141–150 of 389 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the current rate of progress maybe it'll be months. I did a song for my company just to have fun around an event and the quality of the song was astounding, better than this one I think also using v3. I didn't even write the lyrics, I just described what I want in the prompt. Also I used one of poems I wrote as a teenager (not a lot of them) to create a song... the AI would notice the emphasis in the feelings of t…
It reminds me of CGI in the 90's. Everyone was so astounded over the quality of jurassic park and toy story, the rate of improvements was mindboggling. Predictions were made that in a few years, actors and movie studios would be obsolete. But in the meantime, audiences started to notice artifacts that were not apparent to the untrained eye - CGI was actually ugly! And here we are 30 years later - actors are still on…
Amazing. I hereby demand that all open source project stop using those puny SPDX tags and use this instead. Come to think of it, all licenses should be expressed in this way. Imagine the Magnus Opus a standard Microsoft license would become.
Imagine you stumble upon an interesting project on Github and instead of license.md, you're greeted by license.mp3.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me the feeling of AI generated content is less "slop" and more "in-flight magazine". It can have a surface sheen of quality that you can lure you in, but you realise it's devoid of any vitality or soul.
Isn't that the real Turing test - does it feel like it has a soul?
1. We tell a human (test subject) that they will be a judge but they are a test subject. We will tell them that there will be two chats -- one will have a human and the other will have a computer and they need to decide which is which.
2. We will then give them access to two real time chats but the twist is both of them will be humans.
3. Our test subject needs to rebel against the experiment and say they are both humans.
What percentage of the population will be able to say both chats are humans? Is this a humane experiment? Will any ethics board clear it? Does it have any scientific value?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously, the "creatives are screwed" narrative has fallen apart for me because the stuff made in AI has proven to be worthless. Why is it worthless? Because the point of art was to communicate or convey something with other people and the AI has no idea because its not human. A few words or a sequence of sounds can be enough to transfer great deal of feeling and meaning because we run about the same software and as…
> Because the point of art was to communicate or convey something with other people and the AI has no idea because its not human. This is mixing up art with the art industry . Artists will struggle just like copywriters are struggling after the arrival of LLMs. Not everything in the art industry is trying to break new artistic ground or communicate some deep emotion to the listsener. For much of the industry, "good e…
Maybe with exception of strictly technical work like people who remove background in mages or calibrate instruments. Those people are screwed yes.
If this was an actual person performing, I would have smiled all the way to the end. Since this is AI-generated, I feel no emotion towards this, and just listened for a few seconds. It's technically interesting.
Seriously, the "creatives are screwed" narrative has fallen apart for me because the stuff made in AI has proven to be worthless. Why is it worthless? Because the point of art was to communicate or convey something with other people and the AI has no idea because its not human. A few words or a sequence of sounds can be enough to transfer great deal of feeling and meaning because we run about the same software and as…
It boils down to the economic model and the financial and political choices like in every creative industry.
Regarding potential displacement, I would apply the stock photography theory to any creative industry. Ask yourself: is what I do in my creative endeavor the equivalent of stock content for the visual imaging industry? If the answer is yes, you might want to future proof your craft. If the answer is no (as in, your art is more than a simple soulless piece of easily digested and quantity-oriented content) then you will be fine in the long run after the current unsustainable hype cycle dies out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depending on the popularity and your income, the experience of a artist life is really not that intim as you make it.
The experience of knowing there's a human behind the message is valuable. People hated corporate propaganda "art" before AI was a thing, for the same reason it is not human.
And sometimes not knowing is better like the example with Rammstein and row zero were some manager woman was asking other woman if they want to meet their rockstars.
Btw. on a good electronic music set, knowing the arist is probably more a quality sign than a personal aspect. Knowing that i like what arist xy does, means i might like to keep an eye on future work because i like the style of it.
Nonetheless, i do also think that fandom and doing real tours will still be the unique things for bands. There should always be a market for human content.
I have to say, I completely lost it at the whisper '(The "Software")' (0:18)... give this tech another year or two and it will be better quality than your average radio song.
TBH that's a pretty low bar; "radio" songs have been engineered and polished for a very long time now. I have no hard numbers but gut feeling says radio music only represents 1% of the music industry.