Rick Beato representing humans vs the rise of AI in music

[GrindCustoms]

I'm quite a fan of Rick Beato, dude is a fountain of knowledge and usually have well balanced views and opinions so i do think he was an excellent representative for this Forum

I'm for one not in favor of AI in any shape or form, call me a boomer, i don't care... ...we're already see the effects of that technology in the industry and i firmly believe that is has to be regulated.

If you're into this kind of stuff or if as a human and a creator you still want to be of some relevance in the future, i think it's a topic that is worthy to be engaged in.

[madbean]

Cool, I will watch this.

I'm kind of on the opposite side. While I don't want to see AI replacing artists whole cloth  I'm super excited to see how it will benefit society as a whole in the coming years. There are lots of problems in physics and science in that AI may finally help us solve. Esp. In tandem with the coming quantum computing revolution. And, AI as a tool working with artists might produce whole new realms of creation we haven't even imagined. Of course it's going to be used and abused, too. It's inevitable.

[culturejam]

I'm kind of on the opposite side. While I don't want to see AI replacing artists whole cloth  I'm super excited to see how it will benefit society as a whole in the coming years. There are lots of problems in physics and science in that AI may finally help us solve. Esp. In tandem with the coming quantum computing revolution. And, AI as a tool working with artists might produce whole new realms of creation we haven't even imagined. Of course it's going to be used and abused, too. It's inevitable.

This is kind of where my head is at. I am cautiously optimistic about advancement in machine learning. The upside potential is massive, but so is all the bad stuff...pretty much like other technologies, although I think this one is perhaps closer to the magnitude of nuclear technology than anything else we've seen so far. 

[GrindCustoms]

I think i went out with a stance that is only dealing with absolutes... ...and i ain't no Sith so i'll expand a bit more on my statement, where there's indeed nuances to be made.

I also can see it advantages in managing critical systems where the human factor can bring it's margin of error, and even if an error is made with small or large consequences, the error will always have the opportunity to repeats itself due to the basic nature of human, which is something we've seen happen throughout history. Whereas an AI will learn, correct it and it's done, the potential of repeat is eliminated practically entirely. Focusing on "practically" because of how recent the technology is and been used. Time is and will always be the reliable testimony to the efficiency of a system.

Free will of AI is what to me is the risk, compassion, empathy, etc is not something that can be programmed, decision making based on "If" and "Or" being fixed values, no matter how many inputs, basis of knowledge are input into the programming of the AI to build it's intelligence, you can't input "primordial instinct" which is what distinct living intelligence from an artificial one. Depending of the context or environment in which that AI evolves, it's decision making can have catastrophic outcomes. So yeah, i'm mostly referring here to AI in a human population management task, i.e. Technocracies.
Where i can see it to be an advantage over human managing human is in the scenario of a government collapse after a failed coup or some other shit like that. No matter which human based governing body you put in place temporary, there will be a bias and as we've seen again throughout history it's a very prone to advantage the temporary governing body in place instead of the actual population that is in need. So here, i can definitely  see the benefit to use an AI with basic governing functions. Although it's still programmed by humans, so it can possibly be flawed and that darn AI will find a loop hole, contradiction or whatever and shit going to hit the fan anyway or on the other hand since it's logic driven, it's conclusion to solve an issue can disregard fundamental human requirements.

I shouldn't have watch Terminator when i was 10yo....lulz, I admit that i'm using the worst case scenario path to explain my view but it's not the path of least resistance that leads to preparedness. It does scare me, first it was radio, then television, then internet, they where sold as "unifiers", educational tools but with just a hint of retrospective it's clear as day that they've become tools of division and there's a proven relationship between the advancement of technologies and the dumbing down of the general populous. So it becomes very hard for me to not be weary about the rise of a new technology to be implemented in our daily life.

Cool, I will watch this.

I'm kind of on the opposite side. While I don't want to see AI replacing artists whole cloth  I'm super excited to see how it will benefit society as a whole in the coming years. There are lots of problems in physics and science in that AI may finally help us solve. Esp. In tandem with the coming quantum computing revolution. And, AI as a tool working with artists might produce whole new realms of creation we haven't even imagined. Of course it's going to be used and abused, too. It's inevitable.

I feel you on that and i sometime wish i was less pessimistic, like you say it will have the ability of so much good but inevitably have it's bad... ...so the question becomes, is the compromise worth it?

A good friend of mine who started her professional life as a nurse and now completing her doctorate at McGill University.... ...Canada's Yale if you want and they've started to implement AI in their medical research and they're making leaps of progress within months leading to future cures that would have taken years to reach the same point. That i endorse 100% man, technology used as it should, to benefit human kind and it's perpetuity.

I'm kind of on the opposite side. While I don't want to see AI replacing artists whole cloth  I'm super excited to see how it will benefit society as a whole in the coming years. There are lots of problems in physics and science in that AI may finally help us solve. Esp. In tandem with the coming quantum computing revolution. And, AI as a tool working with artists might produce whole new realms of creation we haven't even imagined. Of course it's going to be used and abused, too. It's inevitable.

This is kind of where my head is at. I am cautiously optimistic about advancement in machine learning. The upside potential is massive, but so is all the bad stuff...pretty much like other technologies, although I think this one is perhaps closer to the magnitude of nuclear technology than anything else we've seen so far. 

I guess the 3 of us share a similar awareness on that topic, we simply waving differently around the neutral point... ...I'm the square wave with the intensity dialed all the way up! lol

If the laws and regulations toward it's use and implementations are well established and rigorously enforced, i'm open to see it change my perspective on it and i'd be so happy about it.   
 

[jessenator]

I had a novel to put in here...thought better of it, so here's the summarizing paragraph:

I'm in tech. It's part of my everyday. The genie is out of the bottle and I'm off the mind we need carefully considered regulation, none of which should be crafted by 60+ politicians who can't even reset their Wi-Fi router. Most importantly, we need to be educated about it and not have some talking head distill whatever their own bias or agenda. That's the real brain virus.

[jimilee]

I had a novel to put in here...thought better of it, so here's the summarizing paragraph:

I'm in tech. It's part of my everyday. The genie is out of the bottle and I'm off the mind we need carefully considered regulation, none of which should be crafted by 60+ politicians who can't even reset their Wi-Fi router. Most importantly, we need to be educated about it and not have some talking head distill whatever their own bias or agenda. That's the real brain virus.

How can we possibly regulate what we don't yet know? I feel like regulation now will stifle any creativity that is yet to come. It's quite the conundrum beyond the basic humanities. If we only use it for good...but who's to say what's good and what isn't? I'm excited to see where it goes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrindCustoms]

I had a novel to put in here...thought better of it, so here's the summarizing paragraph:

I'm in tech. It's part of my everyday. The genie is out of the bottle and I'm off the mind we need carefully considered regulation, none of which should be crafted by 60+ politicians who can't even reset their Wi-Fi router. Most importantly, we need to be educated about it and not have some talking head distill whatever their own bias or agenda. That's the real brain virus.

Drop them novel mate! I'm here for it.

I do agree with you, although i don't know how law and regulations are setup in USA after members of the government assist to a forum to assess the situation and then work on setting up the laws. But in Canada, it will also be members of the government that are not necessarily in the known of all the details, but they are there to weight if it does asks for regulations, if it does, then a commission is setup with different people working and actually aware of the matter at hand and they will setup a list of recommendations. Then the politicians that don't know shit will pass the bill. The idea that it's representative of the government that don't necessarily know the topic in it's full lenght is so they can observe the implications from a similar angle than the average citizen would and how it would affect them.
In theory this whole procedure should be done right but as we know, there's bias, political interest and all that bullshit and it ends up not being regulated to protect the citizens but to indeed favor an agenda. But at it's root, that process is correct.

[jessenator]

Drop them novel mate! I'm here for it.

I re read it and edited it some more, but it's just so dower and negative. Balls, even a complete re-write is going that way.

It's a delicate balance of laissez-faire and regulation. I just don't want the everyday person to get less and less, while the few who wield these new technological powers get more and more, and I'll leave it at that. I want to be more positive.

[mjg]

There's probably an AI that could help you rewrite the novel about what you think about AI...

They've introduced AI as a 'helper' at my job, and so far I'm giving it 1 out of 5 on the review, because 0 isn't an option.  It's crap.  I spend more time having to think about what it's done, and identify the subtle or not so subtle ways it's wrong, than I would have spend just doing the work from scratch. 

That said, I see things about visual art that it produces, and it looks amazing what it can do in that space, which I understand comes down to training data and prompt writing skills.  It's very good at copying what it has seen before. 

For now I see it as a tool that can make a thing that is similar to things you train it about.  Intelligence isn't a word I'd use.  Machine Learning is closer to the mark. 

Huh, and now I've written a novel too. 😄

[jessenator]

There's probably an AI that could help you rewrite the novel about what you think about AI...

I actually did think about that. I've dabbled with ChatGPT and Midjourney, and it's quite amazing what it does.

okay fine lol. I did NOT edit this at all. I simply asked chatgpt to summarize my novella. Weird it refers to me as the 'individual'

The individual's routine revolves around technology in the business sphere, emphasizing the necessity of integrating new tech or facing potential failure. They draw parallels to past tech shifts, like the move from Flash to CSS/HTML5, highlighting the rapid changes and potential job market impact.

On a personal level, there's admiration for technological advancements like ChatGPT but concern about implementation, ownership, and licensing models. They caution against blind trust in corporations and discuss the potential downside of overly "smart" tools making users dependent.

There's a strong aversion to the trend of "smart" devices taking control and manipulating consumers, citing examples from smart home appliances to subscription-based features in cars. They express worries about a future where ownership becomes scarce, controlled by a select few. This dystopian view isn't tied to political ideologies but rather the manipulation and control wielded by money-driven individuals, with specific criticism aimed at figures like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.

Amid this skepticism, they advocate for caution, critical thinking, and the need to debunk misinformation and biases. The overarching concern is about unchecked technological advancements and their potential consequences if not approached thoughtfully and ethically.

[GrindCustoms]

I had a novel to put in here...thought better of it, so here's the summarizing paragraph:

I'm in tech. It's part of my everyday. The genie is out of the bottle and I'm off the mind we need carefully considered regulation, none of which should be crafted by 60+ politicians who can't even reset their Wi-Fi router. Most importantly, we need to be educated about it and not have some talking head distill whatever their own bias or agenda. That's the real brain virus.

How can we possibly regulate what we don't yet know? I feel like regulation now will stifle any creativity that is yet to come. It's quite the conundrum beyond the basic humanities. If we only use it for good...but who's to say what's good and what isn't? I'm excited to see where it goes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd invite you to go back in time and read about the motivations and why for exemple the FCC, CRTC and other frequency broadcasting boards where put in place. It will likely give you the basis of why those regulation are important in face of misuse.

I'm having a bit of problem to express myself correctly here and i want to come across correctly (for those who don't know, english ain't my first language, so please forgive me if i come out as an ass when going in length) but one of valid reason in the domain of music to regulate it is that it takes bandwidth of revenue from organic creators. Yes, it's at first setup by a human who inputs it's initial basis from which to learn but then it can go on forever.

I won't link the channels but a bit over a year ago, an AI music stream was launched on Youtube, so basically an AI that lives within a channel, it's been "live streaming" music it generates since that time, it have learned to insert adds in it's stream and the more it learned it branched out in other styles as it's learning from all the organic content output on youtube. It then by itself created parents channels and started the same process of continuous stream and is just becoming more and more perfected at doing it.
It sure is at first glance impressive and all but it's a bit of a twisted concept that a non organic entity is making money and the broadcasting space it takes is taken from the hands of organics. An AI doesn't contribute to society, doesn't pay taxes, it's simply not defined as an individual, entity or whatever. And in the case of this particular AI that is cloning itself, essentially digital parthenogenesis, it also learned how to camouflage it's artificial origin so it can't be recognized by the common mortal listening music that in many case would prefer that the content they're consuming generates revenue that beneficiate creators in their livelihood.

I know it sounds crazy but it's a reality and it's cashing in as i'm typing this. It's a very slippery slope if it maintains it's free will status.

[jessenator]

Well said! Your English ain't too bad at all! It's better than my $secondLanguage -_-

Yeah specifically for music I agree it has the real life potential to push organic and smaller creators out, like you said. I think part of me imagines a sort of niche, cult classic like steam of "we're original! We don't use the machine except our ripping guitars!" sort of thing.

I mean, if you think about Pop music since… maybe since the beginning, there's been a formula that latches onto burgeoning tends. The Beatles are cool? Great, let's get some more! Oh Billy Joel is rocking the charts? Go go Eric Carmen! Nirvana flipped everything? WE LOVE GRUNGE NOW! MOVE OVER, AMY GRANT!

And don't get me started on today's tripe. You could argue the formulaic nature of pop production already is an algorithm, just going forward you won't need anything but a producer with a deep learning instruction book.

Don't get me wrong, i like the novelty of those "SpongeBob sings Big Iron" type channels, but it's just that: a novelty.


edit: typos (don't type on mobile late at night  : P )

[GrindCustoms]

Well said! Your English ain't too bad at all! It's better than my $secondLanguage -_-

Yeah specifically for music I agree it has the real life potential to push organic and smaller creators. I think part of me imagines a sort of niche, cult classic like steam of "we're original! We don't use the machine except our ripping guitars!" sort of thing.

I mean, if you think about Pop music since... maybe since the beginning, there's been a formula that latches onto burgeoning tends. The Beatles are cool? Great, let's get some more! Oh Billy Joel is rocking the charts? Go go Eric Carmen! Nirvana flipped everything? WE LOVE GRUNGE NOW! NICE OVER, AMY GRANT!

And don't get me started on today's tripe. You could argue the formulaic nature of pop production already is an algorithm, just going forward you won't need anything but a producer with a deep learning instruction book.

Don't get me wrong, i like the novelty of those "SpongeBob sings Big Iron" type channels, but it's just that: a novelty.

That's really well put, i don't really mind that thing, it can hit the dumpster... ...it's been on the same groove and tempo for decades now lol... ...and sampling of classics is such a huge part of what makes the "canvas" of that style that to an extent, either be organics or AI it will be the same regurgitated product. Although i still have to give some credit to the pop culture as it sometime offers glimpse of other music culture and becomes a gateway into those less mainstream genres, so i can respect that and acknowledge some relevance to it.

So yeah, i really like these conversations as it help me define my understanding of it and likely open my acceptance on certain aspect or reinforce my objection on others but it's all for the sake of knowing better.  Overall, where i find the use of AI in a non regulated manner hurtful is truly with anything that has to do with Art. Music, graphic artist, etc are getting serious drawback from it as we speak.

Far as the political implication, decision making and all that crap, i'd rather not dwell in that territory on a public platform, especially nowaday where it's more divisive than ever and i'm here to have a good time with people that share similar interest.

Discussing the precise matters without bringing those social and political bias in, bring it on man! I'll always be there to perfect our common understanding of the matter at hand. There's beauty in dialogue and it's getting lost. (Damn... imma become a preacher lmao)

[blearyeyes]

After AI becomes commonplace there will be a better defined market for 100% Human Made Organic Music.
H-MOM.    My new band: The Organics

 

[jessenator]

After AI becomes commonplace there will be a better defined market for 100% Human Made Organic Music.
H-MOM.    My new band: The Organics

heheheh

I can definitely see it leveling out.

That's really well put, i don't really mind that thing, it can hit the dumpster... ...it's been on the same groove and tempo for decades now lol... ...and sampling of classics is such a huge part of what makes the "canvas" of that style that to an extent, either be organics or AI it will be the same regurgitated product. Although i still have to give some credit to the pop culture as it sometime offers glimpse of other music culture and becomes a gateway into those less mainstream genres, so i can respect that and acknowledge some relevance to it.

So yeah, i really like these conversations as it help me define my understanding of it and likely open my acceptance on certain aspect or reinforce my objection on others but it's all for the sake of knowing better.  Overall, where i find the use of AI in a non regulated manner hurtful is truly with anything that has to do with Art. Music, graphic artist, etc are getting serious drawback from it as we speak.

Far as the political implication, decision making and all that crap, i'd rather not dwell in that territory on a public platform, especially nowaday where it's more divisive than ever and i'm here to have a good time with people that share similar interest.

Discussing the precise matters without bringing those social and political bias in, bring it on man! I'll always be there to perfect our common understanding of the matter at hand. There's beauty in dialogue and it's getting lost. (Damn... imma become a preacher lmao)

Thank you   and I agree, I'll tone it down in the pol department. I think jimi's got a point that drastic curtailing of the technology could have negative implications and stifle the innovation. It's all about balance ...but not in the Thanos way

It'll also be interesting to see how the lawsuits from the visual art land. A number of artists have joined a class-action, so we'll see. From a completely theory/practicum perspective, it would be relatively safe I think to draw from the old masters who no longer have estates to litigate, and perhaps the public domain—maybe this is already covered, and common knowledge.

As has been mentioned, AI gen art is only as good as the material it draws the deep learning from. I used a program called Diffusion Bee which ran natively on my work laptop (apple silicon), and boy was it utter shite hahaha. you can supposedly add in additional libraries, but I never tinkered with that.

Back to music, the legality of 'learning' from public domain would be relatively lawsuit free, too, I imagine. But it (and probably the visual art side) poses the same argument as to ethics(?).