191–200 of 389 posts
The last part was so sad that she couldn't bring herself to sing it ("ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.")
The site is full of gems. I like capybara: https://suno.com/song/b27c29f6-8ab4-47eb-81fd-efb85c848ada/
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.
When recorded music was invented, musicians protested. Recorded music was devoid of any vitality or soul. Recorded music still became a hit. Then we got the synthesizer. Again we got the same complaints, lifeless and without soul. The synthesizer still became a hit. Now the next step is happening, and we see the same complaints all over. Only time will show if the next step will happen anyway. My gut feeling tells me…
Another side of it is that it will enable the creation of more music around more topics than before, by non-musicians. The accessibility bar is lower.
For a lot of people, music is a way to express their emotions, and not just by creating/playing it, but by listening to it. Now, you'll be make your own hyper-specific music with lyrics around topics specific to you, without learning any of the underlying skills yourself.
I've certainly wanted some kinds of music/representation in music of some of my experiences to exist, but not enough to go out and learn to make it myself. Now/soon I should be able to do that with AI tools, and I think that's actually neat!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human is still writing the prompt. That's your human element. The prompt can be detailed, creative, and innovative. Kinda like a composer comes up with an idea for a new piece. But now the composer won't need the technical ability to translate it into musical notation.
Not sure if writing the prompt is the human element because an AI can easily write prompts. I think a stronger human element is in the training data (while that training data isn't dominated by AI generated content itself).
All our current AIs need prompts to produce content. So, you'd need to enter a prompt so that AI can produce a prompt for you.
But I guess you could develop some variant which just generates prompts in a cycle. But most of the generated prompts will pretty bad, so it will in turn produce heaps of crap.
That's where the human element is still needed - try a prompt, evaluate the result, tweak the prompt again. If this doesn't produce a good result, try a different idea. It's not even that different from how artists produce content these days (the create evaluation cycle). Current AI is not good enough to be able to judge the produced content (that's why it produces so much crap after all).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt generative AI music is going to become popular as anything but background noise, but I think it will plausibly cut into various commercial uses of music in ads and whatnot. So while I don't think people are gonna be walking around with playlists of AI slop, businesses will be using it as a cost-effective option, which means it will be eating away at the gig potential for artists in the low-to-mid layers of th…
“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
I do think that an actual strong AI would be inclined to make art that is enjoyable to itself and other AIs, not humans, so I don't think making it ape us is an actual good test for when an AI becomes capable of creativity.
You can teach a dog to dance, but it will be doing a trick, not a tango.
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…
Get a room in any hotel run by one of the large chains - Accor, Hilton, IHG... On the wall, you will find an Obligatory Art. Sometimes it's just a canvas with 3-4 stripes of paint: you can imagine a purely mechanical process for churning these out; a conveyor belt with brushes hanging over it, perhaps. Other times it's a little more creative. Each room is slightly different. You can also sometimes see these in cheap…
But these jobs never existed in first place, that generic art is done by contractors who charge for the materials.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are just skipping the step that all of it had the human element considered, which to all of us is a very intrinsic part of "art". When AI generates a piece of entertainment it's ok to just call it entertainment, it's not art until AI actually has something we can relate to as consciousness (aka a "soul").
Hard disagree. I don't think anyone considers that, unless they're an art critic, a philosopher, or a snob. For a normal person, whether something is art or not, is a mix of 1) whether they like it, 2) whether they can, or conceivably could, enjoy it together with other people, and 3) whether they're supposed to enjoy it or call it art, because other people claim they do (social proof). Examples: - Pop songs are stro…
For me, one problem with AI art is that there isn’t context for any of it. It’s just there and didn’t come from anywhere.
Eventually, some prompt engineer may build up a coherent body of work that is moving or provocative, but we aren’t there yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I can endure much more AI slop seeping its way into my life.
Art will realign to put more value on live performances. Don't worry, people who push AI art don't understand that art is a form of communication between humans. They might learn when the bubble pops and they are left with a trillion shiny "art" objects that are worth nothing, because nobody wants to look at them.