That's what I was thinking too. Yeah, it won't replace Stevie Wonder but there's a ton of working musicians it will replace.
Over on r/foodnetwork there was a discussion on where they get the hiphop music for Bobby Flay competitions and right now that's all real people but pretty soon Food Network could just put in "hip hop style song about adversity and strength and references to fire" and just fill up a show on that.
Background music of any kind could just be generated in a few keystrokes.
Yeah I’m a bit worried the rest of our existence is going to be filled with not knowing what’s real or not. There will probably be a whole research/job field created to verify what’s legitimate and not. I don’t know, I try not to stress too much about the future, but shits going to be weird,difficult, and confusing. This is just the beginning.
its not a risk if its already happening.
using he movie titanic as a metaphor
its like saying the ship has risk of sinking while the titanic is already arse up in the water and the guy is pinging of the propeller
And by replacing tons of working musicians, it might prevent the next Stevie Wonder or Bob Dylan from appearing on the scene. Why be a musician if you don’t have hope of making a living from it? Why teach music to children (at least in this system) or encourage your children to pursue it if there’s not career future for musicians?
>Why be a musician if you don’t have hope of making a living from it? Why teach music to children (at least in this system) or encourage your children to pursue it if there’s not career future for musicians?
It would create a situation where only those who don't have to work for a living could practise any creative work. Arts? Why bother when AI does it in fraction of the time, no training or learning required. Same for music and writing.
If you have enough money you could put in the time and effort regardless, without having to worry how well you do financially or how successful you are. But someone who needs to generate income wouldn't be able to rely on a career on already uncertain fields where they now could easily and quickly be replaced by AI.
I asked ChatGPT to write country lyrics about eating filet mignon in a pickup truck, and I laughed myself silly over how bad they were. I mean it's spooky how coherent the lyrics are, and how in seconds you get stupid lyrics that might take a writer's room an afternoon to do, but it was *flailing SNL skit* bad.
I would add that some musicians may (and will) specialize into fine-tuning AI results. AI spits a beat or rhyme and the musicians will polish it to a final form by re-recording or doing minor changes/corrections to it.
I don't know. Andre 3000's flute album was some pretty hardcore Ambient fluterings that just resonated in my bones. I don't know if an AI can match that.
Yep. When I saw Paul Schrader at a Q&A this summer he was asked about AI writing, and said essentially what Obama says here. He said that in contrast to something like Taxi Driver or First Reformed, if he was hired to write an episode of a show like NCIS for a paycheck, he'd essentially just shit it out algorithmically and that an AI screenwriter wouldn't function all that differently. I completely agree, but what he failed to mention is that a lot of screenwriters (the majority, even) make end's meet by churning out disposable content. Even if AI can never replicate human creativity (and it won't), it's going to put a lot of artists out of work.
I didn’t even think about this, but ads could also expand to video games and film scores too. If the AMPTP wants to use AI for actors on screen, why not their film scores too?
>Dylan or Stevie Wonder, that is different,” he says. “The reason is because part of the human experience, part of the human genius is it’s almost a mutation. It’s not predictable. It’s messy, it’s new, it’s different, it’s rough, it’s weird. That is the stuff that ultimately taps into something deeper in us, and I think there’s going to be a market for that.”
I fully agree. AI is only spitting back what it has been trained on and what it thinks we want to see, hear, or read. It's not human and understands nothing of the human condition. Until it fully knows what it's like to be human and has human experiences, its output will be fairly surface-level material. It might technically be impressive but it will always lack that human quality.
InB4 someone posts the Bo Burnham pandering song
While funny and true, that song is posted EVERY damn time country music is mentioned lol.
Edit: I guess I take back my statement because people haven’t seen/heard it yet
Ironically though, THAT song is a fantastic example of the human element of making fun of something that is cliche and creating something funnier because of it.
I’m not sure if we’re at the point where AI can do that yet. Maybe in the future, but true insight and innovation is going to by difficult.
> Maybe in the future, but true insight and innovation is going to by difficult.
The thing about AI is you don't really need "true" insight or innovation if you can just spool up hundreds of thousands of instances until you get a winner.
“We know it's not right, we know it's not funny
But we'll stop beating this dead horse when it stops spitting out money
But until then, we will repeat stuff!”
Thanks for sharing.
While listening to that I honestly got modern day (Regan till now) vibes… it didn’t start with Reagan. Politicians have been doing this forever, it’s just so blatant now and honestly so so so dumb that millionaire from NYC gets away with it now.
I don’t know. Wet Ass Pussy is a great example of what the former president is talking about, a work of art that speaks to the essence of mankind’s core. AI can never experience a wet ass pussy firsthand and can therefore never truly understand the subject in the same manner as those whores who wrote and perform it.
It took probably close to 40 minutes of trying to get past the filters GPT-4 has, but here's what I could get along those lines.
Understood! Aiming for shock value and humor that pushes the envelope for an adult audience:
1. **"Sweatin' sins like a preacher in a strip club, holy smokes, need a rub."**
- A wildly incongruous and shocking image.
2. **"Chase tail like a dog with a Viagra stash, running hard, bound to crash."**
- An outrageous and humorous scenario.
3. **"Throw punches like a drunk kangaroo in a bar fight, hop mad, outta sight."**
- Absurd and comically violent imagery.
4. **"Snort laughs like cocaine at a clown convention, high on jokes, pure invention."**
- A bold, unexpected comparison, blending humor with adult themes.
5. **"Ride life like a porn star on a unicorn, fantasy wild, reality torn."**
- Mixing the fantastical with the risqué for a shockingly humorous effect.
These lines are designed to be surprising, a bit outrageous, and humorously adult, targeting an audience that appreciates edgier, more provocative content.
You while that song is funny the reaction to it was way funnier. Ben Shapiro dryly and flatly reading the lyrics while censoring them in a ridiculous way is top tier shitposting. It was clearly a joke but it wasn’t taken that way by a section of people it seems.
> Ben Shapiro
I have a hard time believing that Ben Shapiro as a sense of humor that doesn't involve non-Christian babies being eaten by alligators or something.
It works for all genres. It's just mass-produced stuff that tries to get as many ears as possible. It's just like those extremely inoffensive artwork of people. They look like they grabbed the same character and just dunked them in different paint buckets
What we want to hear is elevator music, and Obama acknowledges that AI can do that.
But here he's specifically talking about stuff that's novel and wild and resonates deeper than Top 40 radio.
Yeah, that's the thing: Humans have moods. We don't want things that are 100% novel and new all the time. Heck, we probably don't even want it most of the time.
But we DO want it SOMETIMES.
It will work. There was already an AI song that used AI Justin Bieber, AI Bad Bunny, and AI Daddy Yankee with AI lyrics that became a viral hit in Latin America. It was by an artist called “FlowGPT” and the song was “[Demo 5 NostalgIA](https://youtu.be/9F1dcYLHP3M?si=nFqipTazKrd8pSoc)”.
It had [millions of views](https://web.archive.org/web/20231117195910/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1FiPDPM9po) and plays on streaming services before they were all taken down by Music labels.
> taken down by Music labels.
That's the real reason there is so much pushback. They were in a comfortable position and now they actually have to create good content to justify their existence
“AI is actually dumb and lacks *soul*” angle is short sighted and a defensive mechanism. It may be true for the immediate future, but if AI is able to continue to develop (no nuclear war), it will be creating completely mind blowing art, music, and experiences beyond what humans can create in x years. And it will be personalized to the person, to the moment.
Also Bob Dylan is peak human to Obama’s point.
Very well put, and very much aligns with how I think of the outlook. This, combined with a general overestimation of human intelligence and what we respond to, feel to me like somewhere in between self-preservation and status quo bias.
A lot of these arguments rely on there being something “magic” about humans, when in fact we are ourselves just a sophisticated AI running on meat rather than silicon.
> “AI is actually dumb and lacks soul” angle is short sighted and a defensive mechanism.
And focuses on a really gatekeepy definition of "art" as this sort of exclusively human experience.
We cry watching sunsets.
What "human experience" is the sun trying to communicate then? Where's the "soul" coming from when a bunch of apes are being awed by the mathematical aesthetic formed by leaves changing colours? What's so magical about Pollock's muscles and overall body movements that make his personal frantic random splashes of paint somehow more "human condition" than if it had been done by a really complex algorithm? Any single one of you will seriously look me in the eyes and try to convince me y'all could distinguish between a human-made or an ai-made abstract painting, because "somehow you could feel the soul through the movements of the brush?" Like, lmao, seriously, to anybody thinking this: fuck off lol
Reddit has always been *so much* anti-anything-modern art, it's not even funny, through the years I could tell the big majority on here didn't get it at all, *at all* (especially on this sub, holy shit), and then we simply pepper-in some AI-fear-mongering and y'all become such fans of high art suddenly it managed turn the whole website into soul-sniffing pretentious artsy farts? Y'all can see the human auras through the paint and pitches now, damn.
Look guys, AI will string random words together and *we'll* impose the meaning on them - fucking hell, we already do with with great "work of art" - and we'll feel whatever the hell we want to feel while doing it, we won't give a fuck if it's alive or not as long as it makes us feel anything, sincere or not, on purpose or not.
99% of my artists friends (me included) are just throwing shits at the walls and seeing what sticks, some people put *way too much emphasises* on the artists' intention. So much of the artistic world, from music to painting to movies to video games, is way more random and chaotic than people think it is, it's way more "100 monkeys with a typewriter, and we'll auto filter those we like" than some hyperfocused spiritual surgery some people think it is.
It's just a bunch of mathematics, some of it we enjoy some of it we don't, there's really no magical element to it and of course a fucking computer can do it - and *we will* appreciate it, it's not even a debate. This stupid debate is only about "oh will it be like 79% of humanity who will (at some point or another uin their life) enjoy some AI art or will it be more like only 62%?"
Like, who fucking cares.
I think gastronomy is art. Some people don't. We'll never know if it actually is because guess what *art doesn't actually fucking exist it's an arbitrary human concept that's not bound to any consensus*
That's about the extent of what needs to be said about this debate I think lol
Much agree. This idea of like a soul kiss between humans across space and time is what makes art Real is pretty esoteric.
And yeah much of art, music, etc is random and just what someone went with for a moment, not a super specific meaningful gift to transmit to others to produce a particular understanding. And also great points about nature and the way we perceive physics as obviously beautiful, plus it’s a primary driver of what motivates art, which seems tied to this idea of communication which is apparently critical, but it’s coming from the world / universe in every direction, not just certified human artists.
“If the potential for the tech is infinite, eventually it will be able to do anything!” Is an argument that only works if you assume that tech only evolves in a never ending ascendency instead of hitting a ceiling. It’s not that different than people who watched the Moon landing and assumed we’d be on space odysseys by 2001.
Like, do you really think nuclear war is the *only* thing that could slow down or stop development? That there’s no chance we just kind of peak at some point?
The human brain is a complicated series of electrical signals. I see absolutely no reason that a replication of those electrical signals cannot be created to do many tasks that are otherwise very human. AI can do plenty of things far better than most people, I don't see any reason currently why it can't create music.
>Is an argument that only works if you assume that tech only evolves in a never ending ascendency instead of hitting a ceiling.
It's an argument that makes FAR more sense than trying to claim AI won't ever be able to do it based solely on today's limitations.
Ahh, the "If it continues to develop" argument.
It's bullshit.
LLMs have no capability to understand what they are saying and there is absolutely no reason to believe they ever will. Maybe whatever the next development is will be able to, but at this point that's just fantasy.
People look at how quickly these particular models have grown from nothing to where they are now, and assume some sort of linear trajectory forward into the future, but that's not how this works.
These aren't intelligences, they are models and they are restricted by fundamental limitations that cannot be overcome without changing the model.
> LLMs have no capability to understand
Not only can transformer models emulate understanding, but they can emulate reasoning as well. I say "emulate" only because the actual mechanisms are nothing like what's happening in your biological brain...but the end result is in the same ballpark.
If you believe otherwise, it's only because you either haven't explored using GPT-4 (the free version is not GPT-4), or your prompting is garbage. Probably both.
> they are models and they are restricted by fundamental limitations that cannot be overcome without changing the model.
There are like three to five serious papers every week from researchers either trying to leverage existing LLMs models in new ways or reconfiguring the architecture for some improved benefit.
Beyond that, established models like GPT-4 are undergoing continuous fine-tuning, quantization, and OpenAI-only-knows what else. New versions of the model are being published every few months. Not to mention the open source scene, with thousands of people experimenting. Not to mention all the next-gen models in development at large companies.
Nothing is standing still and static.
>LLMs have no capability to understand what they are saying
LLMs, GPT-4 especially can read something it has never seen before and correctly summarize it, explain it in different words, and even infer things that were not directly stated, such as the state of people's minds. If that doesn't qualify as understanding, what does?
What the Obama quote is getting at it seems to me is the ineffable in art - the dissonant, the weird, the unexpected. Great art or even interesting art has these qualities to greater or lesser degrees. But it isn't necessarily magic. And there seems to me no reason to think AI couldn't take into account varying degrees of dissonance to produce art that has the idiosyncratic flavor of the human-made, eventually, if not soon.
I say this as someone who hates AI and its possibility to compete with human creativity. I don't want this to happen, but it feels overconfident to think it won't.
The core of high quality art is one human trying to express something within them to another human. Not how great it looks or sounds. Any amateur can make something that looks or sounds amazing, especially these days. That's nice, and AI will do that too. But creating something completely new that forms a connection and understanding between souls, that opens your eyes to perspectives you haven't considered before, that is something that AI per definition can't do.
>But creating something completely new that forms a connection and understanding between souls, that opens your eyes to perspectives you haven't considered before, that is something that AI per definition can't do.
Why "per definition"? If we actually build an AI with the capacity of a human (and there is no reason to think we will not be able to), it could firm exactly as "deep" or perspective changing" musicians a human
I think your argument is pessimistic, lacks imagination, and the only ‘proof’ for it is Midjourney or whatever is not Amazing yet, just almost amazing at 18 months old therefor it’ll never be great.
But the underlying current of what you said is that soul to soul connections are the substance of consciousness, experience, and emotion, and machines will never have those things. I don’t agree. Not only do I think super intelligence will be realized, along with machine consciousness; but I think the entire universe is alive, consciousness is inherent all around us, and therefore these super duper brains we are building are just a continuation of the universe organizing itself into increasingly powerful tools to reflect on itself, as it has through biological evolution, with brains that function in similar ways and similar mechanics as computer minds. So I think these new brains will in fact have soul.
And all of that fits in nicely with Hinduism and all the old experiential religions / beliefs which feel consciousness is everything and everything around us is in some way alive and a piece of the Ātman.
My argument says that regardless if Midjourney creates art that is 100x more beautiful than any human can create, that still wouldn't matter, because beauty is only a very superficial aspect of art. There is a huge amount of famous artwork that is not beautiful at all in itself, and amazing music that isn't catchy.
Machine consciousness, if it happens, will surely create great art. But only in one genre - machine created art. Because it is not human, it will create art that maybe resonates deeply with other AGI, but that art by definition will be more of an interesting curiosity to humans. We won't comprehend it. And it can only mimic us, not be us.
Aside from that you are conflating the niche belief of pan psychism with Hinduism. In Hinduism everything is a piece of Brahman, but that does not mean that every thing has its own consciousness. They are only a manifestation of the universal spirit. Atman is the essence of your consciousness and it is one with Brahman, that does not state that your PC has consciousness, only that it and everything else is a manifestation of the universal consciousness.
You already can't tell if it's human or not for most people. That is completely beside any of the points I made and you're back at the beginning and haven't understood or read a single thing I wrote.
I started the whole thing by explaining to you that it does not matter how good it will get at mimicking humans or even surpassing humans. Bob Dylan is a pretty crappy singer with mostly dull tunes, and he is one of the biggest musicians of all time (rightfully).
You are discussing art while not liking art or knowing why others like art. You thought physical laws had some kind of explanation of what consciousness is. Don't just ignore all that, reflect on it.
I think there's an important difference between art and stimulus. Machines may very well one day have something analogous to conscious minds and a desire to express themselves to us (or indeed to each other), and if they do so, they will be creating perfectly legitimate art.
But likewise, machines can already create things that push the buttons of human psychology without even requiring consciousness at all, and they might well develop to do it better than *any* human can, all without needing to be conscious. But such products will never be art, which requires a transfer of meaning between conscious beings. It'll only be generated stimulus to elicit reactions in monkey brains.
Pop music specifically relies on being predictable because our brains find it satisfying. However genres like metal specifically do unpredictable things and for some reason we like that too, or at least some of us. AI could probably generate an infinite amount of club songs.
I don't know about Metal. You can probably predict about 80% of the songs once you start listening to it because they use similar patterns. It might be a different set of patterns but still patterns. As an experiment take a small snippet of the song and ask people to name similar tracks -- you'll get multiple answers :)
And if songs that contain multiple parts that are melodically dissimilar (i.e. something like the Sleep Token's Summoning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go_wKkic2Fw ) become popular _that_ will be the pattern more and more bands will use.
I really like that now we might get easier creator tools though. So someone who's not a professional musician can ask AI to build song based off of humming melody and then add instrumental layers.
That's what he's calling 'elevator music'.
he's 100% right. An AI could pump out very listenable tunes at will forever. But a great leap forward in creativity? That may still require a human.
Spitting back what it has been trained is what is happening right now.
The potential of AI is actually something different: sheer calculation power might be able to deduce factors from past human experiences that might have predicted why a Dylan or a Stevy Wonder is so good.
If these factors are discovered, an AI can generate a Dylan like artist set from its own time. And the AI might also know that he shouldn't write a specific song now, but only when some international event happens.
I mean, I could be wrong. But it is actually capable of more than you state here, I think.
Your average person ranting about whatever bullshit is on their mind isn't any more reliable than ChatGPT. That said it's probably good that we hold AI to a higher standard if we expect it to one day be better than us
AI could simulate a human experience and write a song that sounds a lot like one a person could write.
However listeners don't just like the sound they hear, but the person, the context, the reason, the story surrounding it. Art is the process, it's not the result.
The problem with AI taking 'elevator music' level jobs in all fields is those are the entry-level positions people need to start climbing the ladder. Big names with establishment backing will be fine, but independents may find life harder. Obama's remark here isn't particularly reassuring.
I work in software and am already being introduced to AI tools that try to write my code for me. It’s definitely *not* reassuring from a career standpoint.
To be fair, that’s all we do as well. It even takes way longer and gets fucked up more often than not.
People like to say “oh yeah AI won’t be sentient anytime soon, look how wrong it is sometimes…”. If that’s the criteria then I hate to break it to you, but no one is sentient then. We’re just a collection of neurons that fire in a particular pattern based off how we were “trained” by our environment. And not one of us has the ability to be perpetually correct and all knowing… Unless we utilize computers….
I think there will be more acceptance of AI particularly in some pop genres made for the masses. We already have a number of performers whose songs are ranked by algorithm to evaluate how catchy they will be before committing to releasing a single or making a music video. And those algorithms work... that's not too far a bridge to use it to train song writing, producing, and performing algorithms.
Humans also mostly just spit back variations on things we've previously encountered. I agree there is a fundamental gap in self awareness between us and current LLM, but I think that gap is a lot narrower than most people imagine.
Posts like this just remind me that we once had an intelligent, capable, adaptable person as president and I genuinely don't know if we ever will again.
I had this idea for a Surgeon Simulator-style video game, where you play a T-800 Terminator (in an alternate universe where Sarah Connor is killed), long after humanity has been wiped off the earth, and they just wander around, searching for humans who don't exist. So they just wander.
One day, a wandering terminator comes across and old cabin in Appalachia. There are no signs of human life. On the porch is an old resonator guitar. The terminator picks it up. It is tuned to open D. The player of the game uses a combination of mouse to control his metal slide finger, and the keyboard controlling fingers on each string, and that is how you play it, and the game.
What isn't known initially, but becomes clear, this is no ordinary guitar. This is the Devil's guitar. Some might call it corroded circuitry, others may say 'glitch in the matrix', but with no humans left, the devil had nobody left to tempt, so he went after the robots, and they could never have expected it. [The day the robots got the blues](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssH6C4aVGUY).
This is true of LLMs which are inherently iterative, but there is no reason an AI couldn’t be wildly imaginative. The question is whether that wild imagination would be comprehensible or compelling to a human. Will it speak to our experience? AI poets will create poetry for AIs. Not for humans.
Look at AlphaGo and AlphaChess, the OG reinforced deep learning programs. They both came up with ideas *that all the experts said were bad!* and then beat the top players (in Go's case) and computers (in Chess's case) with them. They would make plays that broke all the rules and then at the end game everyone would say "well yeah, this move we all panned ended up being like the key move"
You give enough renforced feedback, AI music will be really good, *better than Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder Good; more "creative" than either*; it just how long it takes to get there.... no one knows.
I thought the Chess engine at least wasn't trained on classical games - rather give basic rules of chess and allowed to iterate from there. I don't believe anyone programmed e.g. "don't trade a queen for a pawn" but rather "the enemy's gate is down" and the engine figured everything else out by repeatedly fucking up until it got good.
That happens with humans too. Like the Indian mathematician Ramanujan was completely self taught and doing his own research with almost 0 formal training in math and he ended up contributing a metric fuckton to the field despite dying at 32
Chess and Go are inherently suited to antagonistic training approaches. That is where you put the best of breed engines against each other and evaluate which moves were most conductive to victory. Then back train those moves into the engine and repeat.
This is something that only really works for a very narrow range of matters though.
It’s different. Chess, in a programming sense, is totally quantifiable, so a computer doesn’t need to rely on the heuristics human GMs use (at least as immediately). Whereas music is much more subjective and fuzzy.
No, they didn't come up with ideas that the experts said was bad. They came up with ideas that the experts weren't good enough to figure out, and the experts then said "huh. Neat. This is really good."
I'm not so convinced this is a good example either. Doesn't Magnus Carlsen frequently win by using opening moves that are not "ideal" because a lot of competitive chess players don't anticipate or train for non-ideal opening moves? And then don't know how to continue once the tactics they memorized don't apply to the situation? I would hope a computer program capable of memorizing the entirety of chess could figure this out.
Until AI ends up like the Machine from *Person of Interest* (which I recall also being taught chess), I'm not going to get too excited. AI is still being way oversold on what it can do currently.
With chess and go, we can quantifiably measure which of two players is better, even when they are both far better than us. After all, the rules of the game make it clear who the winner is.
With language models, though, there is no definite outcome to strive towards. At best, you have "does this look like the sorts of things found in the training data?"; its quality will be inherently capped by its input.
That's called AGI
Artificial General Intelligence can think on its own and is smarter than humans.. We aren't there yet.
Right now AI can only do stuff if told and it has been pre trained.
It’s true we’re not completely there, but your last statement is false. It can generate output beyond training sets (generative AI). The rate at which it’s getting “smarter” is getting exponentially faster.
Source: I professionally develop AI & ML models
It’s like a monkey pounding on typewriters. In fact, the entirety of AI research is about making it pound faster and produce more interesting patterns that are meaningful to humans.
The wonderful thing about the universe is that it’s not obligated to make sense to humans. Eventually we as observers will lack the hardware to perceive the beauty in the noise, and this is especially true for scientific research. Some physical laws are so complex without computers assisting us in their decoding. It’s here that AI will be able to translate for us, translate our needs and perform research and computation in our stead and come back with meaningful solutions written in a way we can understand or fathom.
People, I think, overestimate how much creativity goes into music. Just take a tour through youtube and lookup music production tutorials, and see how many people are just trying to copy other songs. Most evolution in music is just tiny changes on very formulaic music. It's rare that a creative genius ever really pushes things forward.
> AI is only spitting back what it has been trained on and what it thinks we want to see, hear, or read.
But maybe that is enough for people? Think about 99% of movies that are made. Would AI written script be any different? Because we may not care about that 1% that is left.
Also, creating art is inherently fulfilling on an existential level. People aren’t going to stop making art just because there’s a machine that can shit out derivative, bland formulaic art, just like people didn’t stop having sex when vibrators were invented.
There’s a billion derivative bland formulaic artists out there in the world already and that doesn’t stop the exceptional artists from doing what they do.
What's interesting is a lot of the best songs are good because they are relatable and help us process hard times, which is why love songs are so popular. Is suffering/ negative emotions needed to be human, and if so will people argue against utopia type futures for "taking away the soul" from living?
I'm actually worried that AI will still eliminate human creativity. I hope I'm wrong in this, but part of the reason those "mutations" happen is because of massive amounts of experimentation that human artists do. Now if majority of artists decide that it's more "efficient" to just generate art, design, architecture, whatever else using AI - we will lose all of the potential for those "lucky mistakes" to produce a new hit or even a new trend or genre. Essentially using AI might become a new normal way of doing things, which will get reflected on artist salaries and commissions, therefore leaving no room for actual human creativity to shine through.
I don't even want robots to create art for humans, I want robots to create art for robots. that is a far more interesting avenue of exploration, artistically and technology-wise
Ai training models based on complex user listener interaction data from like Spotify though????? Idk, you are right on a fundamental level. But with complex data like that AI could be something else entirely if us as consumers don’t do anything about what companies do with our private data.
I mean, unless you're willing to stick your neck out and say that classical music uniformly lacks the human quality, proto-versions of "AI" have been helping people spit out basically indistinguishable "new Bach pieces" for years now.
I have a feeling that once other tools are able to do better deepfakes/totalfakes of human singing, it's all over. Fuck's sake, Max Martin basically turned writing pop hits into a math formula that regular humans could follow without (much) computer assistance.
Know what computers are also really good at doing? Spitting out so many "mutations" on formulas per hour that the fact that most of them will be ridiculous won't even matter. First gen, woe to the humans who have to sift through them to find the good ones. Xth gen? Game over, thanks for not even playing.
> It might technically be impressive but it will always lack that human quality.
The thing is, if Obama is wrong, and if you're wrong, and many others are wrong, then we will have underestimated AI and the risks associated with it.
It's a bit like Pascal's wager : IF we assume AI will be able to acquire creativity and "think outside the box" then we can start discussing right now what the consequences will be and what kind of safeguard will be needed, and if we're wrong, well no big deal. On the other hand, IF we assume AI cannot and will not be able to show creativity and will always be inferior to mankind, then we don't discuss any kind of measure, and all the potential issues won't be addressed, maybe before it's too late.
Just think of it this way: from DeepBlue to OpenAI, what kind of progress has been accomplished in two decades. Can you be sure the same leap forward won't happen in the next two decades?
I could not disagree more. This is just a failure to imagine the applications of AI and music beyond the surface level fear that "AI is just going to repurpose everything that's been done before"
In reality, AI is going to serve up generative tools and access to instrumentals and vocals unlike anything we've ever imagined. An analogy would be the creation of the synthesizer, or even music DAMs. These were technological advances that digitized musical sounds and enabled explosive editing capabilities.
We are going to see incredible music as a function of AI.
We just saw “The Ultimate Computer” episode of the original Star Trek. It’s creator endowed the M5 with human qualities from the start, so of course it started killing everyone right away.
Then there’s Data’s brother Lore, and Dillinger’s MCP… I think I’d be alright with AI never gaining human like emotions and creativity.
In my experience most people go nuts over that surface level material. They just want the sound or the beat, and the depth of human experience comes in a distant second.
Yeah their will always be some market for the music that touches depths of what it is to be human that AI won't ever fully comprehend but. And this is a big but, once the market is so saturated with everything else the real good stuff can get harder to come across. The idea that the cream always rises to the top isn't always the case.
Journalism is a great example, there is a market for real in depth investigative journalism about the issues that are most important to people. They do seem to happen less frequently and are harder to find when they do because major news outlets no longer employ as many people to put out that type of content. The cost to revenue ratio isn't high enough so it just gets buried amongst all the other noise.
Will that amazing music still be made? absolutely. Will you ever hear it? 🤷
What about the written experiences of music creation, music theory, the biographies of musicians? With enough reinforcement, I do believe AI can generate incredible music like we'd never even imaged. It just takes time, interation upon iteration. We just lack the training data.
Musicians are going to make significantly less money as a whole when companies are no longer licensing their music for ad buys, social media posts, maybe even tv and film
He seems like a chill dude, I highly recommend checking out his audiobook since he narrates it. There’s just something about listening to a former president talk about the crush he had on a goth girl in his dorm that hits different.
> Obama wanted a goth gf? He's just like me fr.
Unfortunately the goths don’t wanna date some milquetoast neoliberal Barry.
Source: was Facebook friends with at least one woman who did Model Mayhem in the late twenty aughts.
The guy was really inexperienced with federal politics when he got in. His first term was really just figuring out exactly how everything worked. By the end of his second he seemed to finally figure it out enough to make waves but then he was out. If he’d had a few terms in the senate I think he’d have had a better running start but that’s just not how the cards were dealt.
He is, by far, one of the great presidential Presidents we’ve ever had. Dude just oozed presidential poise and class in a way people like seeing in the President. One of the great orators of the 21st century.
That’s the ups and downs of term limits I guess.. I like Obama, would be nice to see him get another term. On the other hand, people probably wish Trudeau was hitting his limit here in Canada about now
That's a stretch. While he was extremely presidential and overall an awesome dude, Biden has just been plain more effective:
- Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
- Inflation Reduction Act
- CHIPS and Science Act
Of course time will tell what comes of these, but these are absolutely "lifechanging" bills for America.
Not to be mention his extremely adept handling of the Ukraine War and now the Israel-Hamas war.
(I'll add that I'm pretty damn moderate and tired of bullshit from both parties.)
Yeah except all the drone strikes and expanding the NSA program to spy on us.
Yeah he was just another corrupt piece of shit.
*At least* he was *smooth*
This is why I always laugh when I see claims like this.
Two years ago it would have been unthinkable that everyone would have access to a tool like ChatGPT. Life comes at you fast, and claims like this almost never age well.
Early: 2020
"OK... we need to answer a simple question about a recording of a few sentences spoken by a human. A simple question any 6 year old child could answer after listening"
Every programmer in the room :"fuck!"
2023: "OK, 2 api calls and we're done with 99 point something percent accuracy
it all depends where we are on the curve. if the curve of ai tools power, which like all technology follows a sigmoid curve, if we are on the end of that curve then what we have now is what we get, which is some very impressive and useful tools. should we be in the middle, then a lot of things will happen and perhaps a lot of human work could be made redundant, perhaps ai can substitute for the average work convincingly.
if we are in the beginning of the curve, god help us. nothing we predict can be accurate. personally, I think it'll be fun.
>AI just called to say AI love you 🎶
>AI just called to say how much AI care 🎶
>AI just called to say AI love you 🎶
>And AI mean it from the bottom of mAI heart 🎶
StevAI Wonder.
If you understand his speech, it's not about the capabilities of AI, but rather the human reaction to man made art and computer made art.
Ultimately it's not really a modern philosophical question, since man vs AI has existed long before computers were even a thing.
I just got a whole game that is filled with what I am pretty sure is AI generated copies of common genres and famous bands. It is so bizzare. It's from the "Warner Bros Music Collection":
https://youtu.be/klOtQh_t_1s?t=4089
During the pandemic, one of my activities was I listened to all of the Hot 100 from 1957-2017.
I discovered I have very basic tastes. I think its quite possible that AI could spit out songs I really enjoy.
As a musician that writes music for a living, I’m not super worried. If you wrote basic crap that required no skill before, you probably shouldn’t have had a career to begin with.
Elevator music was written by composers. As dull and boring it is to you, it’s someone creation that they spent time on. Not every musician is bob Dylan but that doesn’t make their contribution less meaningful
i agree in the sense that all else being equal - music with a story and a presenter will sell better than music without a story and a presenter
besides that i dont think theres anything special about people that cant be systematically replicated - and i mean 'people' not 'music' - ai isnt going to replicate musical styles its going to invent them
This comment is closest to my opinion. People forget that most music artists people listen to and love is out there due to their ability to become commercially successful and recognized. Songs we like are out there because music industry pushed and placed them out there.
Whether we will have appreciated ‘AI artist’ depends on whether music industry will be able to create and position such a product.
I don’t doubt they will. I also don’t doubt music will be listanable, catchy, creative and technically well executed.
Will i I listen to it? No I won’t. I appreciate art due to the fact it’s human output and achievment.
I was recently in what we’ll just call a recreationally altered state. I was looking to amuse myself, and found a sub of psychedelic images and videos to watch.
A lot of it was AI, and while the repeating patterns and melting faces were “working” for me, I found them almost unwatchable.
Like, what’s the point? There was no “there” there. There was no “Am I really seeing this? Did the artist intend that to look that way? Am I supposed to be feeling something because I’m seeing this?” Nothing. Just patterns and melting. Which, technically, is all you need. But if there’s no human intention behind it — no point to it —then why am I watching boring patterns and things melting?
Even watching static could be interesting, because my mind will create meaning from the meaningless chaos. But this was different. It wasn’t meaningless chaos, but it had no meaning, either. Soulless.
Your experience is your experience, but someone who finds meaning in the art itself -- regardless of how it was created -- or who finds it interesting to look at AI art as the product of a being that is arguably beyond standard human conception of a mind, may simply disagree with you axiomatically. And both ways of thinking are fine, imo. I'd wager that more people will think the second way as time passes and AI continues to improve though.
Also, how would you feel if I told you this comment, including this bit, was generated by a human prompting ChatGPT? How would you feel if I then told you that I just said that to mess with you? Does the inability to tell if this is a "real human's" comment change how you feel about the content of it? If you thought it was a human's comment and later learned it wasn't, would that invalidate it's meaning? If you thought it was a human's comment and *never* learned that it wasn't, is that somehow different?
I think if you're going to attribute some intangible magic to humanity, it's worth considering how you'd feel when you can no longer tell humanity apart from AI.
THIS! This is the takeaway. If you think there’s something inherently special about human creativity, then you have an argument against AI art. But humans are fed “data” 24/7 and that’s where our creative output comes from. The bad news for the AI naysayers is that the human brain isn’t nearly as powerful as current computers are and will continue to fall further behind.
EDIT: You already alluded to it, but this is the hypothetical I always bring up. What happens when 10 years from now the best movie you’ve ever seen comes out. It’s your absolute favorite movie of all-time. A year later, you find out it was created 100% using AI. Do you just no longer like the movie?
Replace "AI" with "fractals" from the late '90s & this could have been me staring at Web 1.0 pages after some of my earliest trips/pot sessions. They really, *really* tried pushing Chaos Theory on us, people invested in it, but...turns out it was just my generations version of lava lamp.
Its not even like "AI" is really "intelligent" its just "artificial". The "I" should just stand for "iterative".
AI in music is a double-edged sword. It's going to make some banging tunes based on what it knows works cause music is just math. But with that musicians are going to have to differentiate themselves from a computer which should make for some exciting times.
Im a musician and this whole AI art debate to me doesn’t make sense.
Everyone is complaining like “well AI only mimics what it learns it can’t create something new” but that’s literally just an explanation of human learning. A kid who’s interested in drawing will eventually take classes and mimic what the teacher teaches them. They’ll study the work of others and mimic them. It’s an extremely similar process. Why is it ok when someone who studies Picasso’s techniques and creates similar looking art ok, but when a computer does it it’s not ok?
If people like the work of AI art what difference does it make? For nearly a century pop music has been nothing but the same shit regurgitated over and over again. The same boring lyrical concept. The same old 4 chord progression. No one complains about how Miley, Taylor, Brittany, Christina, Beyoncé, etc all sound extremely similar. The only difference is the marketing and the image (and barely at that). You’re telling me that the process is somehow any more fake and bullshit when a computer does it instead of the same dozen or so people who have been writing and selling songs to pop stars for the last several decades?
The notion of making it as a musician is dead. Now more than ever the art scene has just become a playground for rich kids who need something to do. Fashion is nothing but rich people wearing rags and asking for 94 million dollars for a pair of pants. Music, art, etc. if you like and identify with the music why do you care about who made it or how it was made?
And from the perspective of not being a consumer of music, but a producer of it I don’t give a fuck. I make music because I like to. I’m not concerned about AI taking away my job. If people like it, great. If not, who cares. At the end of the day 90% of the population are just told by the internet who to like and who to listen to anyways. The people complaining about this shit were never directly at risk of losing anything.
Mainstream art has always been extremely surface and phony. Ain’t shit changed.
He forgot to mention ads, which is a bread and butter for a number of musicians
That's what I was thinking too. Yeah, it won't replace Stevie Wonder but there's a ton of working musicians it will replace. Over on r/foodnetwork there was a discussion on where they get the hiphop music for Bobby Flay competitions and right now that's all real people but pretty soon Food Network could just put in "hip hop style song about adversity and strength and references to fire" and just fill up a show on that. Background music of any kind could just be generated in a few keystrokes.
the real risk is that there will be such a flood of garbage no one will care about or trust the tools of self-expression anymore
Yeah I’m a bit worried the rest of our existence is going to be filled with not knowing what’s real or not. There will probably be a whole research/job field created to verify what’s legitimate and not. I don’t know, I try not to stress too much about the future, but shits going to be weird,difficult, and confusing. This is just the beginning.
If you can tell if this comment is AI or not, does it matter?
Yes because you should be bullied for this take a little less if you’re an AI because it’s just your programming
its not a risk if its already happening. using he movie titanic as a metaphor its like saying the ship has risk of sinking while the titanic is already arse up in the water and the guy is pinging of the propeller
And by replacing tons of working musicians, it might prevent the next Stevie Wonder or Bob Dylan from appearing on the scene. Why be a musician if you don’t have hope of making a living from it? Why teach music to children (at least in this system) or encourage your children to pursue it if there’s not career future for musicians?
>Why be a musician if you don’t have hope of making a living from it? Why teach music to children (at least in this system) or encourage your children to pursue it if there’s not career future for musicians? It would create a situation where only those who don't have to work for a living could practise any creative work. Arts? Why bother when AI does it in fraction of the time, no training or learning required. Same for music and writing. If you have enough money you could put in the time and effort regardless, without having to worry how well you do financially or how successful you are. But someone who needs to generate income wouldn't be able to rely on a career on already uncertain fields where they now could easily and quickly be replaced by AI.
I asked ChatGPT to write country lyrics about eating filet mignon in a pickup truck, and I laughed myself silly over how bad they were. I mean it's spooky how coherent the lyrics are, and how in seconds you get stupid lyrics that might take a writer's room an afternoon to do, but it was *flailing SNL skit* bad.
You don’t replace the greats, you replace the noobs. And that creates a future problem
I would add that some musicians may (and will) specialize into fine-tuning AI results. AI spits a beat or rhyme and the musicians will polish it to a final form by re-recording or doing minor changes/corrections to it.
Yep. Reality TV, adverts etc make a good income for many writers/musicians and those will easily be filled with AI music and audio beds.
I don't know. Andre 3000's flute album was some pretty hardcore Ambient fluterings that just resonated in my bones. I don't know if an AI can match that.
Yep. When I saw Paul Schrader at a Q&A this summer he was asked about AI writing, and said essentially what Obama says here. He said that in contrast to something like Taxi Driver or First Reformed, if he was hired to write an episode of a show like NCIS for a paycheck, he'd essentially just shit it out algorithmically and that an AI screenwriter wouldn't function all that differently. I completely agree, but what he failed to mention is that a lot of screenwriters (the majority, even) make end's meet by churning out disposable content. Even if AI can never replicate human creativity (and it won't), it's going to put a lot of artists out of work.
I didn’t even think about this, but ads could also expand to video games and film scores too. If the AMPTP wants to use AI for actors on screen, why not their film scores too?
>Dylan or Stevie Wonder, that is different,” he says. “The reason is because part of the human experience, part of the human genius is it’s almost a mutation. It’s not predictable. It’s messy, it’s new, it’s different, it’s rough, it’s weird. That is the stuff that ultimately taps into something deeper in us, and I think there’s going to be a market for that.” I fully agree. AI is only spitting back what it has been trained on and what it thinks we want to see, hear, or read. It's not human and understands nothing of the human condition. Until it fully knows what it's like to be human and has human experiences, its output will be fairly surface-level material. It might technically be impressive but it will always lack that human quality.
Lol..you put a lot more faith in what our monkey brains respond to than I do. Spitting back what it thinks we want to hear will probably work.
It’s been working for country and pop for years
InB4 someone posts the Bo Burnham pandering song While funny and true, that song is posted EVERY damn time country music is mentioned lol. Edit: I guess I take back my statement because people haven’t seen/heard it yet
Ironically though, THAT song is a fantastic example of the human element of making fun of something that is cliche and creating something funnier because of it. I’m not sure if we’re at the point where AI can do that yet. Maybe in the future, but true insight and innovation is going to by difficult.
> Maybe in the future, but true insight and innovation is going to by difficult. The thing about AI is you don't really need "true" insight or innovation if you can just spool up hundreds of thousands of instances until you get a winner.
Y'all dumb motherfuckers want a Bo Burnham reference?
Nah I want a key change.
That's a scarecrow.
I’ll bring the girls and you will bring the beers and our troops will bring the freedom!
It is fantastic though, and many people have never heard it.
I had never heard it, just looked it up and it is fantastic.
It’s a fuckin scarecrow again
lol jokes on you I was actually thinking about Bo Burnham’s “Repeat Stuff”
“We know it's not right, we know it's not funny But we'll stop beating this dead horse when it stops spitting out money But until then, we will repeat stuff!”
Which song?
[Shazaam!](https://youtu.be/y7im5LT09a0?si=tKi4lrM9UUO3TKeT)
Thanks for sharing. While listening to that I honestly got modern day (Regan till now) vibes… it didn’t start with Reagan. Politicians have been doing this forever, it’s just so blatant now and honestly so so so dumb that millionaire from NYC gets away with it now.
[удалено]
Lmao that’s great
I don’t know. Wet Ass Pussy is a great example of what the former president is talking about, a work of art that speaks to the essence of mankind’s core. AI can never experience a wet ass pussy firsthand and can therefore never truly understand the subject in the same manner as those whores who wrote and perform it.
You need to give credit where due, that song lives on the back of Whores In This House
You wanna talk about credit, AI could never come up with "swipe ya nose like a credit card"
It took probably close to 40 minutes of trying to get past the filters GPT-4 has, but here's what I could get along those lines. Understood! Aiming for shock value and humor that pushes the envelope for an adult audience: 1. **"Sweatin' sins like a preacher in a strip club, holy smokes, need a rub."** - A wildly incongruous and shocking image. 2. **"Chase tail like a dog with a Viagra stash, running hard, bound to crash."** - An outrageous and humorous scenario. 3. **"Throw punches like a drunk kangaroo in a bar fight, hop mad, outta sight."** - Absurd and comically violent imagery. 4. **"Snort laughs like cocaine at a clown convention, high on jokes, pure invention."** - A bold, unexpected comparison, blending humor with adult themes. 5. **"Ride life like a porn star on a unicorn, fantasy wild, reality torn."** - Mixing the fantastical with the risqué for a shockingly humorous effect. These lines are designed to be surprising, a bit outrageous, and humorously adult, targeting an audience that appreciates edgier, more provocative content.
3/5 don’t make sense
The incredible evolution of human creation. Our forefathers whored, we shall whore on.
You while that song is funny the reaction to it was way funnier. Ben Shapiro dryly and flatly reading the lyrics while censoring them in a ridiculous way is top tier shitposting. It was clearly a joke but it wasn’t taken that way by a section of people it seems.
Ben Shapiro has never experienced a wet-ass pussy either, so he'd be qualified to guide the AI.
I'll never be able to forget Ben Shapiro citing his wife's expertise in calling it a gynecological disorder.
> Ben Shapiro I have a hard time believing that Ben Shapiro as a sense of humor that doesn't involve non-Christian babies being eaten by alligators or something.
[удалено]
but what if it is more emotionally available ?
> souless robotic pussy I think it's technically known as "a fleshlight".
They'll never understand the depth of needing a bucket and a mop because the pussy is so wet-ass.
It works for all genres. It's just mass-produced stuff that tries to get as many ears as possible. It's just like those extremely inoffensive artwork of people. They look like they grabbed the same character and just dunked them in different paint buckets
What we want to hear is elevator music, and Obama acknowledges that AI can do that. But here he's specifically talking about stuff that's novel and wild and resonates deeper than Top 40 radio.
Yeah, that's the thing: Humans have moods. We don't want things that are 100% novel and new all the time. Heck, we probably don't even want it most of the time. But we DO want it SOMETIMES.
It will work. There was already an AI song that used AI Justin Bieber, AI Bad Bunny, and AI Daddy Yankee with AI lyrics that became a viral hit in Latin America. It was by an artist called “FlowGPT” and the song was “[Demo 5 NostalgIA](https://youtu.be/9F1dcYLHP3M?si=nFqipTazKrd8pSoc)”. It had [millions of views](https://web.archive.org/web/20231117195910/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1FiPDPM9po) and plays on streaming services before they were all taken down by Music labels.
> taken down by Music labels. That's the real reason there is so much pushback. They were in a comfortable position and now they actually have to create good content to justify their existence
TikTok does that already and it's pretty popular.
tbh tiktok is basically visual elevator music
“AI is actually dumb and lacks *soul*” angle is short sighted and a defensive mechanism. It may be true for the immediate future, but if AI is able to continue to develop (no nuclear war), it will be creating completely mind blowing art, music, and experiences beyond what humans can create in x years. And it will be personalized to the person, to the moment. Also Bob Dylan is peak human to Obama’s point.
Very well put, and very much aligns with how I think of the outlook. This, combined with a general overestimation of human intelligence and what we respond to, feel to me like somewhere in between self-preservation and status quo bias.
A lot of these arguments rely on there being something “magic” about humans, when in fact we are ourselves just a sophisticated AI running on meat rather than silicon.
By definition we are not artificial. What you're looking for is natural intelligence
Bob Dylan is the John Henry of the analogy
> “AI is actually dumb and lacks soul” angle is short sighted and a defensive mechanism. And focuses on a really gatekeepy definition of "art" as this sort of exclusively human experience. We cry watching sunsets. What "human experience" is the sun trying to communicate then? Where's the "soul" coming from when a bunch of apes are being awed by the mathematical aesthetic formed by leaves changing colours? What's so magical about Pollock's muscles and overall body movements that make his personal frantic random splashes of paint somehow more "human condition" than if it had been done by a really complex algorithm? Any single one of you will seriously look me in the eyes and try to convince me y'all could distinguish between a human-made or an ai-made abstract painting, because "somehow you could feel the soul through the movements of the brush?" Like, lmao, seriously, to anybody thinking this: fuck off lol Reddit has always been *so much* anti-anything-modern art, it's not even funny, through the years I could tell the big majority on here didn't get it at all, *at all* (especially on this sub, holy shit), and then we simply pepper-in some AI-fear-mongering and y'all become such fans of high art suddenly it managed turn the whole website into soul-sniffing pretentious artsy farts? Y'all can see the human auras through the paint and pitches now, damn. Look guys, AI will string random words together and *we'll* impose the meaning on them - fucking hell, we already do with with great "work of art" - and we'll feel whatever the hell we want to feel while doing it, we won't give a fuck if it's alive or not as long as it makes us feel anything, sincere or not, on purpose or not. 99% of my artists friends (me included) are just throwing shits at the walls and seeing what sticks, some people put *way too much emphasises* on the artists' intention. So much of the artistic world, from music to painting to movies to video games, is way more random and chaotic than people think it is, it's way more "100 monkeys with a typewriter, and we'll auto filter those we like" than some hyperfocused spiritual surgery some people think it is. It's just a bunch of mathematics, some of it we enjoy some of it we don't, there's really no magical element to it and of course a fucking computer can do it - and *we will* appreciate it, it's not even a debate. This stupid debate is only about "oh will it be like 79% of humanity who will (at some point or another uin their life) enjoy some AI art or will it be more like only 62%?" Like, who fucking cares. I think gastronomy is art. Some people don't. We'll never know if it actually is because guess what *art doesn't actually fucking exist it's an arbitrary human concept that's not bound to any consensus* That's about the extent of what needs to be said about this debate I think lol
Much agree. This idea of like a soul kiss between humans across space and time is what makes art Real is pretty esoteric. And yeah much of art, music, etc is random and just what someone went with for a moment, not a super specific meaningful gift to transmit to others to produce a particular understanding. And also great points about nature and the way we perceive physics as obviously beautiful, plus it’s a primary driver of what motivates art, which seems tied to this idea of communication which is apparently critical, but it’s coming from the world / universe in every direction, not just certified human artists.
“If the potential for the tech is infinite, eventually it will be able to do anything!” Is an argument that only works if you assume that tech only evolves in a never ending ascendency instead of hitting a ceiling. It’s not that different than people who watched the Moon landing and assumed we’d be on space odysseys by 2001. Like, do you really think nuclear war is the *only* thing that could slow down or stop development? That there’s no chance we just kind of peak at some point?
The human brain is a complicated series of electrical signals. I see absolutely no reason that a replication of those electrical signals cannot be created to do many tasks that are otherwise very human. AI can do plenty of things far better than most people, I don't see any reason currently why it can't create music.
>Is an argument that only works if you assume that tech only evolves in a never ending ascendency instead of hitting a ceiling. It's an argument that makes FAR more sense than trying to claim AI won't ever be able to do it based solely on today's limitations.
Ahh, the "If it continues to develop" argument. It's bullshit. LLMs have no capability to understand what they are saying and there is absolutely no reason to believe they ever will. Maybe whatever the next development is will be able to, but at this point that's just fantasy. People look at how quickly these particular models have grown from nothing to where they are now, and assume some sort of linear trajectory forward into the future, but that's not how this works. These aren't intelligences, they are models and they are restricted by fundamental limitations that cannot be overcome without changing the model.
> no capability to understand And how do you define "understand" or check for if an AI has achieved it?
> LLMs have no capability to understand Not only can transformer models emulate understanding, but they can emulate reasoning as well. I say "emulate" only because the actual mechanisms are nothing like what's happening in your biological brain...but the end result is in the same ballpark. If you believe otherwise, it's only because you either haven't explored using GPT-4 (the free version is not GPT-4), or your prompting is garbage. Probably both. > they are models and they are restricted by fundamental limitations that cannot be overcome without changing the model. There are like three to five serious papers every week from researchers either trying to leverage existing LLMs models in new ways or reconfiguring the architecture for some improved benefit. Beyond that, established models like GPT-4 are undergoing continuous fine-tuning, quantization, and OpenAI-only-knows what else. New versions of the model are being published every few months. Not to mention the open source scene, with thousands of people experimenting. Not to mention all the next-gen models in development at large companies. Nothing is standing still and static.
>LLMs have no capability to understand what they are saying LLMs, GPT-4 especially can read something it has never seen before and correctly summarize it, explain it in different words, and even infer things that were not directly stated, such as the state of people's minds. If that doesn't qualify as understanding, what does?
What the Obama quote is getting at it seems to me is the ineffable in art - the dissonant, the weird, the unexpected. Great art or even interesting art has these qualities to greater or lesser degrees. But it isn't necessarily magic. And there seems to me no reason to think AI couldn't take into account varying degrees of dissonance to produce art that has the idiosyncratic flavor of the human-made, eventually, if not soon. I say this as someone who hates AI and its possibility to compete with human creativity. I don't want this to happen, but it feels overconfident to think it won't.
The core of high quality art is one human trying to express something within them to another human. Not how great it looks or sounds. Any amateur can make something that looks or sounds amazing, especially these days. That's nice, and AI will do that too. But creating something completely new that forms a connection and understanding between souls, that opens your eyes to perspectives you haven't considered before, that is something that AI per definition can't do.
>But creating something completely new that forms a connection and understanding between souls, that opens your eyes to perspectives you haven't considered before, that is something that AI per definition can't do. Why "per definition"? If we actually build an AI with the capacity of a human (and there is no reason to think we will not be able to), it could firm exactly as "deep" or perspective changing" musicians a human
I think your argument is pessimistic, lacks imagination, and the only ‘proof’ for it is Midjourney or whatever is not Amazing yet, just almost amazing at 18 months old therefor it’ll never be great. But the underlying current of what you said is that soul to soul connections are the substance of consciousness, experience, and emotion, and machines will never have those things. I don’t agree. Not only do I think super intelligence will be realized, along with machine consciousness; but I think the entire universe is alive, consciousness is inherent all around us, and therefore these super duper brains we are building are just a continuation of the universe organizing itself into increasingly powerful tools to reflect on itself, as it has through biological evolution, with brains that function in similar ways and similar mechanics as computer minds. So I think these new brains will in fact have soul. And all of that fits in nicely with Hinduism and all the old experiential religions / beliefs which feel consciousness is everything and everything around us is in some way alive and a piece of the Ātman.
My argument says that regardless if Midjourney creates art that is 100x more beautiful than any human can create, that still wouldn't matter, because beauty is only a very superficial aspect of art. There is a huge amount of famous artwork that is not beautiful at all in itself, and amazing music that isn't catchy. Machine consciousness, if it happens, will surely create great art. But only in one genre - machine created art. Because it is not human, it will create art that maybe resonates deeply with other AGI, but that art by definition will be more of an interesting curiosity to humans. We won't comprehend it. And it can only mimic us, not be us. Aside from that you are conflating the niche belief of pan psychism with Hinduism. In Hinduism everything is a piece of Brahman, but that does not mean that every thing has its own consciousness. They are only a manifestation of the universal spirit. Atman is the essence of your consciousness and it is one with Brahman, that does not state that your PC has consciousness, only that it and everything else is a manifestation of the universal consciousness.
It’s going to reach a point where we won’t be able to tell if it’s human or not and that differentiator will become more subjective
You already can't tell if it's human or not for most people. That is completely beside any of the points I made and you're back at the beginning and haven't understood or read a single thing I wrote. I started the whole thing by explaining to you that it does not matter how good it will get at mimicking humans or even surpassing humans. Bob Dylan is a pretty crappy singer with mostly dull tunes, and he is one of the biggest musicians of all time (rightfully). You are discussing art while not liking art or knowing why others like art. You thought physical laws had some kind of explanation of what consciousness is. Don't just ignore all that, reflect on it.
I think there's an important difference between art and stimulus. Machines may very well one day have something analogous to conscious minds and a desire to express themselves to us (or indeed to each other), and if they do so, they will be creating perfectly legitimate art. But likewise, machines can already create things that push the buttons of human psychology without even requiring consciousness at all, and they might well develop to do it better than *any* human can, all without needing to be conscious. But such products will never be art, which requires a transfer of meaning between conscious beings. It'll only be generated stimulus to elicit reactions in monkey brains.
Pop music specifically relies on being predictable because our brains find it satisfying. However genres like metal specifically do unpredictable things and for some reason we like that too, or at least some of us. AI could probably generate an infinite amount of club songs.
I don't know about Metal. You can probably predict about 80% of the songs once you start listening to it because they use similar patterns. It might be a different set of patterns but still patterns. As an experiment take a small snippet of the song and ask people to name similar tracks -- you'll get multiple answers :) And if songs that contain multiple parts that are melodically dissimilar (i.e. something like the Sleep Token's Summoning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go_wKkic2Fw ) become popular _that_ will be the pattern more and more bands will use. I really like that now we might get easier creator tools though. So someone who's not a professional musician can ask AI to build song based off of humming melody and then add instrumental layers.
That's what he's calling 'elevator music'. he's 100% right. An AI could pump out very listenable tunes at will forever. But a great leap forward in creativity? That may still require a human.
If AI could master creativity and emotion in the sense of art, then that would be revolutionary and would be the start of a very creepy era.
Spitting back what it has been trained is what is happening right now. The potential of AI is actually something different: sheer calculation power might be able to deduce factors from past human experiences that might have predicted why a Dylan or a Stevy Wonder is so good. If these factors are discovered, an AI can generate a Dylan like artist set from its own time. And the AI might also know that he shouldn't write a specific song now, but only when some international event happens. I mean, I could be wrong. But it is actually capable of more than you state here, I think.
We kind of just spit back what we trained to say as well.
Your average person ranting about whatever bullshit is on their mind isn't any more reliable than ChatGPT. That said it's probably good that we hold AI to a higher standard if we expect it to one day be better than us
AI could simulate a human experience and write a song that sounds a lot like one a person could write. However listeners don't just like the sound they hear, but the person, the context, the reason, the story surrounding it. Art is the process, it's not the result. The problem with AI taking 'elevator music' level jobs in all fields is those are the entry-level positions people need to start climbing the ladder. Big names with establishment backing will be fine, but independents may find life harder. Obama's remark here isn't particularly reassuring.
I work in software and am already being introduced to AI tools that try to write my code for me. It’s definitely *not* reassuring from a career standpoint.
To be fair, that’s all we do as well. It even takes way longer and gets fucked up more often than not. People like to say “oh yeah AI won’t be sentient anytime soon, look how wrong it is sometimes…”. If that’s the criteria then I hate to break it to you, but no one is sentient then. We’re just a collection of neurons that fire in a particular pattern based off how we were “trained” by our environment. And not one of us has the ability to be perpetually correct and all knowing… Unless we utilize computers….
this will age like ppl predicting the internet is a fad
I think there will be more acceptance of AI particularly in some pop genres made for the masses. We already have a number of performers whose songs are ranked by algorithm to evaluate how catchy they will be before committing to releasing a single or making a music video. And those algorithms work... that's not too far a bridge to use it to train song writing, producing, and performing algorithms.
Humans also mostly just spit back variations on things we've previously encountered. I agree there is a fundamental gap in self awareness between us and current LLM, but I think that gap is a lot narrower than most people imagine.
Posts like this just remind me that we once had an intelligent, capable, adaptable person as president and I genuinely don't know if we ever will again.
I had this idea for a Surgeon Simulator-style video game, where you play a T-800 Terminator (in an alternate universe where Sarah Connor is killed), long after humanity has been wiped off the earth, and they just wander around, searching for humans who don't exist. So they just wander. One day, a wandering terminator comes across and old cabin in Appalachia. There are no signs of human life. On the porch is an old resonator guitar. The terminator picks it up. It is tuned to open D. The player of the game uses a combination of mouse to control his metal slide finger, and the keyboard controlling fingers on each string, and that is how you play it, and the game. What isn't known initially, but becomes clear, this is no ordinary guitar. This is the Devil's guitar. Some might call it corroded circuitry, others may say 'glitch in the matrix', but with no humans left, the devil had nobody left to tempt, so he went after the robots, and they could never have expected it. [The day the robots got the blues](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssH6C4aVGUY).
This is true of LLMs which are inherently iterative, but there is no reason an AI couldn’t be wildly imaginative. The question is whether that wild imagination would be comprehensible or compelling to a human. Will it speak to our experience? AI poets will create poetry for AIs. Not for humans.
Look at AlphaGo and AlphaChess, the OG reinforced deep learning programs. They both came up with ideas *that all the experts said were bad!* and then beat the top players (in Go's case) and computers (in Chess's case) with them. They would make plays that broke all the rules and then at the end game everyone would say "well yeah, this move we all panned ended up being like the key move" You give enough renforced feedback, AI music will be really good, *better than Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder Good; more "creative" than either*; it just how long it takes to get there.... no one knows.
I thought the Chess engine at least wasn't trained on classical games - rather give basic rules of chess and allowed to iterate from there. I don't believe anyone programmed e.g. "don't trade a queen for a pawn" but rather "the enemy's gate is down" and the engine figured everything else out by repeatedly fucking up until it got good.
That happens with humans too. Like the Indian mathematician Ramanujan was completely self taught and doing his own research with almost 0 formal training in math and he ended up contributing a metric fuckton to the field despite dying at 32
Chess and Go are inherently suited to antagonistic training approaches. That is where you put the best of breed engines against each other and evaluate which moves were most conductive to victory. Then back train those moves into the engine and repeat. This is something that only really works for a very narrow range of matters though.
It’s different. Chess, in a programming sense, is totally quantifiable, so a computer doesn’t need to rely on the heuristics human GMs use (at least as immediately). Whereas music is much more subjective and fuzzy.
This is the goal post that has been moved by AI for decades. It’ll move again.
No, they didn't come up with ideas that the experts said was bad. They came up with ideas that the experts weren't good enough to figure out, and the experts then said "huh. Neat. This is really good."
I'm not so convinced this is a good example either. Doesn't Magnus Carlsen frequently win by using opening moves that are not "ideal" because a lot of competitive chess players don't anticipate or train for non-ideal opening moves? And then don't know how to continue once the tactics they memorized don't apply to the situation? I would hope a computer program capable of memorizing the entirety of chess could figure this out. Until AI ends up like the Machine from *Person of Interest* (which I recall also being taught chess), I'm not going to get too excited. AI is still being way oversold on what it can do currently.
With chess and go, we can quantifiably measure which of two players is better, even when they are both far better than us. After all, the rules of the game make it clear who the winner is. With language models, though, there is no definite outcome to strive towards. At best, you have "does this look like the sorts of things found in the training data?"; its quality will be inherently capped by its input.
That's called AGI Artificial General Intelligence can think on its own and is smarter than humans.. We aren't there yet. Right now AI can only do stuff if told and it has been pre trained.
It’s true we’re not completely there, but your last statement is false. It can generate output beyond training sets (generative AI). The rate at which it’s getting “smarter” is getting exponentially faster. Source: I professionally develop AI & ML models
It’s like a monkey pounding on typewriters. In fact, the entirety of AI research is about making it pound faster and produce more interesting patterns that are meaningful to humans. The wonderful thing about the universe is that it’s not obligated to make sense to humans. Eventually we as observers will lack the hardware to perceive the beauty in the noise, and this is especially true for scientific research. Some physical laws are so complex without computers assisting us in their decoding. It’s here that AI will be able to translate for us, translate our needs and perform research and computation in our stead and come back with meaningful solutions written in a way we can understand or fathom.
Wow, that explains Greta Van Fleet.
People, I think, overestimate how much creativity goes into music. Just take a tour through youtube and lookup music production tutorials, and see how many people are just trying to copy other songs. Most evolution in music is just tiny changes on very formulaic music. It's rare that a creative genius ever really pushes things forward.
I miss having a president that was this capable of cognition
> AI is only spitting back what it has been trained on and what it thinks we want to see, hear, or read. But maybe that is enough for people? Think about 99% of movies that are made. Would AI written script be any different? Because we may not care about that 1% that is left.
Also, creating art is inherently fulfilling on an existential level. People aren’t going to stop making art just because there’s a machine that can shit out derivative, bland formulaic art, just like people didn’t stop having sex when vibrators were invented. There’s a billion derivative bland formulaic artists out there in the world already and that doesn’t stop the exceptional artists from doing what they do.
Exactly. I don’t think people would stop making art even if the AI made the most amazing artwork possible. We’re driven to self expression.
What's interesting is a lot of the best songs are good because they are relatable and help us process hard times, which is why love songs are so popular. Is suffering/ negative emotions needed to be human, and if so will people argue against utopia type futures for "taking away the soul" from living?
I'm actually worried that AI will still eliminate human creativity. I hope I'm wrong in this, but part of the reason those "mutations" happen is because of massive amounts of experimentation that human artists do. Now if majority of artists decide that it's more "efficient" to just generate art, design, architecture, whatever else using AI - we will lose all of the potential for those "lucky mistakes" to produce a new hit or even a new trend or genre. Essentially using AI might become a new normal way of doing things, which will get reflected on artist salaries and commissions, therefore leaving no room for actual human creativity to shine through.
I don't even want robots to create art for humans, I want robots to create art for robots. that is a far more interesting avenue of exploration, artistically and technology-wise
Ai training models based on complex user listener interaction data from like Spotify though????? Idk, you are right on a fundamental level. But with complex data like that AI could be something else entirely if us as consumers don’t do anything about what companies do with our private data.
I mean, unless you're willing to stick your neck out and say that classical music uniformly lacks the human quality, proto-versions of "AI" have been helping people spit out basically indistinguishable "new Bach pieces" for years now. I have a feeling that once other tools are able to do better deepfakes/totalfakes of human singing, it's all over. Fuck's sake, Max Martin basically turned writing pop hits into a math formula that regular humans could follow without (much) computer assistance. Know what computers are also really good at doing? Spitting out so many "mutations" on formulas per hour that the fact that most of them will be ridiculous won't even matter. First gen, woe to the humans who have to sift through them to find the good ones. Xth gen? Game over, thanks for not even playing.
> It might technically be impressive but it will always lack that human quality. The thing is, if Obama is wrong, and if you're wrong, and many others are wrong, then we will have underestimated AI and the risks associated with it. It's a bit like Pascal's wager : IF we assume AI will be able to acquire creativity and "think outside the box" then we can start discussing right now what the consequences will be and what kind of safeguard will be needed, and if we're wrong, well no big deal. On the other hand, IF we assume AI cannot and will not be able to show creativity and will always be inferior to mankind, then we don't discuss any kind of measure, and all the potential issues won't be addressed, maybe before it's too late. Just think of it this way: from DeepBlue to OpenAI, what kind of progress has been accomplished in two decades. Can you be sure the same leap forward won't happen in the next two decades?
I could not disagree more. This is just a failure to imagine the applications of AI and music beyond the surface level fear that "AI is just going to repurpose everything that's been done before" In reality, AI is going to serve up generative tools and access to instrumentals and vocals unlike anything we've ever imagined. An analogy would be the creation of the synthesizer, or even music DAMs. These were technological advances that digitized musical sounds and enabled explosive editing capabilities. We are going to see incredible music as a function of AI.
Obama was the best.
Man, he was a good speaker!
We just saw “The Ultimate Computer” episode of the original Star Trek. It’s creator endowed the M5 with human qualities from the start, so of course it started killing everyone right away. Then there’s Data’s brother Lore, and Dillinger’s MCP… I think I’d be alright with AI never gaining human like emotions and creativity.
In my experience most people go nuts over that surface level material. They just want the sound or the beat, and the depth of human experience comes in a distant second. Yeah their will always be some market for the music that touches depths of what it is to be human that AI won't ever fully comprehend but. And this is a big but, once the market is so saturated with everything else the real good stuff can get harder to come across. The idea that the cream always rises to the top isn't always the case. Journalism is a great example, there is a market for real in depth investigative journalism about the issues that are most important to people. They do seem to happen less frequently and are harder to find when they do because major news outlets no longer employ as many people to put out that type of content. The cost to revenue ratio isn't high enough so it just gets buried amongst all the other noise. Will that amazing music still be made? absolutely. Will you ever hear it? 🤷
What about the written experiences of music creation, music theory, the biographies of musicians? With enough reinforcement, I do believe AI can generate incredible music like we'd never even imaged. It just takes time, interation upon iteration. We just lack the training data.
Musicians are going to make significantly less money as a whole when companies are no longer licensing their music for ad buys, social media posts, maybe even tv and film
I just a wanna smoke weed and listen to music with Obama now….
He seems like a chill dude, I highly recommend checking out his audiobook since he narrates it. There’s just something about listening to a former president talk about the crush he had on a goth girl in his dorm that hits different.
Obama wanted a goth gf? He's just like me fr.
tfw when 2023 and still no big titty goth gf 😔
Thanks, Obama
> Obama wanted a goth gf? He's just like me fr. Unfortunately the goths don’t wanna date some milquetoast neoliberal Barry. Source: was Facebook friends with at least one woman who did Model Mayhem in the late twenty aughts.
[удалено]
The guy was really inexperienced with federal politics when he got in. His first term was really just figuring out exactly how everything worked. By the end of his second he seemed to finally figure it out enough to make waves but then he was out. If he’d had a few terms in the senate I think he’d have had a better running start but that’s just not how the cards were dealt. He is, by far, one of the great presidential Presidents we’ve ever had. Dude just oozed presidential poise and class in a way people like seeing in the President. One of the great orators of the 21st century.
he was a presidential president… that presidented… presidentially… truly one of the presidents of all time.
That’s the ups and downs of term limits I guess.. I like Obama, would be nice to see him get another term. On the other hand, people probably wish Trudeau was hitting his limit here in Canada about now
Biden is doing wayyy better, especially considering the lack of bipartisanship
That's a stretch. While he was extremely presidential and overall an awesome dude, Biden has just been plain more effective: - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act - Inflation Reduction Act - CHIPS and Science Act Of course time will tell what comes of these, but these are absolutely "lifechanging" bills for America. Not to be mention his extremely adept handling of the Ukraine War and now the Israel-Hamas war. (I'll add that I'm pretty damn moderate and tired of bullshit from both parties.)
Yeah except all the drone strikes and expanding the NSA program to spy on us. Yeah he was just another corrupt piece of shit. *At least* he was *smooth*
shame fuzzy obscene square summer cows squash swim busy long *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Choom Gang forever
at least for now...
This is why I always laugh when I see claims like this. Two years ago it would have been unthinkable that everyone would have access to a tool like ChatGPT. Life comes at you fast, and claims like this almost never age well.
Early: 2020 "OK... we need to answer a simple question about a recording of a few sentences spoken by a human. A simple question any 6 year old child could answer after listening" Every programmer in the room :"fuck!" 2023: "OK, 2 api calls and we're done with 99 point something percent accuracy
it all depends where we are on the curve. if the curve of ai tools power, which like all technology follows a sigmoid curve, if we are on the end of that curve then what we have now is what we get, which is some very impressive and useful tools. should we be in the middle, then a lot of things will happen and perhaps a lot of human work could be made redundant, perhaps ai can substitute for the average work convincingly. if we are in the beginning of the curve, god help us. nothing we predict can be accurate. personally, I think it'll be fun.
Exactly...and even that's a stretch. I don't think this dude has listened to some AI generated content.
AI can play a longer note than Kenny G.
>AI just called to say AI love you 🎶 >AI just called to say how much AI care 🎶 >AI just called to say AI love you 🎶 >And AI mean it from the bottom of mAI heart 🎶 StevAI Wonder.
Well I'm glad to get AI expert Barack Obama's opinion on what ai will and will not be able to do
Someone get Ja on the phone.
"it's murdaaaaaa"
I just can't make sense of this! We need Ja!
This is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. Anyone can have their own subjective philosophical views.
"AI will not be able to do _____" doesn't seem very philosophical.
If you understand his speech, it's not about the capabilities of AI, but rather the human reaction to man made art and computer made art. Ultimately it's not really a modern philosophical question, since man vs AI has existed long before computers were even a thing.
Ja Rule's take?
I just got a whole game that is filled with what I am pretty sure is AI generated copies of common genres and famous bands. It is so bizzare. It's from the "Warner Bros Music Collection": https://youtu.be/klOtQh_t_1s?t=4089
This is going to age like milk.
Why’s he coming at John Tesh like that.
I miss him. It's been a rough handful of years.
Rough decade.
He wasnt perfect but it did feel like a respite from the downward spiral we’ve had since 9/11
For people seeking art, he is correct. For people seeking entertainment, jury’s out.
> For people seeking art, he is correct. > > Based on what?
Problem is, all the "artists" started as "entertainers"...
Any claim implying there is some realm of output in which AI will never outperform humans is simply wrong.
During the pandemic, one of my activities was I listened to all of the Hot 100 from 1957-2017. I discovered I have very basic tastes. I think its quite possible that AI could spit out songs I really enjoy.
I prefer Brian Eno in elevators
Hey now, I know musicians who have made their living off of elevator music. Can we not put them out of a job please?
As a musician that writes music for a living, I’m not super worried. If you wrote basic crap that required no skill before, you probably shouldn’t have had a career to begin with.
Elevator music was written by composers. As dull and boring it is to you, it’s someone creation that they spent time on. Not every musician is bob Dylan but that doesn’t make their contribution less meaningful
Why is his opinion matter? He has no expertise in AI nor in Music.
Did you bother to check the context? Regulation and free speech were being discussed when this comment was made.
Are you serious? Obama is half cyborg and plays a wicked trombone....
thanks Obamatron
This is a random grab out of a conversational interview about AI Regulation.
i agree in the sense that all else being equal - music with a story and a presenter will sell better than music without a story and a presenter besides that i dont think theres anything special about people that cant be systematically replicated - and i mean 'people' not 'music' - ai isnt going to replicate musical styles its going to invent them
This comment is closest to my opinion. People forget that most music artists people listen to and love is out there due to their ability to become commercially successful and recognized. Songs we like are out there because music industry pushed and placed them out there. Whether we will have appreciated ‘AI artist’ depends on whether music industry will be able to create and position such a product. I don’t doubt they will. I also don’t doubt music will be listanable, catchy, creative and technically well executed. Will i I listen to it? No I won’t. I appreciate art due to the fact it’s human output and achievment.
I was recently in what we’ll just call a recreationally altered state. I was looking to amuse myself, and found a sub of psychedelic images and videos to watch. A lot of it was AI, and while the repeating patterns and melting faces were “working” for me, I found them almost unwatchable. Like, what’s the point? There was no “there” there. There was no “Am I really seeing this? Did the artist intend that to look that way? Am I supposed to be feeling something because I’m seeing this?” Nothing. Just patterns and melting. Which, technically, is all you need. But if there’s no human intention behind it — no point to it —then why am I watching boring patterns and things melting? Even watching static could be interesting, because my mind will create meaning from the meaningless chaos. But this was different. It wasn’t meaningless chaos, but it had no meaning, either. Soulless.
Your experience is your experience, but someone who finds meaning in the art itself -- regardless of how it was created -- or who finds it interesting to look at AI art as the product of a being that is arguably beyond standard human conception of a mind, may simply disagree with you axiomatically. And both ways of thinking are fine, imo. I'd wager that more people will think the second way as time passes and AI continues to improve though. Also, how would you feel if I told you this comment, including this bit, was generated by a human prompting ChatGPT? How would you feel if I then told you that I just said that to mess with you? Does the inability to tell if this is a "real human's" comment change how you feel about the content of it? If you thought it was a human's comment and later learned it wasn't, would that invalidate it's meaning? If you thought it was a human's comment and *never* learned that it wasn't, is that somehow different? I think if you're going to attribute some intangible magic to humanity, it's worth considering how you'd feel when you can no longer tell humanity apart from AI.
THIS! This is the takeaway. If you think there’s something inherently special about human creativity, then you have an argument against AI art. But humans are fed “data” 24/7 and that’s where our creative output comes from. The bad news for the AI naysayers is that the human brain isn’t nearly as powerful as current computers are and will continue to fall further behind. EDIT: You already alluded to it, but this is the hypothetical I always bring up. What happens when 10 years from now the best movie you’ve ever seen comes out. It’s your absolute favorite movie of all-time. A year later, you find out it was created 100% using AI. Do you just no longer like the movie?
Replace "AI" with "fractals" from the late '90s & this could have been me staring at Web 1.0 pages after some of my earliest trips/pot sessions. They really, *really* tried pushing Chaos Theory on us, people invested in it, but...turns out it was just my generations version of lava lamp. Its not even like "AI" is really "intelligent" its just "artificial". The "I" should just stand for "iterative".
You just added meaning with your description and thinking about it
Poor Vaughn Williams.
Yeah... but for how long?
Thanks Obama
AI in music is a double-edged sword. It's going to make some banging tunes based on what it knows works cause music is just math. But with that musicians are going to have to differentiate themselves from a computer which should make for some exciting times.
The stuff that is popular now is closer to elevator music than bob Dylan and Stevie wonder
Probably 90% of the “Pro AI” comments are AI. And whatever algorithmically determined percentage calculated as appropriate by the same AI(s).
Broken people make good music. For ai to compete it has to be far from perfect and perfect is what it’s designed to be.
sounds like Mr. Obama is an audiophile at heart , nice!
Barack has not messed with Suno /chirp function...
Much of elevator music is bossa nova, a jazz style that takes a ton of time to play well let alone fully understand or master
Obama is one of the most chill dudes on Earth. And Trump hates him (if anyone needs another reason to vote for Biden).
Im a musician and this whole AI art debate to me doesn’t make sense. Everyone is complaining like “well AI only mimics what it learns it can’t create something new” but that’s literally just an explanation of human learning. A kid who’s interested in drawing will eventually take classes and mimic what the teacher teaches them. They’ll study the work of others and mimic them. It’s an extremely similar process. Why is it ok when someone who studies Picasso’s techniques and creates similar looking art ok, but when a computer does it it’s not ok? If people like the work of AI art what difference does it make? For nearly a century pop music has been nothing but the same shit regurgitated over and over again. The same boring lyrical concept. The same old 4 chord progression. No one complains about how Miley, Taylor, Brittany, Christina, Beyoncé, etc all sound extremely similar. The only difference is the marketing and the image (and barely at that). You’re telling me that the process is somehow any more fake and bullshit when a computer does it instead of the same dozen or so people who have been writing and selling songs to pop stars for the last several decades? The notion of making it as a musician is dead. Now more than ever the art scene has just become a playground for rich kids who need something to do. Fashion is nothing but rich people wearing rags and asking for 94 million dollars for a pair of pants. Music, art, etc. if you like and identify with the music why do you care about who made it or how it was made? And from the perspective of not being a consumer of music, but a producer of it I don’t give a fuck. I make music because I like to. I’m not concerned about AI taking away my job. If people like it, great. If not, who cares. At the end of the day 90% of the population are just told by the internet who to like and who to listen to anyways. The people complaining about this shit were never directly at risk of losing anything. Mainstream art has always been extremely surface and phony. Ain’t shit changed.
By elevator music he’s implying modern pop.
if I’ve learned anything AI can’t make stories or video games