There were some songs (of different genres) which I thought “huh, sounds really good” and then noticed, that it was AI (either by a disclaimer in the description, people in the comments or by the voice; the voice of AI is still fairly noticeable) and went “fuuuuuuuck, now I don’t want to like it”. And this annoys me, as I know it will happen more often and also that I will miss out noticing it more.
AI creations can get flooded while real creators getting drowned out (looking with much disgust at you Pixiv and DeviantArt).
But I also want to add that I am not against AI assisted music creations. But then the creator must disclose where and how much the AI was involved.
I found a YT channel that talks about WWI/WWII and other wars guns in quite a detail. Seems cool and all. But then I checked date of the channel created and how often they upload. 2 years old, uploads every 3 days or so. Can’t be a real person. Voice is perfect, doesn’t sound anything like AI. Footage looks legit. But I fail to believe that even a small team under 80k sub YT channel can research, compose and record a video in 3 days.
We’re cooked. We been a long way in “don’t believe anything on the internet” and now it has become “dont believe anything at all”
I refuse to consider anything AI generated to be legitimate art.
There’s nothing intentional about it, you simply give a prompt to a machine and it matches the pattern. That isn’t art just like how doing madlibs isn’t the same as writing literature.
A person using AI tools can be ok as long as it’s a human doing the overall composition.
Like using AI to make samples to use in a song is fine, using AI to generate the entire song isn’t.
It’s functionally no different than an artist making a commissioned work, though. The artist is given a prompt by the client and they use what they’ve learned and trained on to produce the thing.
It is entirely different. It’s like the commissioner taking credit for the artist and calling themselves the artist because their money bought the imagery into existence.
AI generations aren’t art and people who take them and pass them off as art are frauds to themselves and others.
But I also want to add that I am not against AI assisted music creations.
I thought this was a great TED talk describing how AI can be used in the composition and “recording” of works where a human is still in the driver’s seat. In this person’s case, it’s still a human mostly performing and singing, but just fed through an algorithm that makes it sound like another (famous) singer.
We are getting closer and it makes me very sad.
There were some songs (of different genres) which I thought “huh, sounds really good” and then noticed, that it was AI (either by a disclaimer in the description, people in the comments or by the voice; the voice of AI is still fairly noticeable) and went “fuuuuuuuck, now I don’t want to like it”. And this annoys me, as I know it will happen more often and also that I will miss out noticing it more. AI creations can get flooded while real creators getting drowned out (looking with much disgust at you Pixiv and DeviantArt).
But I also want to add that I am not against AI assisted music creations. But then the creator must disclose where and how much the AI was involved.
I found a YT channel that talks about WWI/WWII and other wars guns in quite a detail. Seems cool and all. But then I checked date of the channel created and how often they upload. 2 years old, uploads every 3 days or so. Can’t be a real person. Voice is perfect, doesn’t sound anything like AI. Footage looks legit. But I fail to believe that even a small team under 80k sub YT channel can research, compose and record a video in 3 days.
We’re cooked. We been a long way in “don’t believe anything on the internet” and now it has become “dont believe anything at all”
I refuse to consider anything AI generated to be legitimate art.
There’s nothing intentional about it, you simply give a prompt to a machine and it matches the pattern. That isn’t art just like how doing madlibs isn’t the same as writing literature.
A person using AI tools can be ok as long as it’s a human doing the overall composition.
Like using AI to make samples to use in a song is fine, using AI to generate the entire song isn’t.
deleted by creator
It’s functionally no different than an artist making a commissioned work, though. The artist is given a prompt by the client and they use what they’ve learned and trained on to produce the thing.
It is entirely different. It’s like the commissioner taking credit for the artist and calling themselves the artist because their money bought the imagery into existence.
AI generations aren’t art and people who take them and pass them off as art are frauds to themselves and others.
I thought this was a great TED talk describing how AI can be used in the composition and “recording” of works where a human is still in the driver’s seat. In this person’s case, it’s still a human mostly performing and singing, but just fed through an algorithm that makes it sound like another (famous) singer.
I mean I don’t like the ai music but only because you can hear it.
Now I don’t want to hear anything that is similar, so music that sounds a bit like AI but isn’t is now out of the door too.