AI Thread

Moggy wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:I'm broadly speaking in agreement with GG. Every generation has a panic over things not being "real music". From the horrors of jazz (black people!), rock n roll (black people + devils music!), rap (black people + gritty lyrics) to heavy metal (telling kids to kill themselves + devils music + it originated from black people!) electronic music (they can't play real instruments + it's probably black peoples fault!).

I fully expect AI music to be strawberry floating awful, unless a human has very carefully helped craft it. But who knows, maybe it'll come up with something that's ok. Plus, this time, black people probably won't be the ones to blame (but I'm sure people will still find a way to blame them).

The AI thing is a different problem though. If you want to make a living making music it's going to make it far harder because it'll remove a lot of opportunities so making it harder to make a living. People make the argument that you should just be happy making music and being creative in your space time and do something else for a living, but I think that sucks.

My post was mostly talking about the knee jerk reaction to the idea of AI music, it wasn't really about music royalties.

It's already next to impossible to earn a living through recorded music. The vast vast majority of musicians make strawberry float all from their recordings.

Their money comes from live performances and merchandising. Which are not things I can see AI ever being able to take over.

I guess AI music will have its place in advert jingles etc. But for actually sitting down listening to music? I am very sceptical that it will be able to replace human made music for a very long time. Just as AI art is ok to view on a phone, but isn't something you're going to buy to hang on your wall.

I agree it all sucks for the people involved, whether we're talking about Spotify or AI. But there's no stopping the march of technology.

The problem is that the audience for live music is dropping unless you're a massive star like Taylor Swift. I've been going to see small acts for a long time and you used to be pretty easy to get a crowd and there were a lot of venues that would book small bands, even if you were doing original stuff not it's hard to get gigs for cover bands. I don't think it's a new thing, I remember talking to a guy in the late 90s who had been around since the 70s and he was saying it was getting a lot harder to get audiences back then. The problem is going out is expensive and there's a lot more stuff you can do at home.

That's a different problem to the AI issue.

The ridiculous cost of drinks/tickets/taxis is why so many people are no longer bothering.

True, although the low end gigs I go to still only charge about a fiver, although train tickets into Camden and a couple of beers is getting on for £40 (actually probably more) now.
I think having AI generated content will make it harder for that kind event though as it'll give people another option of stuff to do. Do I want to go to a gig that I might not like or shall I just listen to some AI generated stuff that's trained to only make stuff I like even if it's crap.

There are over 100 million songs on Spotify. And probably a similar number of amateur singers on YouTube. I can't see why some crap AI songs are suddenly going to make more people think "strawberry float it, no point going out to gigs with my mates anymore".

I see it more as a cumulative thing. Like back in the 70's people only had three TV channels and some records so would want to go out more, in the 90's people had maybe Sky some DVD's/ videos so were more likely to stay at home. Now we have cheapish access to a huge chunk of all the media produced at anytime so going out seems less worthwhile. With AI we will be able to potentially shape the collective sum total of all entertainment in anyway we want. It definitely adds to the factors that will potentially keep people at home.

See, the bots say there's nothing to worry about.

I think we're still in a phase where we can laugh at AI-generated products, but it seems arrogant to me to believe that it will never be able to exceed the skill and creativity of the human mind. We're not special divine creatures, we just have smarter brains for now.

What we obviously need to do, as Karl says, is protect humans from the impact of it all. Unfortunately, I can't see that happening. It'll be handled the same way everything else has been: to the benefit of the powerful, at the detriment of the powerless.

I think it's going to get better but there does probably need to be breakthroughs in Neural Science before we can go beyond human creativity.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I think we're still in a phase where we can laugh at AI-generated products, but it seems arrogant to me to believe that it will never be able to exceed the skill and creativity of the human mind. We're not special divine creatures, we just have smarter brains for now.

What we obviously need to do, as Karl says, is protect humans from the impact of it all. Unfortunately, I can't see that happening. It'll be handled the same way everything else has been: to the benefit of the powerful, at the detriment of the powerless.

I'm not saying it'll never be able to create art that rivals or exceeds human creativity. But I'm very doubtful it'll be able to do much more than a hollow imitation.

It's nothing to do with intelligence either. I expect there are aliens out there in the universe with an unimaginable intellect. They'd make us look like the dumb chimps that we are. But could they produce a piece of music that make humans feel something? I'm not convinced, there's far more to art (that humans enjoy) than intelligence.

If it turns out that a future AI can write stories, sing songs and create movies that humans adore, then I'm not seeing the issue*, having more art that we love is not a bad thing.

*this is a different thing to the question about peoples livelihoods. That's a separate issue and involves everyone, not just artists. And it's one that will require governments to actually work to address ordinary people's needs. So good luck with that.

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I think we're still in a phase where we can laugh at AI-generated products, but it seems arrogant to me to believe that it will never be able to exceed the skill and creativity of the human mind. We're not special divine creatures, we just have smarter brains for now.

What we obviously need to do, as Karl says, is protect humans from the impact of it all. Unfortunately, I can't see that happening. It'll be handled the same way everything else has been: to the benefit of the powerful, at the detriment of the powerless.

I'm not saying it'll never be able to create art that rivals or exceeds human creativity. But I'm very doubtful it'll be able to do much more than a hollow imitation.

It's nothing to do with intelligence either. I expect there are aliens out there in the universe with an unimaginable intellect. They'd make us look like the dumb chimps that we are. But could they produce a piece of music that make humans feel something? I'm not convinced, there's far more to art (that humans enjoy) than intelligence.

If it turns out that a future AI can write stories, sing songs and create movies that humans adore, then I'm not seeing the issue*, having more art that we love is not a bad thing.

*this is a different thing to the question about peoples livelihoods. That's a separate issue and involves everyone, not just artists. And it's one that will require governments to actually work to address ordinary people's needs. So good luck with that.

Of course you need artistic/creative intelligence (I'm not thinking of it in the same way as being able to answer a question on University Challenge ) to produce art. How else does it physically happen? People will always use phrases like 'from the heart' or 'a gift'. I think it's very natural to imagine artistic ability as something divine, something immeasurable, something that we 'feel', but the reality is that everything we do is just a product of our brains and the ability of our bodies to carry it out. If an AI 'brain' becomes smarter than a human brain, and creates music/art with superior skill while being able to contextualise and intertwine it with human experience, then it will inevitably produce very high quality content.

Bookmark this and Moggy me in ten years. We can do a blind test of human art vs AI art .

Postmodernism is about art not being defined by the creator but by the observer, right? It's possible to see something in a piece of art even if it wasn't intended. But art isn't judged in isolation and often the context in which something is created is important. A perfect copy of a painting is not valued the same as the original not because of any measurable or observable difference in the piece itself but because of the context and story around it. The context of AI art is very different to human art. Which is to say a blind test misses the point.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I think we're still in a phase where we can laugh at AI-generated products, but it seems arrogant to me to believe that it will never be able to exceed the skill and creativity of the human mind. We're not special divine creatures, we just have smarter brains for now.

What we obviously need to do, as Karl says, is protect humans from the impact of it all. Unfortunately, I can't see that happening. It'll be handled the same way everything else has been: to the benefit of the powerful, at the detriment of the powerless.

I'm not saying it'll never be able to create art that rivals or exceeds human creativity. But I'm very doubtful it'll be able to do much more than a hollow imitation.

It's nothing to do with intelligence either. I expect there are aliens out there in the universe with an unimaginable intellect. They'd make us look like the dumb chimps that we are. But could they produce a piece of music that make humans feel something? I'm not convinced, there's far more to art (that humans enjoy) than intelligence.

If it turns out that a future AI can write stories, sing songs and create movies that humans adore, then I'm not seeing the issue*, having more art that we love is not a bad thing.

*this is a different thing to the question about peoples livelihoods. That's a separate issue and involves everyone, not just artists. And it's one that will require governments to actually work to address ordinary people's needs. So good luck with that.

Of course you need artistic/creative intelligence (I'm not thinking of it in the same way as being able to answer a question on University Challenge ) to produce art. How else does it physically happen? People will always use phrases like 'from the heart' or 'a gift'. I think it's very natural to imagine artistic ability as something divine, something immeasurable, something that we 'feel', but the reality is that everything we do is just a product of our brains and the ability of our bodies to carry it out. If an AI 'brain' becomes smarter than a human brain, and creates music/art with superior skill while being able to contextualise and intertwine it with human experience, then it will inevitably produce very high quality content.

Bookmark this and Moggy me in ten years. We can do a blind test of human art vs AI art .

Yes and no. There's far more to art than just skill/quality/intelligence or whatever else you want to call it. Reducing art in the way you are is missing the point.

I'm not disagreeing that AI might be able to create stuff that people like. I'm doubtful if it'll be able to "create" anything other than a copy of existing genres/art though. It might make a decent sounding rock 'n' roll record, but it would never have been capable of inventing the rock 'n' roll genre.

I'm not sure what you want to judge in 10 years? Whether I can tell the difference between human art or AI art? Again you are missing the point of art, there's a reason I prefer my son's drawings over Monet's. And no amount of lectures about creative intelligence will change the feeling I get from each drawing.

I agree that your son's ability to make you smile by drawing something is not at risk because of what something an AI could do! That really isn't what I was getting at.

OrangeRKN wrote:Postmodernism is about art not being defined by the creator but by the observer, right? It's possible to see something in a piece of art even if it wasn't intended. But art isn't judged in isolation and often the context in which something is created is important. A perfect copy of a painting is not valued the same as the original not because of any measurable or observable difference in the piece itself but because of the context and story around it. The context of AI art is very different to human art. Which is to say a blind test misses the point.

I think I have been misunderstood. My original post was about the ability of AI to create skilful/high quality art, and the impact I believe it will have when sufficiently advanced on humans who are currently used to produce it. The vast majority of art that is produced at a commercial level is not your favourite painting, singer, or what your child brings back from nursery. It's something that accompanies an advert (probably the number one example).

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I agree that your son's ability to make you smile by drawing something is not at risk because of what something an AI could do! That really isn't what I was getting at.

I never said my enjoyment of my son's drawings are at risk because of AI. I literally compared my feelings to my son's art to the art of Monet, who I'm pretty sure was a human, not AI.

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I agree that your son's ability to make you smile by drawing something is not at risk because of what something an AI could do! That really isn't what I was getting at.

I never said my enjoyment of my son's drawings are at risk because of AI. I literally compared my feelings to my son's art to the art of Monet, who I'm pretty sure was a human, not AI.

I never said you should prefer a painting by Monet instead of a drawing by your son. I literally wrote about how AI will be capable of producing high quality art, which I'm pretty sure is not your son vs Monet.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I agree that your son's ability to make you smile by drawing something is not at risk because of what something an AI could do! That really isn't what I was getting at.

I never said my enjoyment of my son's drawings are at risk because of AI. I literally compared my feelings to my son's art to the art of Monet, who I'm pretty sure was a human, not AI.

I never said you should prefer a painting by Monet instead of a drawing by your son. I literally wrote about how AI will be capable of producing high quality art, which I'm pretty sure is not your son vs Monet.

And I never said you said I should prefer a Money painting.

But you're again missing the point that there's a hell of a lot more to art than just "high quality".

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I agree that your son's ability to make you smile by drawing something is not at risk because of what something an AI could do! That really isn't what I was getting at.

I never said my enjoyment of my son's drawings are at risk because of AI. I literally compared my feelings to my son's art to the art of Monet, who I'm pretty sure was a human, not AI.

I never said you should prefer a painting by Monet instead of a drawing by your son. I literally wrote about how AI will be capable of producing high quality art, which I'm pretty sure is not your son vs Monet.

And I never said you said I should prefer a Money painting.

But you're again missing the point that there's a hell of a lot more to art than just "high quality".

My original post was not to define art, For FFS .

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I agree that your son's ability to make you smile by drawing something is not at risk because of what something an AI could do! That really isn't what I was getting at.

I never said my enjoyment of my son's drawings are at risk because of AI. I literally compared my feelings to my son's art to the art of Monet, who I'm pretty sure was a human, not AI.

I never said you should prefer a painting by Monet instead of a drawing by your son. I literally wrote about how AI will be capable of producing high quality art, which I'm pretty sure is not your son vs Monet.

And I never said you said I should prefer a Money painting.

But you're again missing the point that there's a hell of a lot more to art than just "high quality".

My original post was not to define art, For FFS .

You original post was about how it is arrogant to assume AI will never be capable of exceeding human skill and creativity.

How on earth can that point be judged, other than by defining what art is?

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I agree that your son's ability to make you smile by drawing something is not at risk because of what something an AI could do! That really isn't what I was getting at.

I never said my enjoyment of my son's drawings are at risk because of AI. I literally compared my feelings to my son's art to the art of Monet, who I'm pretty sure was a human, not AI.

I never said you should prefer a painting by Monet instead of a drawing by your son. I literally wrote about how AI will be capable of producing high quality art, which I'm pretty sure is not your son vs Monet.

And I never said you said I should prefer a Money painting.

But you're again missing the point that there's a hell of a lot more to art than just "high quality".

My original post was not to define art, For FFS .

You original post was about how it is arrogant to assume AI will never be capable of exceeding human skill and creativity.

How on earth can that point be judged, other than by defining what art is?

It can be judged by the impact it'll have on humans who rely on producing art to make a living, which, again, was what I wrote about in my original post (the bit you've cut out of your summary).

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I agree that your son's ability to make you smile by drawing something is not at risk because of what something an AI could do! That really isn't what I was getting at.

I never said my enjoyment of my son's drawings are at risk because of AI. I literally compared my feelings to my son's art to the art of Monet, who I'm pretty sure was a human, not AI.

I never said you should prefer a painting by Monet instead of a drawing by your son. I literally wrote about how AI will be capable of producing high quality art, which I'm pretty sure is not your son vs Monet.

And I never said you said I should prefer a Money painting.

But you're again missing the point that there's a hell of a lot more to art than just "high quality".

My original post was not to define art, For FFS .

You original post was about how it is arrogant to assume AI will never be capable of exceeding human skill and creativity.

How on earth can that point be judged, other than by defining what art is?

It can be judged by the impact it'll have on humans who rely on producing art to make a living, which, again, was what I wrote about in my original post (the bit you've cut out of your summary).

You can't judge art by the size of the queue outside the job centre.

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I agree that your son's ability to make you smile by drawing something is not at risk because of what something an AI could do! That really isn't what I was getting at.

I never said my enjoyment of my son's drawings are at risk because of AI. I literally compared my feelings to my son's art to the art of Monet, who I'm pretty sure was a human, not AI.

I never said you should prefer a painting by Monet instead of a drawing by your son. I literally wrote about how AI will be capable of producing high quality art, which I'm pretty sure is not your son vs Monet.

And I never said you said I should prefer a Money painting.

But you're again missing the point that there's a hell of a lot more to art than just "high quality".

My original post was not to define art, For FFS .

You original post was about how it is arrogant to assume AI will never be capable of exceeding human skill and creativity.

How on earth can that point be judged, other than by defining what art is?

It can be judged by the impact it'll have on humans who rely on producing art to make a living, which, again, was what I wrote about in my original post (the bit you've cut out of your summary).

You can't judge art by the size of the queue outside the job centre.

What if the job centre is a performance art installation?

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I agree that your son's ability to make you smile by drawing something is not at risk because of what something an AI could do! That really isn't what I was getting at.

I never said my enjoyment of my son's drawings are at risk because of AI. I literally compared my feelings to my son's art to the art of Monet, who I'm pretty sure was a human, not AI.

I never said you should prefer a painting by Monet instead of a drawing by your son. I literally wrote about how AI will be capable of producing high quality art, which I'm pretty sure is not your son vs Monet.

And I never said you said I should prefer a Money painting.

But you're again missing the point that there's a hell of a lot more to art than just "high quality".

My original post was not to define art, For FFS .

You original post was about how it is arrogant to assume AI will never be capable of exceeding human skill and creativity.

How on earth can that point be judged, other than by defining what art is?

It can be judged by the impact it'll have on humans who rely on producing art to make a living, which, again, was what I wrote about in my original post (the bit you've cut out of your summary).

You can't judge art by the size of the queue outside the job centre.

What if the job centre is a performance art installation?

Depends if it's Banksy or bAInksy.

I think it's exactly because humans are arrogant that they will value human made art more, regardless of its quality.

The question then becomes whether they are aware the art is AI generated or not, and does that matter (yes). It arguably matters less in the context of post-modernism but then there are various post-postmodern (yes, I'm sorry, that is a thing) movements that deconstruct and complicate this even more. Seeing as postmodernism was a movement considered most readical the 60s and 70s at the latest. I can't be bothered to embroil/depress myself beyond postmodernism right now so I'm going to skip that. I don't want to go back to art school. Soz.

Until an AI can experience the world in the same way that a human does, there will be a split. I gave my example by way of comparison of an AI experiencing death, or grief. Is that possible? Will it be?

I think once a human understands something like a song is AI generated, they will struggle to relate to it and start to break it down and existentially destroy it. To distil that into 4 words, it is a choice.

A separate point, I'm interested in what site23 said. When AI meets some kind of horizon where it's pretty much impossible to tell if something is AI generated or not (at the moment it's piss easy), in its mission to replicate something plausibly created by a human, it will become just as dull as something made by a human producing something equally unremarkable. At which point, what is the difference? Because the individual may value such a work to be of so little value that the argument of its genesis / means of creation becomes pointless.

Then, we're back to just liking or disliking something, which is a crappy dichotomy that humans - in their arrogance - like to lean on in order to quickly understand and know how to respond to something, with little if any real effort to truly understand it.

The impact of AI in industry (i.e. the creative arts) might be significant, but its impact on art criticism and consumption might figure itself out. There are many such self-eliminating things in life, it is perhaps all a much of muchness when we consider that a response to art or judgement upon it is mostly the whim of all 7.9 billion people out there.

Has anyone been looking at https://www.udio.com/ which recently launched?

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/musi ... 235001675/

Just last year, many experts believed an AI model capable of generating complete, high-fidelity songs from text prompts wouldn’t arrive anytime soon, but now, an arms race is on between competing music-making models that do just that. Suno‘s v3 model, released to the public just weeks ago, was a remarkable breakthrough, particularly in realistic, human-sounding vocals — and today, a formidable new competitor arrives via the just-launched startup Udio. The two companies’ output seems closely comparable, though some early users have suggested that on average, Udio‘s output may sound crisper than Suno‘s, with less of the sonic fuzziness that can betray tracks’ machine-created origins.