Some thoughts about AI acceptance

[Zeisner]

The big money is usually touring, merchandise, physical media, sponsorships, endorsements etc.

And advertising. One big brand that wants to use your song for their next TV commercial, that's the goal many indie bands try to achieve (explaining why their music sounds so "ad friendly").

[Zeisner]

remember when output arcade came out and upended the whole industry?

What? I've never seen it in a single studio or on a single computer of any musician. I only know it from an ad and that's it. There might be some DJs out there who use it but it's a small and insignificant product nobody really cares about.

[BONES]

I’m trying to start a movement of people who spend some time each day on finding and listening to new music made by humans.

Why? Why not just encourage people to find and listen to good music, wherever it comes from? It seems to me that you are more than a little bit afraid that AI is better than you are. It's probably not quite yet but it will soon be. So when that happens, when the best music is being made by AI, why wouldn't you want to listen to the best stuff?

We let it happen by creating a system that doesn’t share and support the humans.

Happily. You know what they say - "when rape is inevitable, may as well lie back and enjoy it".

around here it begins to look like most people have bought the hype hook, line and concrete block.

Is there "hype"? I am unaware of any. I am into working with Ai because it delivers amazing results. If there was a lot of actual hype around it, I probably wouldn't have been interested. (I'm a bit like that.)

At the moment, best human music, or art in general, is better than AI generated stuff.

That's actually not what the research suggests. What they have found is that if people don't know whether or not something has been generated by AI, they are likely to prefer it to a human generated equivalent. I'll put some links in a separate post. It's interesting reading.

This assumes people want to follow AI agents and find out why these agents or prompt musicians create music. Don't underestimate the power of people wanting to know more about people, not machines.

I dunno where you're getting this from, given that with streaming music, it's almost impossible to learn anything about the artist or the release. To me it's the worst aspect of download/streaming music, that you don't get a glossy booklet with song lyrics and info about the recording. But given the popularity of those services, I think it's safe to conclude that most people don't give a f**k.

...why u think drugs are so prevalent in the arts?...bob marley blazing up a spliff before sitting down to write a song is not a specific musical tool...its not AI or AI lite...the weed doesn't perform the creation...in whole neither in part

It's not a tool, either. It's a crutch. An admission that you can't be creative without help. That on your own you are a waste of space.

When big record companies are pushing AI artists to the top of the charts right in front of our eyes and using millions of fake fans/followers to boost their visibility and pretending these "artists" are a lot more popular than they actually are, that doesn't give you even a moment's pause?

That's nothing new. There was a minor kerfuffle here about 20 years ago when a record company shipped 200,000 copies of an Australian Idol winner's first single, knowing it would put the song at the top of the chart for that week (charts were calculated on shipments to record stores, not actual sales). At the same time, they knew that a month later 90% of the singles would be returned, unsold. But it got Casey Donovan to #1 and launched her career, which was a cheap bit of marketing.

At this point I think that anyone who refuses to see the writing on the wall -that these companies are blatantly, intentionally pushing AI music and "musicians" over human bands and artists- are either willfully ignorant or completely blind to reality.

Or maybe we just don't care? None of those labels were ever going to sign us so what they do is totally irrelevant.

It's clear that humans are being pushed aside for LLM-created trash

How will it work if it is trash? Won't humans reject it if it isn't any good? It seems you have very little faith in your own species.

Soon enough every song that makes it onto the charts with be AI-created rubbish

Which will be an improvement over the Max Martin rubbish we've had stuffed down our throats for the last decade or so, won't it?

[BONES]

Anyway, what I came here to do was post this link to some interesting research on people's acceptance of AI. It could make compelling evidence against legislation requiring the disclosure of the use of AI. There are a lot of links contained in the text of the article, several well worth looking at as well.

https://theconversation.com/artists-and ... ium=Social

[pdxindy]

Anyway, what I came here to do was post this link to some interesting research on people's acceptance of AI. It could make compelling evidence against legislation requiring the disclosure of the use of AI. There are a lot of links contained in the text of the article, several well worth looking at as well.

https://theconversation.com/artists-and ... ium=Social

I found this interesting:
"the software company Adobe surveyed more than 2,500 creative professionals across four continents in 2024, it found that roughly 83% reported using AI in their work, with 69% saying it helped them express their creativity more effectively."

Unfortunately, there's no further info on how those creative professionals used AI. Some of them could be using AI to reference software manuals.

[bermudagold]

The big money is usually touring, merchandise, physical media, sponsorships, endorsements etc.

And advertising. One big brand that wants to use your song for their next TV commercial, that's the goal many indie bands try to achieve (explaining why their music sounds so "ad friendly").

worked for "the rembrandts"...paid their bills for life

[bermudagold]

remember when output arcade came out and upended the whole industry?

What? I've never seen it in a single studio or on a single computer of any musician. I only know it from an ad and that's it. There might be some DJs out there who use it but it's a small and insignificant product nobody really cares about.

not in the bedroom producer prosumer market...which is the kvr market and the largest market...the whole output suite was very successful and all over radio hits and big sync placements...their understanding of the evolving consumer in this vertical was copied by all the big boys

[Zeisner]

not in the bedroom producer prosumer market...

Neither there. Nobody has it, nobody cares about it, the vast majority hasn't even heard of it.

[ksandvik]

BTW Supreme Court just ruled (or ignored ruling) about AI art being copyrightable. So it's the same with music then, it's not copyrightable so anyone could take your AI stuff and do whatever they want with it, like resell it.

[zerocrossing]

Anyway, what I came here to do was post this link to some interesting research on people's acceptance of AI. It could make compelling evidence against legislation requiring the disclosure of the use of AI. There are a lot of links contained in the text of the article, several well worth looking at as well.

https://theconversation.com/artists-and ... ium=Social

I found this interesting:
"the software company Adobe surveyed more than 2,500 creative professionals across four continents in 2024, it found that roughly 83% reported using AI in their work, with 69% saying it helped them express their creativity more effectively."

Unfortunately, there's no further info on how those creative professionals used AI. Some of them could be using AI to reference software manuals.

Well first off, follow the money. Adobe has AI tools built into it's software now. Of course they're going to say they're used a lot to justify the expense of it all. I've actually used the Photoshop AI a lot, but not really in any creative capacity. We wanted to show our publisher what the different levels of our game looked like, but to do that I needed to do screen shots, and those included the HUD UI display stuff, which we didn't want. Normally, I'd have had to go into the "rubber stamp" tool and remove each bit and replace it with what should be there. I'm actually great at this, but it takes a lot of time to make it look perfect. I have to say that Photoshop's tool let me just select the UI elements and remove them, and 90% of the time it did a perfect (enough) job, and the rest of the time I was able to correct whatever artifacts it left behind.

Anyway, I'm just saying that there's a lot of daylight between, "put a game of thrones style dragon in this image of a corn field" and "remove these telephone poles from this image of a corn field."

[Zeisner]

it's not copyrightable so anyone could take your AI stuff and do whatever they want with it, like resell it.

If nobody can own it (with music created with Suno being the only exception I'm aware of) then it can't be illegaly copied either. Interesting times for file-sharing sites...

[zerocrossing]

I just thought of something interesting. I just got off the phone with customer service from a company that manages our HOA. Terrible. Both seemed to be in an echoy room using a super cheap mic... maybe on their crappy smartphone? The quality of the audio was terrible. They were also not able to help me at all.

I've had great customer service from humans, but a lot of it is terrible. Why is it so terrible? Because they hire terrible people. Why? Because they blew their budget on something else, probably the sales team, or they want to boost their stock by showing how much cash they have on hand. So now you can give the same terrible customer service with an AI agent. It might even be better... though the last interaction with an AI agent from Positive Grid told me I could fix my problem by increasing the oversampling... on a plugin that does not have any way of increasing the oversampling. Good guess, though!

But it made me think of all the crappy artists I've worked under that for whatever reason have been dubbed "Art Director." I an only think of a few that were any good. Most are either good artists that are terrible at directing anything, or directors who are somewhat interested in art, or the worst of all, friends with the CEO and got the job. I've found a great way to get a title in the game industry is to start working on an indie game with 3 people and give yourself the title you want, and then you're just that forever. AI is going to be great at replacing those people, because they already generally suck. I also had a boss override my hiring decision and pick a candidate to work under me who was terrible. He got picked because he looked good. I sh!t you not. The guy I wanted was a quiet and awkward dude, but who had a very professional looking portfolio and years of experience. He was passed over for the guy with an expensive haircut who lied about knowing how to use crucial software that was needed to do the job. AI would be awesome to replace that dude.

But why are these people in positions in the first place? My working theory is that, like who we make our president, we pick coworkers who seem like you'd have fun hanging out with. Quiet awkward dude was probably going to keep his head down, work hard and then head home after work and watch anime with his quiet awkward girlfriend, but haircut dude was always up for a beer and some fun. He lasted 3 months and quit, and was never replaced. Why? Because that position didn't seem to fit in the org chart. See also: let's just let Mark keep doing the crap work. This led to me leaving, because producers had a problem with paying my day rate when so much of the work was basic production work that they could get cheaper from an external source. I had no way of saying, "well my hourly rate is X for concepting and higher end design, but to populate a pitch document with images and text, my hourly rate half that." I was also salaried, so if I was scheduled to do a job and the client didn't get us the requirements, I could often spend a day doing nothing and waiting. AI doesn't care when you want them to start.

I guess this is all my way of saying that I think there's still going to be work, but it's all going to be higher level stuff, and if you aren't up for that, you're in trouble.

[Zeisner]

I guess this is all my way of saying that I think there's still going to be work, but it's all going to be higher level stuff, and if you aren't up for that, you're in trouble.

They are the first who get into trouble but it will ultimately result in a chain reaction. Because those 99 % who can't get any job and income anymore will come for those remaining 1 % at some point, repeating history (Downfall of monarchies)...

[pekbro]

Anyway, what I came here to do was post this link to some interesting research on people's acceptance of AI. It could make compelling evidence against legislation requiring the disclosure of the use of AI. There are a lot of links contained in the text of the article, several well worth looking at as well.

https://theconversation.com/artists-and ... ium=Social

I found this interesting:
"the software company Adobe surveyed more than 2,500 creative professionals across four continents in 2024, it found that roughly 83% reported using AI in their work, with 69% saying it helped them express their creativity more effectively."

Unfortunately, there's no further info on how those creative professionals used AI. Some of them could be using AI to reference software manuals.

My friend Craig, who's a respected artist in the film industry uses AI for inspiration, he says it
gives him ideas he had not thought of on his own, then he paints the stuff by hand based on that. In his case though, he is a better artist than any AI hands down, even at photo-realism. No joke.

Craig:

[pdxindy]

My friend Craig, who's a respected artist in the film industry uses AI for inspiration, he says it
gives him ideas he had not thought of on his own, then he paints the stuff by hand based on that.In his case though, he is a better artist than any AI hands down, even at photo-realism. No joke.

There are some truly incredible artists out there!

AI is limited for photo-realistic imagery. AI images are static. It has a hard time creating a sense of movement. Characters for example, are posed, and not in motion.