I'm No Luddite! But I Have...Artistic Concerns...

[Rhythmisking]

I'm not actually too worried about this.

Technology advances. There's always prophecies of doom based on this. But, the thing is, life and the world is profoundly complex and a-static. Prophecies of doom assume a technological advance will become an agent of change and present a threat against the static background of the moment, but everything is dynamic; everything is constantly changing -not just the technology. The world is not the same as it was100 years ago, 10 years ago, or 10 minutes ago. So we can't accurately predict these effects against a infinitely complex, dynamic and responsive system. I think this bodes well for the future of live music, but who knows?

I don't worry about Terminator/Matrix-style futures, because those postulate artificial intelligence becoming artificial life, but that understanding of life is simplistic. It assumes life is nothing but varyingly complex interactions of physics and chemistry. As technologists, we are unable to understand the role feeling and consciousness play in the dynamics of life in the same way that we are able to understand the roles physics and math play, and so we are unable to pass those elements onto, or into, technologies which are based solely on physics and math.

When motion pictures were first developed, the audiences thought the images on the screen were real; that the locomotive coming at them on the screen would actually injure them. With AI we can now fool ourselves into thinking we have created something that is possibly alive and does what we do, but isn't and doesn't. Any technology based on physics and math can process information, but it cannot experience subjectively because it does not exist consciously. Without the ability to experience subjectively, there is no life, no consciousness, and no possibility for subjective, experientially-based understanding.

An AI program might be able to create beautiful music, but it can only generate creations that have been quantified as beautiful by humans who actually experience beauty. So it can 'fake it', and maybe it's a good fake. But "it" -the program- has no awareness of itself, or ability to subjectively experience, so "it" isn't "faking" anything. It is only a new tool being used by people, so it is actually we who have developed new tools that we can use to create beautiful things in a different way. Is it music? Is the program a musician? Kind of depends on how you define those things.

As such, while AI might be able to process quantifications of what beauty, joy, or pain is for a human, based upon human-generated information (which is itself derived from qualitative evaluations of subjective, individual, human experiences) and translate them into theoretical physical situations, no AI can ever understand beauty or joy (or pain/suffering) at the level of consciousness and feeling, and experience that in the moment. It can never, therefore, truly 'create', except after the fact and pre-quantified, so that is really just humans creating by proxy. Using a new tool.

 

[Prs Mods too]

I'm not actually too worried about this.

Technology advances. There's always prophecies of doom based on this. But, the thing is, life and the world is profoundly complex and a-static. Prophecies of doom assume a technological advance will become an agent of change and present a threat against the static background of the moment, but everything is dynamic; everything is constantly changing -not just the technology. The world is not the same as it was100 years ago, 10 years ago, or 10 minutes ago. So we can't accurately predict these effects against a infinitely complex, dynamic and responsive system. I think this bodes well for the future of live music, but who knows?

I don't worry about Terminator/Matrix-style futures, because those postulate artificial intelligence becoming artificial life, but that understanding of life is simplistic. It assumes life is nothing but varyingly complex interactions of physics and chemistry. As technologists, we are unable to understand the role feeling and consciousness play in the dynamics of life in the same way that we are able to understand the roles physics and math play, and so we are unable to pass those elements onto, or into, technologies which are based solely on physics and math.

When motion pictures were first developed, the audiences thought the images on the screen were real; that the locomotive coming at them on the screen would actually injure them. With AI we can now fool ourselves into thinking we have created something that is possibly alive and does what we do, but isn't and doesn't. Any technology based on physics and math can process information, but it cannot experience subjectively because it does not exist consciously. Without the ability to experience subjectively, there is no life, no consciousness, and no possibility for subjective, experientially-based understanding.

An AI program might be able to create beautiful music, but it can only generate creations that have been quantified as beautiful by humans who actually experience beauty. So it can 'fake it', and maybe it's a good fake. But "it" -the program- has no awareness of itself, or ability to subjectively experience, so "it" isn't "faking" anything. It is only a new tool being used by people, so it is actually we who have developed new tools that we can use to create beautiful things in a different way. Is it music? Is the program a musician? Kind of depends on how you define those things.

As such, while AI might be able to process quantifications of what beauty, joy, or pain is for a human, based upon human-generated information (which is itself derived from qualitative evaluations of subjective, individual, human experiences) and translate them into theoretical physical situations, no AI can ever understand beauty or joy (or pain/suffering) at the level of consciousness and feeling, and experience that in the moment. It can never, therefore, truly 'create', except after the fact and pre-quantified, so that is really just humans creating by proxy. Using a new tool.

Yeah sure but the fact is millions of artists will be put out of work because of this sh!t.

 

[Rhythmisking]

Yeah sure but the fact is millions of artists will be put out of work because of this sh!t.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I could see it shifting people's enjoyment of music away from streaming services (which suck for artists) and back to live performances.

And how would that be any different for all the artists who were put out of work by DJ's? Or the people who used to be able to eek out a living playing cover tunes in bars? Music is an artform. Monetizing any artform is fraught with peril, and always subject to shifting preferences of those spending the money, not to mention the middlemen who exploit the artist. Basically trying to make a living as an artist is almost always an iffy proposition. Historically there have been windows where it worked. Mostly it doesn't.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

Music is an art form.

Question: Do you consider something done by AI (picture, painting, whatever) as “art?”

 

[Rhythmisking]

Question: Do you consider something done by AI (picture, painting, whatever) as “art?”

I'd say the artistry is in the coding that created the AI, rather than the AI's output.

 

[Moondog Wily]

Question: Do you consider something done by AI (picture, painting, whatever) as “art?”

I would say, if I like the way it looks/sounds/feels and it entertains me, and makes me think, it is art, regardless of who or what produced it. Even if I do NOT like the way it looks/sounds/feels, I can not say it is not art. Does that make math art? Do I want humans to be producing everying I hear and see? Probably not! Maybe. Many coders consider themselves to be poets. I know when I solved a problem for Porsche in 1999 about displaying varied configurations of their 911 model with 23 lines of code, I thought that was pretty f'in poetic. And I got paid VERY well to do so ;~)) Do you know FOR A FACT, that all you have ever seen in your life was produce by a "real artist"? ONCE AGAIN, WE COME BACK TO DEFINITIONS, WHICH EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD IS CHOOSING TO IGNORE RATHER THAN ESTABLISH!!!!!!!!!! Which turns it into a t!itty f2ck rather than a real "encounter" ;~)) I funna go play some music!

 

[Black Plaid]

I believe AI is anything that takes over what a human used to do.

This could be taken pretty broadly with some absurd arguments like "So a drill is AI because the human doesn't do the turning any more?"

 

[Black Plaid]

When motion pictures were first developed, the audiences thought the images on the screen were real; that the locomotive coming at them on the screen would actually injure them.

While amusing, this is apocryphal

Lumiere Illuminated: 'Moving Image' Debunks Myths Surrounding 'Arrival of the Train'

The Moving Image:The Journal of the Association of Moving Image ArchivistsVolume 4, Number 1 (Spring 2004)University of Minnesota Press176 pps. Subscriptions, One Year $75ISBN 0-8166-4530-2

www.documentary.org

 

[veinbuster]

Question: Do you consider something done by AI (picture, painting, whatever) as “art?”

Years ago, I wrote programs that wrote programs. Companies ran their businesses with the resultant programs. Clearly the result was a program and for most people was indistinguishable from something written by hand.

If I am willing to put something on my wall, it is art.

 

[Prina]

'Prompt engineer': A person trained to get AI systems to do what he/she wants. That's where a lot of us are headed, either creatively or professionally.

@Moondog Wily is getting great experience with image creation and the results are impressive. And until AGI, artificial general intelligence, surpasses humans usually the best results are not from purely human or AI/computer input but from a combination of the two.

And I'd love to hear the results a system that could do a quick orchestral score/arrangement around a motif provided by Les!

 

[Prina]

There are no set definitions relating to music as to what is or isn't subject to copyright. There are no preordained legal criteria. It's amorphous. Every case is determined on its own merits, by the court and jury (or judge if juries are waived by the parties).

Thanks! That was an eye opening summary. Not boring at all.

Does anything prevent someone just have an AI create millions of songs, store them some place that documents their creation and whenever something close is published, register the copyright and sue?

 

[László]

Does anything prevent someone just have an AI create millions of songs, store them some place that documents their creation and whenever something close is published, register the copyright and sue?

Maybe. That'd sure be an interesting can of worms, and honestly, it's a brilliant question!

I'm not aware of any case law on it, so what follows is simply my best guess. However, the Copyright Office has launched a study on what to do about the question of works generated by, or with the assistance of, artificial intelligence.

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence | U.S. Copyright Office

Copyright law

www.copyright.gov

There are practical matters that could, however, be barriers under current law.

The person alleging infringement has to prove that the Non-AI writer had access to the AI song. That's often very difficult to prove. In the case of someone salting away millions of AI generated songs, it could be a very difficult proposition. I've been involved in defending copyright claims made by obscure bands who couldn't prove access.

So that would be a barrier to recovering anything; more importantly, in copyright infringement suits, the loser pays the winner's attorney's fees by statute. Intellectual property law is the only type of US law where the loser has to do this, and federal courts routinely render judgments against claimants who lose.

Typically, copyright cases cost six figures to defend, so in addition to the legal fees paid out by the AI owner, they'd be liable for the defense fees. Do that often enough, and one could go broke pretty quickly. That's a practical barrier to such cases.

Second, if the person writing the non-AI song registered a copyright first, there is a legal presumption that the copyright that came in first is the original song. This presumption can be overcome by sufficient evidence, but the burden of proof is on the person with the second copyright registration. This is an important reason why songwriters and composers should always register their copyrights when the work is completed.

Seems to me that this would be a good thing for Congress to address. For example, the law could require that a creative work subject to copyright must be shown to be written by a human being.

Anyway, really interesting, you're on the ball!

 

[Deleted member 5962]

If I am willing to put something on my wall, it is art.

Quoting you for reference, but this question for everyone...

If music is created by AI, is it "art?" If you like the music, is it then OK with you?

And, I am not trying to start another war here. I'm genuinely curious as to how people feel about this artificially created "art," be it pictures, music, or whatever form of things we now consider to be art. My opinion on the art side, the stuff like MW did is cool. Using it for "posters" type things, sure, why not? But I'm hot as keen on it replacing true artists/painters/drawers, etc.

Part of my "issue" (that seems to piss people off terribly) is that I do not appreciate copy and paste forms of music. And without asking for another wave of insults or another war, I'm genuinely curious where the bar is for this on others. How far will it go, and we still think it's "an art form?" If AI replaces first the rap and hip hop tracks, but then the pop tracks, and then... heaven forbid, rock and roll tracks... are you guys all OK with that? Do you view it as "progress" as "acceptable," and "the waive of the future?" If an "artist" is a performer out front and all the music is done by AI, are you guys OK with that? More importantly, will you support it? (Buy albums, tickets, etc.)

 

[Rhythmisking]

Quoting you for reference, but this question for everyone...

If music is created by AI, is it "art?" If you like the music, is it then OK with you?

And, I am not trying to start another war here. I'm genuinely curious as to how people feel about this artificially created "art," be it pictures, music, or whatever form of things we now consider to be art. My opinion on the art side, the stuff like MW did is cool. Using it for "posters" type things, sure, why not? But I'm hot as keen on it replacing true artists/painters/drawers, etc.

Part of my "issue" (that seems to piss people off terribly) is that I do not appreciate copy and paste forms of music. And without asking for another wave of insults or another war, I'm genuinely curious where the bar is for this on others. How far will it go, and we still think it's "an art form?" If AI replaces first the rap and hip hop tracks, but then the pop tracks, and then... heaven forbid, rock and roll tracks... are you guys all OK with that? Do you view it as "progress" as "acceptable," and "the waive of the future?" If an "artist" is a performer out front and all the music is done by AI, are you guys OK with that? More importantly, will you support it? (Buy albums, tickets, etc.)

So here's the thing, there's two sides to this coin. There's the "artist" who is creating something we'll call "art" for the time being. Then there's the "audience" or person viewing it/appreciating this "art". The creator has their own feelings and process about what they've made. The viewer also has those for the thing they're appreciating.

It's quite possible for an "artist" to be a hack. No real creativity, no 'soul'. Mostly just re-assembling, regurgitating things that others have done. To me this is no different than what AI can do. Is that art? Are we talking about the process, or the thing created? I'm asking rhetorically.

Now we've all played music in bands (at least most of us I assume...) and we know those moments where everything just 'clicks'; there's inspiration, an almost magical synergy and musical communication where the group of musicians are now like a single living thing and the sound is amazing. Then there are the other times when that synergy isn't present, people aren't particularly focused, and we're all playing the tune correctly, but it's boring. From an AI perspective, there's no difference between these two performances, but the players can feel a HUGE difference, and most of the time, the audience can too.

I've certainly seen excellent musicians playing in concert who were just phoning it in. Everything was perfectly done, their playing was perfect because they are excellent craftspeople, but there was no soul -to me, no real artistry present. I can't tell you how much that pisses me off. I saw one of my all time favorite musicians do that one time at a show and I've never gone to see him since. To me, he had committed an unpardonable offense, because I was there to see and hear the magic I knew he was capable of, not a regurgitated, technically perfect walk-through.

The musician I've probably had the most admiration and respect for was Bobby Hutcherson. His recording are flawless and perfect, but when he played live he would always try new things, take chances, reach and stretch. To me that was art, not the perfection of performance, but the attempting to reach for something beyond and bring it down into the room. If that isn't present, it's not art to me, it's craft. Those two different things, and it's not that one is better than the other, but they are different things.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

It's quite possible for an "artist" to be a hack. No real creativity, no 'soul'. Mostly just re-assembling, regurgitating things that others have done. To me this is no different than what AI can do. Is that art? Are we talking about the process, or the thing created? I'm asking rhetorically.

So if I sit down at a grand piano and perfectly play a difficult Bach piece, are you saying that is not art, since I didn't create it? Again, just asking your perspective. You compare that in this way? "No real creativity, no 'soul'. Mostly just re-assembling, regurgitating things that others have done. To me this is no different than what AI can do. Is that art?"

And then, same question for a Kiss song, but this one, asking for a friend.

 

[Rhythmisking]

So if I sit down at a grand piano and perfectly play a difficult Bach piece, are you saying that is not art, since I didn't create it? Again, just asking your perspective. You compare that in this way? "No real creativity, no 'soul'. Mostly just re-assembling, regurgitating things that others have done. To me this is no different than what AI can do. Is that art?"

And then, same question for a Kiss song, but this one, asking for a friend.

Yes. To me, art/artist and craft/craftsperson are not interchangeable terms. Perfectly playing that difficult Bach piece makes you a musician, which is a craft, but not automatically an artist. Interpreting it in a way that adds something creative that you could feel but wasn't represented in the score (even though if someone transcribed what you played creatively it might be exactly the same as the original score), would be adding some measure of artistry. And that artistry is often something that can be felt, even though the trascrition would be identical.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

Yes. To me, art/artist and craft/craftsperson are not interchangeable terms. Perfectly playing that difficult Bach piece makes you a musician, which is a craft, but not automatically an artist. Interpreting it in a way that adds something creative that you could feel but wasn't represented in the score (even though if someone transcribed what you played creatively it might be exactly the same as the original score), would be adding some measure of artistry. And that artistry is often something that can be felt, even though the trascrition would be identical.

So following that, if AI perfectly plays the difficult Bach piece... is AI a musician? And, assuming per what you wrote above, you would not consider AI an "artist." Correct?

 

[Rhythmisking]

So following that, if AI perfectly plays the difficult Bach piece... is AI a musician? And, assuming per what you wrote above, you would not consider AI an "artist." Correct?

Good question. Is a player piano a musician? That one seems like an easy "of course not!". It's obviously a machine that makes musical sounds.

What about an AI could jam spontaneously with human musicians? What if it could, rather than constructing a piece of music from pre-programmed bits, analyze what the other musicians were doing in real time and add to it in a realist way that sounded good? Yikes...

Is a Waymo self-driving car a driver? It makes decisions and responds to it's surroundings...although sometimes very poorly.

So I think maybe by some definitions, an AI that could spontaneously jam with human players might meet the definition of a musician, but not a very good one?

I don't know...

 

[László]

Question: Do you consider something done by AI (picture, painting, whatever) as “art?”

I might, but I still wouldn't want it.

 

[László]

Part of my "issue" (that seems to piss people off terribly) is that I do not appreciate copy and paste forms of music.

How about defining 'copy and paste'?

You realize that major label recordings were duplicating and splicing in things like well-played choruses, licks, vocals, etc., back in the day of classic rock and tape, right? They were even cutting and splicing in individual tracks on multitrack tape.

All tape machines in pro studios came with splicing blocks. The splicing blocks got used on a daily basis to...yes...cut and paste. Because that's what a splice is.

Also understand that your current favorite bands are doing the same thing digitally. "Grab the drum fill from bar 25, and lets use it again in bar 48." Etc. Lots and lots and lots of things get fixed in the mix that way. Everyone uses these tools. That's why people record to a click track. So they have consistent timing and can cut and paste, or 'comp' takes easily on a time line.

When sampling came in, traditional bands used it to sample and "fly in" parts just like cutting and pasting on a computer. In fact, that was its original main use in pro studios. If you think your favorite bands weren't doing this, think again.

Famous traditional rock bands are also:

Quantizing audio if the timing of the playing is slightly off; grabbing the best phrases of a solo and comping one together from only the best phrases; changing pitch digitally, including guitar solos if a note is off; and I'm only scratching the surface. Let's not even talk about vocal pitch correction - it's a standard part of all pro mixing chains at this point to correct off-pitch parts.

You've heard all this cutting and pasting and correction a million times and don't even know it.

Don't kid yourself.