141–150 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This gives me the eerie feeling of a future in which we let AI do all fun, creative things, thereby freeing up spare time in which we don't need to learn to play guitar anymore, giving us more hours to spend on work. Shouldn't we aim for a future that is the exact opposite of this?
> giving us more hours to spend on work What work?
Replace "Transforming" with "Disrupting" and the story feels more real. Frankly, I love music. That is why I'd prefer if Google did not mingle in this bussiness. Creatives already have a hard time making any sort of living from their talent, and AI generated "elevator music" will not make that situation any better.
Earning money by making music is a power law, that is, only a few people will make a lot of money while many will earn almost nothing. This is partially due to the required skills. If a system could lower the barrier to entry, then you could also make an argument that a music AI makes it a more level playing field.
The barrier of entry is a business one, not a talent or skill one. Every country in the world has virtuoso musicians who don't earn money. Many/most of the hugely successful musicians released music that could be recreated pretty convincingly by amateurs with a few years of experience (vocals are probably the only exception as we strongly associate them with individuals).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quality never was the only or even the most important aspect of popularity in music and probably art in general. So I'm not sure your projection is valid.
Hm. It was before the 20th century maybe. People knew of artists by name, not by their social life and sex tapes. The pop culture paraphilia is a very recent thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>without needing to be privileged enough to get violin or guitar lessons. I'm not being funny but this is a poor take when the excellent guitarist Mdou Moctar learned on a guitar he built himself using the brake cables from a bike for strings. The guitar at least is not an inaccessible instrument.
Arguing a general case by pointing out a massive exception doesn't really work though.
The problem though is that fewer and fewer people are interested in this sort of thing and more interested in generic electronic garbage background music, as others have said. Classical concerts are getting less attendance over time, there are less acoustic or live performances, etc. People altogether seem to no longer buy traditional art because they can buy prints that look good on the wall. The point of buying traditional art isn't just it looking good, because like musicians, the character of the artist and their personality comes through in the paint strokes, color choices, design, composition, etc. Which is why people close to the artist often appreciate the work even more than a stranger would (ie: your 4-old child's school drawing), because the way it's created reminds you of that person and their soul/spirit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like playing video games with a computer. I also like playing music with a computer. I've learned far quicker playing chess against an AI than I would have playing against humans. And yet I still really enjoy playing against humans too. In fact the experience playing against humans is richer thanks to a deeper understanding of the game that came from AI. Your argument is along the same lines as arguing electric gui…
I have hard time believing that you can learn quicker playing chess against AI. Humans can explain ideas behind their moves, their long term plans and their position evaluation. That what chess coaches will explain you and that's what you can read in chess books. Computer has hard time explaining his moves, has no notion of long-term plan and it's position evaluation is often useless for beginner or intermediate ches…
Imagine the talent AI assisted music programs will unlock. I think it will be a new instrument people learn to play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have hard time believing that you can learn quicker playing chess against AI. Humans can explain ideas behind their moves, their long term plans and their position evaluation. That what chess coaches will explain you and that's what you can read in chess books. Computer has hard time explaining his moves, has no notion of long-term plan and it's position evaluation is often useless for beginner or intermediate ches…
You can play with the computer forever unlike with a human
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of people make music for fun while having other careers. A lot of the masterpiece painters did it for passion and lived in poverty (I'm not saying that is good, but clearly a career is not necessary for great results).
Sure but most renowned artists had the time to become really skilled because they could dedicate all their time to it. If no one wants to pay humans for art any more, how will that happen?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like playing video games with a computer. I also like playing music with a computer. I've learned far quicker playing chess against an AI than I would have playing against humans. And yet I still really enjoy playing against humans too. In fact the experience playing against humans is richer thanks to a deeper understanding of the game that came from AI. Your argument is along the same lines as arguing electric gui…
I have hard time believing that you can learn quicker playing chess against AI. Humans can explain ideas behind their moves, their long term plans and their position evaluation. That what chess coaches will explain you and that's what you can read in chess books. Computer has hard time explaining his moves, has no notion of long-term plan and it's position evaluation is often useless for beginner or intermediate ches…
Also I'm not claiming you can learn quicker by exclusively using AI. I'm claiming you can learn quicker by adding it to your set of tools. Human coaches and books are other tools you can or should use.
Even the some of the best chess players in the world are now using AI opponents to explore new ideas.