flowmusic.app/song/f78a08e0 ... 628d0bcbf6

I think AI is fun, often surprising.

[ghettosynth]

Don't Do the Neural (Slight Return)
https://www.flowmusic.app/song/f78a08e0 ... 628d0bcbf6

I think AI is fun, often surprising.

This version is better, more confident and forceful. I'm going to say it, and you guys can get as mad as you want, but the base level of competence in AI tracks means that I'm willing to listen to them all the way through more often than not. The same cannot be said for a lot of the music posted here. I think that's a baseline for nearly any amateur producer. Take your idea, create an AI version, now you have a quality target. Don't tell me that yours is better when it demonstrably isn't. If your music is more creative, it should stand out when heard side by side with the AI version. It should make the AI version sound like the flat lifeless variant that so many of you are asserting that it absolutely must be. Don't take that as universal praise for AI music, hardly, there is a sameness, there are frequently issues in the production and mix. Thinking though that a mix is going to save terrible vocals or an uninspired structure is wish thinking.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Don't Do the Neural (Slight Return)
https://www.flowmusic.app/song/f78a08e0 ... 628d0bcbf6

I think AI is fun, often surprising.

How much of this was anything more than a few sentences of prompt?

[eassae]

…but the base level of competence in AI tracks means that I'm willing to listen to them all the way through more often than not. The same cannot be said for a lot of the music posted here. I think that's a baseline for nearly any amateur producer. Take your idea, create an AI version, now you have a quality target. Don't tell me that yours is better when it demonstrably isn't. If your music is more creative, it should stand out when heard side by side with the AI version. It should make the AI version sound like the flat lifeless variant that so many of you are asserting that it absolutely must be. Don't take that as universal praise for AI music, hardly, there is a sameness, there are frequently issues in the production and mix.

Competence isn't the sole property of art and it's not progress. For all the talk, in general, about AI being the "Future," AI is only a snapshot of the past. If you want to go to the past that's great, but I for one would go to the source, not some ersatz facsimile, prompted by a person that hasn't put-in-the-time as they say. If you want AI to do something new, then it needs training data, and therefore it's not new. An amateur can create something new an amateur, or professional(once amateur), can improve upon art/music. Any time spent listening to AI playback is just dumb. I fully realize most humans that participate in music or art creation won't advance these fields in any way. But, humans, as of today, are the only vehicle for any progress to be made—if AGI comes about then that may be another story, and may something have mercy on us all.

[wagtunes]

Okay, so here's my non AI version of "How Do You Like Them Apples"

https://soundcloud.com/steven-wagenheim ... hem-apples

[ghettosynth]

…but the base level of competence in AI tracks means that I'm willing to listen to them all the way through more often than not. The same cannot be said for a lot of the music posted here. I think that's a baseline for nearly any amateur producer. Take your idea, create an AI version, now you have a quality target. Don't tell me that yours is better when it demonstrably isn't. If your music is more creative, it should stand out when heard side by side with the AI version. It should make the AI version sound like the flat lifeless variant that so many of you are asserting that it absolutely must be. Don't take that as universal praise for AI music, hardly, there is a sameness, there are frequently issues in the production and mix.

Competence isn't the sole property of art and it's not progress.

You are using the word art far too loosely. However, it's not my claim, it's this community's claim. AI is bad, human is good, AI has artifacts, AI is this, AI is that. Nobody is even suggesting that you share the output, but you are in denial about music posted on KVR, both in terms of the perception of its value as art, and perception of its competence, but also perception of its intent.

The rest is desperate cope. You may characterize anything however you please, but, the law of large numbers may not comply with your view. To paraphrase Ian Malcom, chaos is not an interruption of life, it is a part of life, you can't avoid it, but you can prepare for it.

[Seafire Mk2]

Art = wank

Can't remember who said that

[eassae]

…but the base level of competence in AI tracks means that I'm willing to listen to them all the way through more often than not. The same cannot be said for a lot of the music posted here. I think that's a baseline for nearly any amateur producer. Take your idea, create an AI version, now you have a quality target. Don't tell me that yours is better when it demonstrably isn't. If your music is more creative, it should stand out when heard side by side with the AI version. It should make the AI version sound like the flat lifeless variant that so many of you are asserting that it absolutely must be. Don't take that as universal praise for AI music, hardly, there is a sameness, there are frequently issues in the production and mix.

Competence isn't the sole property of art and it's not progress.

You are using the word art far too loosely. However, it's not my claim, it's this communities claim. AI is bad, human is good, AI has artifacts, AI is this, AI is that. Nobody is even suggesting that you share the output, but you are in denial about music posted on KVR, both in terms of the perception of its value as art, and perception of its competence, but also perception of its intent.

The rest is desperate cope. You may characterize anything however you please, but, the law of large numbers may not comply with your view. To paraphrase Ian Malcom, chaos is not an interruption of life, it is a part of life, you can't avoid it, but you can prepare for it.

I didn't mention the music on KVR at all.

And WTF is that nonsensical last paragraph?

[eassae]

Art = wank

Can't remember who said that

Probably some wanker.

[ghettosynth]

…but the base level of competence in AI tracks means that I'm willing to listen to them all the way through more often than not. The same cannot be said for a lot of the music posted here. I think that's a baseline for nearly any amateur producer. Take your idea, create an AI version, now you have a quality target. Don't tell me that yours is better when it demonstrably isn't. If your music is more creative, it should stand out when heard side by side with the AI version. It should make the AI version sound like the flat lifeless variant that so many of you are asserting that it absolutely must be. Don't take that as universal praise for AI music, hardly, there is a sameness, there are frequently issues in the production and mix.

Competence isn't the sole property of art and it's not progress.

You are using the word art far too loosely. However, it's not my claim, it's this communities claim. AI is bad, human is good, AI has artifacts, AI is this, AI is that. Nobody is even suggesting that you share the output, but you are in denial about music posted on KVR, both in terms of the perception of its value as art, and perception of its competence, but also perception of its intent.

The rest is desperate cope. You may characterize anything however you please, but, the law of large numbers may not comply with your view. To paraphrase Ian Malcom, chaos is not an interruption of life, it is a part of life, you can't avoid it, but you can prepare for it.

I didn't mention the music on KVR at all.

And WTF is that nonsensical last paragraph?

The remainder of your paragraph is an attempt to explain away an uncomfortable point. You can describe individual outcomes however you like, but repeated outcomes may still add up in a way that contradicts your description. Randomness is not something outside life that occasionally disrupts it; it is built into life. You cannot eliminate it, but you can prepare for its effects. In this discussion, that means the particular posts, songs, objects, or opportunities that you encounter are partly random samples, so you should not treat any one of them as uniquely necessary.

You could have just asked AI to explain unfamiliar language to you. It would have been faster. What you are largely engaging in is a variation of prospect theory over opportunity.

[eassae]

…but the base level of competence in AI tracks means that I'm willing to listen to them all the way through more often than not. The same cannot be said for a lot of the music posted here. I think that's a baseline for nearly any amateur producer. Take your idea, create an AI version, now you have a quality target. Don't tell me that yours is better when it demonstrably isn't. If your music is more creative, it should stand out when heard side by side with the AI version. It should make the AI version sound like the flat lifeless variant that so many of you are asserting that it absolutely must be. Don't take that as universal praise for AI music, hardly, there is a sameness, there are frequently issues in the production and mix.

Competence isn't the sole property of art and it's not progress.

You are using the word art far too loosely. However, it's not my claim, it's this communities claim. AI is bad, human is good, AI has artifacts, AI is this, AI is that. Nobody is even suggesting that you share the output, but you are in denial about music posted on KVR, both in terms of the perception of its value as art, and perception of its competence, but also perception of its intent.

The rest is desperate cope. You may characterize anything however you please, but, the law of large numbers may not comply with your view. To paraphrase Ian Malcom, chaos is not an interruption of life, it is a part of life, you can't avoid it, but you can prepare for it.

I didn't mention the music on KVR at all.

And WTF is that nonsensical last paragraph?

The remainder of your paragraph is an attempt to explain away an uncomfortable point. You can describe individual outcomes however you like, but repeated outcomes may still add up in a way that contradicts your description. Randomness is not something outside life that occasionally disrupts it; it is built into life. You cannot eliminate it, but you can prepare for its effects. In this discussion, that means the particular posts, songs, objects, or opportunities that you encounter are partly random samples, so you should not treat any one of them as uniquely necessary.

You could have just asked AI to explain unfamiliar language to you. It would have been faster. What you are largely engaging in is a variation of prospect theory over opportunity.

I am aware of the law of large numbers. Referencing that in combination with your quote in no way addresses what I said beforehand. It's just you saying stuff—I assume in hopes of sounding smart.

[ghettosynth]

…but the base level of competence in AI tracks means that I'm willing to listen to them all the way through more often than not. The same cannot be said for a lot of the music posted here. I think that's a baseline for nearly any amateur producer. Take your idea, create an AI version, now you have a quality target. Don't tell me that yours is better when it demonstrably isn't. If your music is more creative, it should stand out when heard side by side with the AI version. It should make the AI version sound like the flat lifeless variant that so many of you are asserting that it absolutely must be. Don't take that as universal praise for AI music, hardly, there is a sameness, there are frequently issues in the production and mix.

Competence isn't the sole property of art and it's not progress.

You are using the word art far too loosely. However, it's not my claim, it's this communities claim. AI is bad, human is good, AI has artifacts, AI is this, AI is that. Nobody is even suggesting that you share the output, but you are in denial about music posted on KVR, both in terms of the perception of its value as art, and perception of its competence, but also perception of its intent.

The rest is desperate cope. You may characterize anything however you please, but, the law of large numbers may not comply with your view. To paraphrase Ian Malcom, chaos is not an interruption of life, it is a part of life, you can't avoid it, but you can prepare for it.

I didn't mention the music on KVR at all.

And WTF is that nonsensical last paragraph?

The remainder of your paragraph is an attempt to explain away an uncomfortable point. You can describe individual outcomes however you like, but repeated outcomes may still add up in a way that contradicts your description. Randomness is not something outside life that occasionally disrupts it; it is built into life. You cannot eliminate it, but you can prepare for its effects. In this discussion, that means the particular posts, songs, objects, or opportunities that you encounter are partly random samples, so you should not treat any one of them as uniquely necessary.

You could have just asked AI to explain unfamiliar language to you. It would have been faster. What you are largely engaging in is a variation of prospect theory over opportunity.

I am aware of the law of large numbers. Referencing that in combination with your quote in no way addresses what I said beforehand. It's just you saying stuff—I assume in hopes of sounding smart.

Do you really want me to explain it to you, because I can, and you clearly don't understand it. I wasn't addressing what you were saying, because what you were saying was copium dressed up in non-sequiturs. It address what the world sees in revealed preferences over what a minority states. It addresses how your perspective on decision is flawed and intertwined with your ego. Again, AI can help you get inside of this if you're actually interested.

[ghettosynth]

Art = wank

Can't remember who said that

Some art projects are more art than other art projects.

Artist's Shit (Italian: Merda d'artista) is a 1961 anti-artwork by Piero Manzoni. The work consists of 90 tin cans, each reportedly filled with 30 grams (1.1 oz) of feces, and measuring 4.8 by 6.5 centimetres (1.9 in × 2.6 in), with a label in Italian, English, French, and German stating:

Artist's Shit
Contents 30 gr net
Freshly preserved
Produced and tinned
in May 1961

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit

[eassae]

Competence isn't the sole property of art and it's not progress.

You are using the word art far too loosely. However, it's not my claim, it's this communities claim. AI is bad, human is good, AI has artifacts, AI is this, AI is that. Nobody is even suggesting that you share the output, but you are in denial about music posted on KVR, both in terms of the perception of its value as art, and perception of its competence, but also perception of its intent.

The rest is desperate cope. You may characterize anything however you please, but, the law of large numbers may not comply with your view. To paraphrase Ian Malcom, chaos is not an interruption of life, it is a part of life, you can't avoid it, but you can prepare for it.

I didn't mention the music on KVR at all.

And WTF is that nonsensical last paragraph?

The remainder of your paragraph is an attempt to explain away an uncomfortable point. You can describe individual outcomes however you like, but repeated outcomes may still add up in a way that contradicts your description. Randomness is not something outside life that occasionally disrupts it; it is built into life. You cannot eliminate it, but you can prepare for its effects. In this discussion, that means the particular posts, songs, objects, or opportunities that you encounter are partly random samples, so you should not treat any one of them as uniquely necessary.

You could have just asked AI to explain unfamiliar language to you. It would have been faster. What you are largely engaging in is a variation of prospect theory over opportunity.

I am aware of the law of large numbers. Referencing that in combination with your quote in no way addresses what I said beforehand. It's just you saying stuff—I assume in hopes of sounding smart.

Do you really want me to explain it to you, because I can, and you clearly don't understand it. I wasn't addressing what you were saying, because what you were saying was copium dressed up in non-sequiturs. It address what the world sees in revealed preferences over what a minority states. It addresses how your perspective on decision is flawed and intertwined with your ego. Again, AI can help you get inside of this if you're actually interested.

Tell me how AI can create something "new" in music without training data from humans which negates it being new because the human came up with it first. AI may vary the pattern to an insignificant degree, but it's output is always recognizable within human created genera.

Humans have a long track record of creating new things however slowly and however flawed, and yes building on what's been done before, but…

[ghettosynth]

You don't understand statistics or continuous spaces. If you want to sound smart, take a math class.