Here's what we feared: the entirely AI synth - guk.ai

[BONES]

AI is for the lazy and unimaginative.

Spoken by someone who is too lazy to try and for themselves and make an informed judgement. Well done you.

And the current abilities of AI can't do anything but swim that ocean and condense it to the average mediocrity. It is momentarily droll and boring overall.

Maybe in your hands but we're much better than you because we're making amazing f**king music with AI.

Still haven't heard anything produced by AI that I haven't done myself when I was 11 years old.

So what? I'd say the same about most music but that doesn't mean that I can't make something better suited to my tastes with the same tools. All you are saying is that the people who use the AI are unimaginative. It's a reflection of the people doing the prompts, not the ability of AI, but if you are too lazy to find out for yourself, that's squarely on you.

What pisses me off of the whole AI hype is that there is actual stuff I wanna do with AI, like controlling the infotainment system on my car, ask it for send emails, download, open and read documents to me, search for a gas station, etc...
... I don't understand how the industry is putting so much investment into making models and training and then the product can't do actual stuff it should be good at.

Dude, that is stuff anyone should be able to do for themselves now, without any help from AI. My sat-nav will start looking for petrol stations when the fuel gets low, all by itself, no AI required. Honestly, though, I don't know why you'd want to be doing shit like that in the car when you could be listening to music instead.

[DCrown]

@Bones
"Maybe in your hands but we're much better than you because we're making amazing f**king music with AI."
I listened to about 20 AI tracks and everything sounded like something I heard a hundred times before - no creativity, no uniqueness, no originality, sometimes a "plastic" sounding instrument e.g. guitar, the quality of mix was good, that's all, but frankly speaking too polished, so boring.
"We are making music." We? As far as I can tell after having watched how music is created with AI, AI is making music or I call it some noise, you do nothing. When AI is the creator or assistant, it is not your music.
C'mon you tell AI create a song in the style of earth wind and fire, Marvin Gaye and Bee Gees (a mix of it) with a high male voice , no guitar, funky bass, horns in chorus, bpm 120 and write lyrics about how a bird falls in love with an ant, you wait 20 seconds and get 5 different versions, well, you did nothing, all created by AI !

[BONES]

I'd describe 90% or more of any music created in the last 50 years in a similar way, so it's hardly surprising that AI would be similarly disappointing. Really, though, it's like saying that you've heard 20 songs made in Cubase and you didn't like any of them, therefore Cubase is a pile of junk. You're blaming the tools for the inadequacies of its users.

What you probably don't see is how that perfectly illustrates my point, that AI is only as good as the effort you are willing to put into it. We've been putting in the effort and we are reaping the rewards but it is still going to take us 3 or 4 months to finish an album, as opposed to the 6 or so it took us to finish the last one with old-fashioned tools and processes, and I am already more pleased, more excited about what we are making now.

I've never knowingly listened to anyone else's AI track, why would I? I mean, I might if someone I actually have the tiniest bit of respect for made something but I have way better things to do than listen to random crap. But as I've explained, 599 out of 600 things we get from AI aren't good enough, we have to keep at it and at it to get something that is and then we spend considerable effort getting it into a usable shape for our purposes. Do you think any of the tracks you listened to had that depth of iteration in them? If you weren't being fussy about where they came from, I'd say it's likely they were all first drafts, so it's unsurprising they weren't any good.

[swilow11]

If your strike rate is seriously 1 in 600, what's the point? How is it even a viable alternative to just random noodling?

[ghettosynth]

If your strike rate is seriously 1 in 600, what's the point? How is it even a viable alternative to just random noodling?

Hyperbole. Revision related to random selection isn't "work" that is exactly comparable to manual creation, however, to dismiss it as not creative at some level is also incorrect. In any case it doesn't matter. This is a funny and somewhat manufactured culture war and all of you are front line soldiers of the Somme fighting pointlessly. I wouldn't worry about your "stardom", I'd be more concerned about whether you'll be able to keep your day job once the hype settles.

[BONES]

If your strike rate is seriously 1 in 600, what's the point? How is it even a viable alternative to just random noodling?

Because you end up with something that gets better and better. It's not generating 600 completely different songs, it's refining one until you're happy with it or taking it in different directions to find what works best. It's what we all do all the time anyway; we try something and if it doesn't work we undo it and try something else. Tunee will always give you multiple versions, up to 6 at a time if you want to spend the credits, so the 600 versions get spat out pretty quickly (a couple of days). Think how many times you press CTRL+S during a session, it's kind of like that.

[Scotty]

When your album becomes a smashing commercial success, those uncleared samples you bragged about lifting may finally come back to haunt you, Bones. Success has a funny way of attracting lawyers—especially the ones representing the people you ‘borrowed’ from.

When your particular flavor of genius finally breaks through to the masses, your likeness, voice, and sonic fingerprint could end up embedded in someone else's AI model. Unlike the people who may go after you for stealing their samples, you’ll have no legal recourse if AI steals your artistic identity. You might shrug, but plenty of creators don’t.

Not everyone has the superhuman talent to ‘absorb two centuries of orchestral knowledge by osmosis’ just by walking past a pit — a feat you proudly boasted about in one of your many firehose of bullshit posts over the years. Your feats are truly legendary, and you are immune.

But when lesser artists do care about who owns what they’ve built — when their work is scraped into training sets and absorbed into proprietary AI — the tech bros end up owning the thing made from their creative labor. They’ll defend it fiercely because it profits them. The creators who were mined to build it get none of that protection.

Henry Rollins has been warning about this kind of exploitation for decades: corporations will take your work, gut it, repackage it, and sell it back to you.

So for someone who wraps himself in punk credibility, it’s… fascinating watching you hand over your work to corporate AI without even blinking. Punk was supposed to be about resisting systems that exploit you — not volunteering to be their test subject.

If you're comfortable with that, fine. But let’s at least be honest:
there’s nothing punk about celebrating your own dispossession.

You’re cosplaying rebellion while cashing in for short-term gain.
The mohawk was never real — and neither was your rebellion.

I've never knowingly listened to anyone else's AI track, why would I? I mean, I might if someone I actually have the tiniest bit of respect for made something but I have way better things to do than listen to random crap. But as I've explained, 599 out of 600 things we get from AI aren't good enough, we have to keep at it and at it to get something that is and then we spend considerable effort getting it into a usable shape for our purposes. Do you think any of the tracks you listened to had that depth of iteration in them? If you weren't being fussy about where they came from, I'd say it's likely they were all first drafts, so it's unsurprising they weren't any good.

[BONES]

When your album becomes a smashing commercial success, those uncleared samples you bragged about lifting may finally come back to haunt you, Bones.

We don't write popular music, there is zero chance of us ever making enough money to cover the other guy's lawyer's fee for drafting a letter of demand, much less trying to take us to court. They can have every penny we ever make for all I care.

When your particular flavor of genius finally breaks through to the masses, your likeness, voice, and sonic fingerprint could end up embedded in someone else's AI model.

It's already there. We trained Eleven Labs AI to sound like me a couple of years ago. It couldn't quite get the accent right at the time but I imagine that's all taken care of now.

Unlike the people who may go after you for stealing their samples, you’ll have no legal recourse if AI steals your artistic identity. You might shrug, but plenty of creators don’t.

They can have at it, why would I care? Those who do are undoubtedly wankers.

Not everyone has the superhuman talent to ‘absorb two centuries of orchestral knowledge by osmosis’ just by walking past a pit — a feat you proudly boasted about in one of your many firehose of bullshit posts over the years.

Quite the opposite. I explained only yesterday how I can use Ujam's Striiiiings for that, without having to have the first clue how it's actually done.

Your feats are truly legendary, and you are immune.

Do pardon me for having some experience upon which to draw.

But when lesser artists do care about who owns what they’ve built — when their work is scraped into training sets and absorbed into proprietary AI — the tech bros end up owning the thing made from their creative labor.

So what? If they are putting themselves above the music, they can go and get f**ked. If the label didn't insist, our names would appear nowhere on anything we do. We don't matter, the music matters. How could it be otherwise?

They’ll defend it fiercely because it profits them. The creators who were mined to build it get none of that protection.

Boo f**king hoo.

Henry Rollins has been warning about this kind of exploitation for decades: corporations will take your work, gut it, repackage it, and sell it back to you.

Only if you're stupid enough to buy it from them.

So for someone who wraps himself in punk credibility, it’s… fascinating watching you hand over your work to corporate AI without even blinking.

It's not "my" work, it's "the" work. If someone thinks they can make money from it, more power to 'em because we never have. And if it gets it in front of more people, even better.

Punk was supposed to be about resisting systems that exploit you — not volunteering to be their test subject.

No, punk was about tearing up the rules and doing whatever the f**k you wanted to do. But no-one's exploiting me because it's not about me. I'm not sure how many more ways I can say it.

You’re cosplaying rebellion while cashing in for short-term gain.

Cashing in? That's rich (pun intended). In our 20 years together, I think NOVAkILL has probably made less than 20c on the dollar, labour not included. If someone else thinks they can do better, why would I stand in their way?

[Scotty]

Bones, I asked ChatGPT to help me write this rebuttal.

Now excuse me while I go finish my prompt-driven magnum opus, the one that sounds uncannily like Radiohead if they released an album in 2027 with the drummer from Death Grips. And I found this obscure vocalist from Latvia — Emīlija, I think? Her voice is haunting. Let’s throw her into a duet and feed her new EP into the engine too. Thom, you had your day, and besides, you're a bit pretentious (you kind of had it coming). Emīlija, I just couldn't help myself.

It’s my turn now. And about that royalty check? Well, Thom, you don't need it. Emīlija, OpenAI hasn’t figured that part out yet. Sorry about that. My album drops in June — I’ll keep you all posted. Don’t miss it. This stuff is f**king amazing.
===========================================================================

“Bones, you have no consistent posture. What you said yesterday only serves the moment, even when it contradicts your previous claims. And yes — you absolutely made those ridiculous boasts about your superhuman capacity for musical absorption. They were laughable then, and they’re laughable now.

The punk aesthetic you cling to runs directly counter to machine-assisted iterative perfection, especially when it’s used to chase a manufactured version of artificial angst. Punk was DIY to its core. The whole point was resistance, not optimization.

And to be clear, I have no issue with the tools you use. It’s obvious from my comments that you’re cashing in on the improved workflow not financial reward. What I’m pointing out is your refusal to acknowledge the tradeoffs — the ownership costs — that others cannot afford to ignore. Not everyone has your luxury of generous self-gifting.

I don’t think you’re stupid for misrepresenting or missing my central point. I think you’re fake. The only part of punk you genuinely practice is provocation — and you’ve got that down to a science.

You’re a poser. You’re comfortable with that, nuff' said.”

When your album becomes a smashing commercial success, those uncleared samples you bragged about lifting may finally come back to haunt you, Bones.

We don't write popular music, there is zero chance of us ever making enough money to cover the other guy's lawyer's fee for drafting a letter of demand, much less trying to take us to court. They can have every penny we ever make for all I care.

When your particular flavor of genius finally breaks through to the masses, your likeness, voice, and sonic fingerprint could end up embedded in someone else's AI model.

It's already there. We trained Eleven Labs AI to sound like me a couple of years ago. It couldn't quite get the accent right at the time but I imagine that's all taken care of now.

Unlike the people who may go after you for stealing their samples, you’ll have no legal recourse if AI steals your artistic identity. You might shrug, but plenty of creators don’t.

They can have at it, why would I care? Those who do are undoubtedly wankers.

Not everyone has the superhuman talent to ‘absorb two centuries of orchestral knowledge by osmosis’ just by walking past a pit — a feat you proudly boasted about in one of your many firehose of bullshit posts over the years.

Quite the opposite. I explained only yesterday how I can use Ujam's Striiiiings for that, without having to have the first clue how it's actually done.

Your feats are truly legendary, and you are immune.

Do pardon me for having some experience upon which to draw.

But when lesser artists do care about who owns what they’ve built — when their work is scraped into training sets and absorbed into proprietary AI — the tech bros end up owning the thing made from their creative labor.

So what? If they are putting themselves above the music, they can go and get f**ked. If the label didn't insist, our names would appear nowhere on anything we do. We don't matter, the music matters. How could it be otherwise?

They’ll defend it fiercely because it profits them. The creators who were mined to build it get none of that protection.

Boo f**king hoo.

Henry Rollins has been warning about this kind of exploitation for decades: corporations will take your work, gut it, repackage it, and sell it back to you.

Only if you're stupid enough to buy it from them.

So for someone who wraps himself in punk credibility, it’s… fascinating watching you hand over your work to corporate AI without even blinking.

It's not "my" work, it's "the" work. If someone thinks they can make money from it, more power to 'em because we never have. And if it gets it in front of more people, even better.

Punk was supposed to be about resisting systems that exploit you — not volunteering to be their test subject.

No, punk was about tearing up the rules and doing whatever the f**k you wanted to do. But no-one's exploiting me because it's not about me. I'm not sure how many more ways I can say it.

You’re cosplaying rebellion while cashing in for short-term gain.

Cashing in? That's rich (pun intended). In our 20 years together, I think NOVAkILL has probably made less than 20c on the dollar, labour not included. If someone else thinks they can do better, why would I stand in their way?

[vurt]

I'd be more concerned about whether you'll be able to keep your day job once the hype settles.

im safe. ai will never take over the "pet medium and psychic communication" business.

[starflakeprj]

I'd be more concerned about whether you'll be able to keep your day job once the hype settles.

im safe. ai will never take over the "pet medium and psychic communication" business.

Just wait and see

[swilow11]

If your strike rate is seriously 1 in 600, what's the point? How is it even a viable alternative to just random noodling?

Hyperbole. Revision related to random selection isn't "work" that is exactly comparable to manual creation, however, to dismiss it as not creative at some level is also incorrect. In any case it doesn't matter. This is a funny and somewhat manufactured culture war and all of you are front line soldiers of the Somme fighting pointlessly. I wouldn't worry about your "stardom", I'd be more concerned about whether you'll be able to keep your day job once the hype settles.

You need to adjust your weights here because you've very much incorrectly predicted my outlook on AI based on some questions I wrote that weren't even directed to you.

I use it regularly to solve technical issues but prefer to keep my creativity in house. It's basicslly my goto manual for Bitwig and various hardware bits I've got. I do have an aesthetic issue with using it to create sounds but am pretty happy to deploy any tool on offer. My aversion is more a personal stance- I like to have a sense of pride in my music and feel less in proportion to how easy or hard it is to create something. I like my own synthesised kicks more than I do samples. But I still use samples whenever I want to.

[BONES]

And yes — you absolutely made those ridiculous boasts about your superhuman capacity for musical absorption.

Noo I didn't, I wrote something completely consistent with everything else I've said and you chose to interpret it the way that fit with your worldview. Because fi you'd been following the discussion - this one or the other one - you'd also have seen me write "so that dumb c**ts like me can have orchestral arrangements in our songs without having the first clue how to actually do that", or words to that effect. But I'm sure your over-stimulated confirmation bias engine wouldn't have allowed you to actually see that.

What I probably said previously was something along the lines that over time you tend to pick up musical knowledge without trying, using my own experience as an example. I'm sorry if it upsets you that someone can write a song without knowing what key it's in or what chords it uses but we've got 9 albums worth of material under our belts and I honestly have no idea what key any of it is in. I seem to recall from high school that the key is usually the first note played but I have no idea if that's true or not. And if the chorus jumps up a few notes form the verse, I don't know if that's a key change or something else entirely. What I know is that it works or it doesn't work and, over time, that knowledge becomes second nature.

last night, for example, I was trying to enhance a chorus with a running bassline - all 16th A notes - and I found that using F, F# and G# worked really well with it, so that's what I used. 20 Years ago I would never have been able to do that, I wouldn't have trusted myself to get it right.

So what I try to do here is to give people who may not have a lot of experience or musical knowledge a bit of confidence that they can get better. Because, believe me, if I can, anybody can. If trying to give others a bit more confidence in their own ability makes you feel like you've wasted your life learning arcane, irrelevant shite, there's not much I can do to help you, I'm sorry.

The punk aesthetic you cling to runs directly counter to machine-assisted iterative perfection, especially when it’s used to chase a manufactured version of artificial angst. Punk was DIY to its core. The whole point was resistance, not optimization.

No, it had f**k-all to do with resistance, it was a simple rejection of the norms of the time. If you resist something, you acknowledge it's power over you. If you ignore it, you take it's power away. That's what Punk did for a generation.

What I’m pointing out is your refusal to acknowledge the tradeoffs — the ownership costs — that others cannot afford to ignore.

What you seem not to understand is the difference between art and commerce. Deciding to try and earn a living from music is selling out, pure and simple. It's turning your back on art for commercial gain. There was definitely a time when the music industry was in better shape and it could accommodate artists but those days are long gone. Today you have to sell out or go without. We chose to go without, it let's us sleep more soundly at night and gives us the total creative freedom we see as essential to being artists.

[Scotty]

Bones, don't get mad at me. I didn't write the rebuttal. ChatGPT did. f**k man, under their terms, I think OpenAI may actually own it. Take it up with them. I am just doing what it takes to make it work in 2025.

You've got me wondering what a side of Punk would taste like at a McDonald's restaurant. It would be kind of cool to see a little fake plastic Mohawk-styled toothpick piercing a Punk Burger next to the side of fries. It would be edgy and corporate at the same time. Grrrrrrr! .

And yes — you absolutely made those ridiculous boasts about your superhuman capacity for musical absorption.

Noo I didn't, I wrote something completely consistent with everything else I've said and you chose to interpret it the way that fit with your worldview. Because fi you'd been following the discussion - this one or the other one - you'd also have seen me write "so that dumb c**ts like me can have orchestral arrangements in our songs without having the first clue how to actually do that", or words to that effect. But I'm sure your over-stimulated confirmation bias engine wouldn't have allowed you to actually see that.

What I probably said previously was something along the lines that over time you tend to pick up musical knowledge without trying, using my own experience as an example. I'm sorry if it upsets you that someone can write a song without knowing what key it's in or what chords it uses but we've got 9 albums worth of material under our belts and I honestly have no idea what key any of it is in. I seem to recall from high school that the key is usually the first note played but I have no idea if that's true or not. And if the chorus jumps up a few notes form the verse, I don't know if that's a key change or something else entirely. What I know is that it works or it doesn't work and, over time, that knowledge becomes second nature.

last night, for example, I was trying to enhance a chorus with a running bassline - all 16th A notes - and I found that using F, F# and G# worked really well with it, so that's what I used. 20 Years ago I would never have been able to do that, I wouldn't have trusted myself to get it right.

So what I try to do here is to give people who may not have a lot of experience or musical knowledge a bit of confidence that they can get better. Because, believe me, if I can, anybody can. If trying to give others a bit more confidence in their own ability makes you feel like you've wasted your life learning arcane, irrelevant shite, there's not much I can do to help you, I'm sorry.

The punk aesthetic you cling to runs directly counter to machine-assisted iterative perfection, especially when it’s used to chase a manufactured version of artificial angst. Punk was DIY to its core. The whole point was resistance, not optimization.

No, it had f**k-all to do with resistance, it was a simple rejection of the norms of the time. If you resist something, you acknowledge it's power over you. If you ignore it, you take it's power away. That's what Punk did for a generation.

What I’m pointing out is your refusal to acknowledge the tradeoffs — the ownership costs — that others cannot afford to ignore.

What you seem not to understand is the difference between art and commerce. Deciding to try and earn a living from music is selling out, pure and simple. It's turning your back on art for commercial gain. There was definitely a time when the music industry was in better shape and it could accommodate artists but those days are long gone. Today you have to sell out or go without. We chose to go without, it let's us sleep more soundly at night and gives us the total creative freedom we see as essential to being artists.

[vurt]

I always wondered what a side of Punk would taste like at a McDonalds.

blink182?