141–150 of 165 posts
Creating music is the most rewarding thing I’ve found in life, and I can’t wrap my head around why anyone would want to automate that away. Less of this, more robots they do my dishes please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "solving" it with a big hammer like generative AI is rather unsatisfying. The reason is greed. They jump on the bandwagon to get rich, not to bring art. They don't care about long term effects on creativity. If it means that it kills motivation to create new music, or even learn how to play an instrument, that's fine by these people. As long as they get their money.
If our sole goal was to get rich we would have pivoted to some b2bsaas thing as many suggested to us. What we’ve actually seen is so much new creativity from people who otherwise would never have made music.
I’m so sick of hearing this excuse. “I can’t draw so I use AI,” as if the people who can draw were born that way.
No, they spent countless hours practicing and that’s what makes it art. Because it’s the product of hours of decision making and learning. You can not skip ahead in line. Full stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think many folks making the "music technology" argument tend to blur things so that human composition is reduced to "just another dial, just another new tech aid for music", "get off my lawn" etc. But its interesting to note that generative AI is unique in that it needs massive amounts of music that has already been produced to train on. Its a very unique development with some interesting questions once you sharpen…
Let's not forget that extraordinary musical talent tends to be the result of MASSIVE exposure to music as a toddler. It isn't entirely a question of DNA or effort. They start by emulating what they hear, over time they might evolve their own style, or they may not. In other words, you are less likely to become an extraordinary musical talent if you weren't saturated with music before you started going to school. Nobo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If our sole goal was to get rich we would have pivoted to some b2bsaas thing as many suggested to us. What we’ve actually seen is so much new creativity from people who otherwise would never have made music.
Nothing was stopping them from making music before other than laziness. I’m so sick of hearing this excuse. “I can’t draw so I use AI,” as if the people who can draw were born that way. No, they spent countless hours practicing and that’s what makes it art. Because it’s the product of hours of decision making and learning. You can not skip ahead in line. Full stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing was stopping them from making music before other than laziness. I’m so sick of hearing this excuse. “I can’t draw so I use AI,” as if the people who can draw were born that way. No, they spent countless hours practicing and that’s what makes it art. Because it’s the product of hours of decision making and learning. You can not skip ahead in line. Full stop.
This just sounds like gatekeeping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This just sounds like gatekeeping.
I think it's the opposite. They are not saying "those people shouldn't draw [using AI]", they are saying "those people should've been drawing all this time".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is promotion of piracy and trying to get the community to engage and validate it - if you can’t see the line then maybe take the time to learn that it exists and how to recognize it.
What piracy? Copyright does not cover ideas, generic patterns, timbres etc. If you know music history then will know that classical composers borrowed heavily. Without it, we would still be at the stone age level.
This situation can easily spiral out of control in a way that you end up with an oligarchy in music, where AI captures most of the attention, since it will be backed by those with most means to shove it in your face.
So yes, this is piracy. Hopefully the law will catch onto the ethics.