Agents with financial heft who have up to now been prepared to pay a little for artistic contributions to their cultural enterprises mostly already don't care about the quality of the culture they engender (down to and including the audio-streaming platforms). They have noticed that what many audiences/consumers seem to want from their cultural experience is a constant re-engagement with the familiar. They are focused on creating services that deliver imitative, repetitive film/music/tv/games for that purpose, to consumers who have shown that they are willing to pay for such services.
In this kind of culture, the greed and ego of the entertainments (or AI) CEO is legitimated by the limited expectations of the entertainments consumer; "producers" and "makers" are already a commercial irritant, routinely chewed up in not-so-virtuous cycles of profiteering. What CEO wouldn't want to replace all of them with a single AI service for which their company pays a negotiated fee?
Download Ron Suno What They Gon Say
Download File 🔥 https://urllio.com/2yGbIZ 🔥
Could these be the reasons why why Spotify (for instance) has fudged around the issue of AI and musical culture, and continues to "experiment" with generic playlists (plenty of discussion of that elsewhere)?
1. Might it not be more humane, in the long run, if it becomes practically impossible for human beings to dedicate their artistic efforts to the well-being of unaccountable corporations? Entirely produced by AI, the general culture might be artistic sludge, but no actual human being would have to endure the indignity of contributing to it.
2. It's possible to choose an artistic life precisely out of disinterest in the affirmative culture that follows capital. That is, not out of an expectation of being remunerated by corporations (for e.g.), and with full awareness that making artistic works that are not primarily aimed at capitalisation is a contribution to a selective kind of artistic culture.
I've listened to a couple of the "trending" songs featured on the starting page and to me they sounded rather bland and generic. Which isn't exactly surprising IMO because "originality" is comparatively hard/impossible to train. (We've been over this argument elsewhere before.)
But back to a more serious note: To me, creating music has to a certain degree always been about individuality and originality. I do most of my work in education nowadays; and I am always fascinated that people "pick" their favourite music at least partly "off the beaten path". I know they don't consciously pick it - there's simply something that resonates with them. So both the act of creation and the act of listening are both highly individualized processes: What speaks to me doesn't automatically speak to you and vice versa. And that's the beauty of it; and I am convinced that that's also a limit for AI.
@jmob You did kick off by suggesting that "we" are in trouble... but of course I am speaking for myself, especially on the question of what kind of artistic work is worth defending. Actually, I agree with you that "we" are in trouble, but because our culture is so full of imitative and generic stuff, not because that stuff might now be produced by AI rather than humans.
AI will replace what is eminently replaceable by AI. That makes me want to ask how and why so much of what we call culture has become so easily replaceable by generative tech. It's a political and cultural question, with a specific history.
It's obvious that tech and entertainment companies will use AI to cut out the human producer where they can, because - surprise! (not) - those companies are already like that. If consumers don't like the cultural outcomes of AI, they'll need to stop paying for them, and speak up. If that doesn't happen, makers will know that some AI-generated stuff is "good enough" for most people, and might want to direct their artistic efforts elsewhere. Again, it's a political question, about what artistic work is for, or can be for.
You already do.
Logic has an amount of AI tech in it....and this will undoubtedly increase over time.
I'm personally not that concerned about AI, based on written language.
A great deal of "content" online is AI-generated/aggregated....and it is easy to spot/often gibberish.
Similarly, generative music tends to be "in a box"....with little outside the box.
This is where humans come into the picture...as they think/work outside the box.
There will always be an audience for this - in music, literature, art, film, etc. - and there will always be an audience for live performance.
Don't understimate the desire/ability of human beings to recognise/want a mix of perfection and imperfection.
At a core level, this accounts for our varied taste in food, partners, music, books, movies, art, and shows, etc. we like/dislike/prefer, etc.
You love the exquisitely prepared and flawlessly presented meal in a restaurant and equally love the rustic pasta knocked up by your nonna.
AI will give us an approximation of both meals....but it won't be the "same" visceral experience - and ultimately, music (along with other artforms) is....for many humans....an emotive thing.
Sure, many will accept/choose the "fast food" option, but there will always be those who won't.
I don't understand how this is even a remotely controversial point of view. Yes, AI will lead to an explosion of creativity, but music for most of us, for the vast majority of us will cease to become a career. If someone can press a button and make something better than a composer, they will go with that because it will be pennies on the dollar
It's a perspective....rather than controversial.
That your particular role in the music biz "may" be more susceptible to AI is noted.
My point was/is that humans are infinitely variable and adaptable...this is evidenced in the different perspectives and thoughts raised in this very discussion, and in the music we create/prefer.
Music-making has changed/adapted with each new "technological" advance....for centuries/millennia. animal skins for drums and wind instruments, hollowed out wood, hair-stringed instruments, french horn, harpsichord/piano, P.A. systems, wax cylinders, PVA, tape, transistors, computers, etc.
Will AI change things in the way music is made/musical careers?...yep sure - but music and other artistic pursuits will not solely (or even mainly) be the domain of machines in future.
As a species, we're too divergent...creatively and as consumers.
Is your musical taste the same as your parents, grandparents?
Kids/teens are gonna find their own thing....and access to music is a million miles from what we grew up with.
The Kool-Aid glass is half full.....and not being served in Jonestown ?
From the perspective of someone who composes and performs as an avocation, it will alter the experience but not eliminate the visceral delight of creation or performance. The tech 'assistance' I now get when writing or performing was unimaginable when I started many decades ago; but the joy hasn't changed. I suspect a similar impact from AI. But, I don't make a living from it. 152ee80cbc
what will i look like when i 39;m older no download