I think we're just going to have to get used to it. That is, just drop worrying too much about whether something is AI and just stop at whether you like it or not.
It doesn't work like that, art is a package. At this point it's interesting that AI can do these things but the momen it wears off it stops being worthwhile. Artist + AI as a tool is working fine I believe but stuff produced by people who don't have taste shows.
I was making the opposite point — if you hate it, you hate it — regardless of whether it is AI or not.
You're having a problem with liking it only to find out later it is AI?
Again, live music is the way to go then. Also, artists I like the most have a body of work that I like. If AI can fake that — create a body of work I like, cam relate to ... well, I guess I have to give credit to the machine.
An interesting take. I guess I'm more shallow than that. I have to like an artist first to even be bothered to delve into the artistic merit behind their work.
I'm not sure there's a point to doing that with a lot of pop music, which is often written by committee to give to a pop star whose personality and looks are likewise crafted by other committees to attract a particular audience. The point is to make a successful product. It's romantic to imagine a tortured composer who creates music to express their damaged soul to the world and the like, but that's not what most music is.
Every time something comes along like this there's a revolt.
Photoshop.
First Analog synthesizers and then digital synthesizers.
Multitrack audio recording.
Digital Recording.
Autotune.
Vocaloids.
These things change the nature of the game and invalidate the labor of the people who used to be winners, and I get it.
If you take the money and the fame out of the equation, though, the point of art is not to become rich and famous, it's to communicate.
Eventually, we will find artists who are finally able to send in a way that others want to receive thanks to AI.
And there will be people like me and probably you that prefer to only hear what a human had to say straight from their own mouths. And that's fine. There are no walls.
I mean, even the presence of the ability to overdub audio on a record let people cast aspersions on the "genuineness" of artists like KISS:
"“There is a lot of controversy about KISS’ ‘Alive!’ Did they play their own record or did they overdub? News Flash! You’re allowed to overdub! You’re allowed to do that. It’s not a crime. If you’re making an album and you want to overdub one part, that’s completely allowed, and everybody does it. "
Even modern musicians call studio composing "cheating"
"In a way it's kind of like cheating cause you can play stuff over and over again, and be like, no, that's bad, cut this, move it over, and then kind of fit the lyrics to it."
I think there should be a legal mandate for truth in labelling just like there is on food. If I could, I would block all AI generated and TTS-voiced videos on YouTube. I don't want AI-generated anything. the fact that it's being forced on us from all angles is proof that it is no good.
Good point. I'll allow that there is a distinction there to be made.
It's a bit slippery though. I think it was one of the Myst engineers that recently had 95% of a musical piece but was fumbling to come up with a satisfactory bridge. He leaned on AI and it knocked out the perfect bridge — one he was unsure why he hadn't thought of himself.
