Lots of things are "good" in some contexts and "bad" in others. You may disagree that the mere existence of a list that omits AI is "good" for some people, but those people disagree with you.
Considering how cheap and easy it is to buy views/likes/subscribers I wouldn’t trust it blindly. Somehow I feel that people pushing AI music also would game the system, but I don’t have any proof unfortunately.
There are well-known negative side effects. What are the side effects to listening to AI music? If there are negative side effects, then I'd guess they'd be shared with non-AI music, since they sound pretty close to the same by now. Or, maybe the "negative" side effect from the industry's perspective is that the price of listening to music will drop.
No, but if something is going to be close to free to produce the consequence will be that no commercial piece of music will be incentivized to be produced by humans.
Commercial music isn't the only way to make music, but it pays people that want to professionally work as musicians.
In other words, the current system allows a select few artists to make money/fame from doing something they want to do (opposed to have to do to make a living). Or also, AI music will lessen the good feeling some people get when they believe that musicians can make money producing music.
I don't disagree that these things exist, but I do believe that these are mostly propped up by dynamics that will soon no longer exist.
> Or also, AI music will lessen the good feeling some people get when they believe that musicians can make money producing music.
If that is your way of saying that AI will remove the possibility for humans to create music full time due to there being no money anymore in music then sure.
> I don't disagree that these things exist, but I do believe that these are mostly propped up by dynamics that will soon no longer exist.
The same dynamic that propped up blacksmiths, potters, tailors, etc.: the absense of scaling/automating technology. There is still demand for authentic artisanal crafts and the "good feeling" that these people can earn money, but the magnitude has been reduced to the farmer's markets.
I can see a similar thing playing out with music. There will still be some token demand, but people will not pay the same when they can have a magic, infinitely producing on-demand, tailored-to-their-taste music machine, at vanishingly small marginal costs.
Just a realistic thing. Or, a good thing for consumers, a bad thing for producers (and a bad thing for producers who are actually consumers in disguise of a desired lifestyle and/or status).
Good for consumers is highly debatable since we'd lose one more social connection in life. Something we are running a very high debt tab for already.
We would also lose musical knowledge since all the full-time musicians would have to stop playing. Only amateur musicians would remain.
And the "desired lifestyle" / "desired status" would be transferred to the already very, very rich and powerful AI company CEOs. Such an improvement ...
Looking at the surface, it is true, but there are caveats:
- Not all musicians are in the field because it pays, some of them haven't earned a cent
- There are talented people who would like to create music but are forced to work long hours, which leaves them drained. Perhaps in the future, humans won't have to work that much, which will allow them to pursue creative hobbies such as music making
- Artists will be able to continue performing live, which will act as a huge filter for the AI-generated content and keep paying them.
Aside from that I agree, though musicians just one of many groups disrupted by AI and I wouldn't say they'll be the ones hurt most by it, mostly because they can continue to "exist" outside of the Internet, and experiencing music live could become more popular because of it. A lot of assumptions here, I know
> Perhaps in the future, humans won't have to work that much,
I think that this is the fairytale part that I have trouble accepting.
Coming from a country that has a very limited social welfare system I don't believe that the political or social climate is adapted to take such steps in a future where a lot of things are automated.
It goes against everything that we've seen in the last 150 years.
> Artists will be able to continue performing live, which will act as a huge filter for the AI-generated content and keep paying them.
Or AI "musicians" will play live events as holograms.
> Aside from that I agree, though musicians just one of many groups disrupted by AI and I wouldn't say they'll be the ones hurt most by it, mostly because they can continue to "exist" outside of the Internet, and experiencing music live could become more popular behind it.
Sure, they might not be the most affected by AI, but they would still be affected which is the reason I'm not a fan of AI in music. This pushback doesn't need to be reserved to the most impacted activities.
Not sure about the "war" part of it, but the rules in place make it so that most people don't have easy, legal and public access to cocaine but the very determined people can find it. That sounds like a good trade-off.
For AI music it would be the same. You could find it online on some shifty third-party websites or use some illegal model on your own hardware but in the end it will always represent a minority use case.
Recently, there was an outrage when "Claire Obscur: Expedition 33" grabbed record-breaking amount of game awards (deservingly so, it's an excellent game) and somehow it surfaced that some minor development placeholder assets (which devs forgot to replace with actual ones due to QA oversight) were AI generated. Suddenly the entire game became "AI slop" and even got some of the awards revoked.
A lot of people complaining are doing it just for the sake of complaining, because anti-AI virtue signaling nets them clout, meanwhile they will happily scroll entire timelines of edited photos, movies which are nothing else than fake reality "slop".
You're inventing groups of people composed of the worst qualities of your "enemies" and insisting they are large in number, based on nothing. This is common low-quality internet "those people" complaining - the polar opposite of giving the benefit of the doubt.
People generally have nuanced opinions not represented solely by whatever Tweets are popular, and this is true of basically every single topic.
"Enemies" is your word, not mine. I would say "hypocrisy" is a better fit. A pinch of AI content is bad, while photoshopping/postprocessing/etc. is normalized. It's all converging into the same thing, only the process is different
There is a difference between an AI critic who dislikes the AI output based on their sense of taste/aesthetic/soullessness and someone who likes something until they learn that there's 0.0001% of AI content in it, which suddenly turns it into abomination. I agree that the latter tends to be the louder group, but it is a group nonetheless and I clearly did not invent jumping on a bandwagon.
