GAME CHANGER??? Rick Beato shares how AI music will thrust the current music hierarchy into chaos

[Deleted User]

@AudioGus said:

@monz0id said:

@AudioGus said:

@monz0id said:

@SevenSystems said:

@monz0id said:
I do code all week, I’m buggered if I’m going to spend my creative time off listening to it’s gargled, scraped data outpourings. Zzzz.

Maybe one last thing before you leave 😉 AI is not code. It's not at all like a program. AI is -- just like a biological brain -- hundreds of billions of individually tuned connections (synapses or "weights") between numbers (neurons). You probably know that already. If not: Nobody has sat down at OpenAI and written billions of 'if' / 'then' statements (obviously). In fact, nobody knows why ChatGPT actually works so well. Just as nobody really knows why the human brain works as well.

It is entirely possible that the creativity shown by ChatGPT works exactly the same as the creativity in a human brain, and would therefore be equivalent.

Also, before you say that "ChatGPT only mixes up a few existing pieces and jumbles them together into something that looks new" -- well, that is the definition of creativity in neuroscience 😄

Sorry!

I said, I’d stop, but just to clarify:

It’s not what it does, it’s what is doing it, that leaves me unimpressed.

I’m sure it will evolve to sound and look as good as what human artists can create. But I’m not just interested in products, I’m interested in the artists and musicians that make them - their story, where they get their inspiration from, the whole package.

So for example one of my favourite painters, Robert Lenkiewicz (look him up), had the body of a deceased tramp friend embalmed in a casket by his bed. He’d paint characters in his rambling, converted warehouse in Plymouth, put on food for local vagrants, had a library of occult and other-worldism books and was an incredibly, fascinating character. I met him a few times, watched him paint, and it was akin to being in the presence of someone from another world.

A digital picture created by John from sales, who typed in some keywords and tweaked the results a bit before uploading them onto his Instagram account really doesn’t have the same effect on me.

What worries me, is that with so much of this stuff being pumped out, future Robert Lenkiewicz‘s, future Dali’s, future McCartney’s won’t get a look in, and we’ll just have endless, regurgitated AI pulp until it eats its own data, an eternal Ouroboros loop for the TikTok generation.

Less game-changer, more game-over.

So given your interests I assume then that you have been pretty much uninterested in the vast majority of commercial art (content (shudder)), where the people behind it are faceless/unknown, not really expressing their own ideas, just drone like factory workers anyway etc. I really don't think there will be a shortage of fine artists and genuine performers at all. If those types of genuine concepts survived the past fifty years of disposable filler sausage being pumped out then I am sure they will continue to do so.

I am a commercial artist, it’s part of what I’ve been doing along with UI design, web-building etc. for over 40 years, and I am interested in it in a professional capacity. But I’ve never felt like a drone worker - quite the opposite - most of my clients, and companies I’ve worked for have employed me because of work I’ve already done, they want that style/approach that I have as they’ve seen it work for other companies. I usually get to put my own stamp on the work I do.

I can think of worse ways to earn a living.

I wasn't talking about your appreciation of your own craft/art, (after all you have a front row seat there in terms of apreciating the artist behind the work ;} ) but rather what is produced by others that you have no window into the actual creators thinking. Ie. the vast majority of commercial art out there.

I can only comment on personal experience, the commercial artists and designers I’ve worked with over the last 40 years, but I can’t remember any feeling as if they were drone-like factory workers. We all get the occasional crappy, unrewarding job but I can’t remember any being less than chuffed with the jobs they had. Annoying managers, wanting more money, of course - but that’s the same with most jobs.

I guess it depends on the type of industry they’re working in - I’ve never worked in the games industry for example, so maybe that’s less satisfying?

hes

@SevenSystems said:

@monz0id said:

@SevenSystems said:

@monz0id said:
I do code all week, I’m buggered if I’m going to spend my creative time off listening to it’s gargled, scraped data outpourings. Zzzz.

Maybe one last thing before you leave 😉 AI is not code. It's not at all like a program. AI is -- just like a biological brain -- hundreds of billions of individually tuned connections (synapses or "weights") between numbers (neurons). You probably know that already. If not: Nobody has sat down at OpenAI and written billions of 'if' / 'then' statements (obviously). In fact, nobody knows why ChatGPT actually works so well. Just as nobody really knows why the human brain works as well.

It is entirely possible that the creativity shown by ChatGPT works exactly the same as the creativity in a human brain, and would therefore be equivalent.

Also, before you say that "ChatGPT only mixes up a few existing pieces and jumbles them together into something that looks new" -- well, that is the definition of creativity in neuroscience 😄

Sorry!

I’m sure it will evolve to sound and look as good as what human artists can create. But I’m not just interested in products, I’m interested in the artists and musicians that make them - their story, where they get their inspiration from, the whole package.

Okay, that's a valid attitude, and very human I think. I've met many people who "go to concerts because of the artists", not because of the music. I think it's actually true for the majority of people, i.e. they don't like the music, they like the artist. I've never really understood this personally, but everyone's different and that's what makes mankind interesting.

It's a valid attitude. I'm just not sure what it has to do with whether a work of art is good or bad. Artists are creators. They create something that stands apart from themselves. E.g, take a novel, you read it, and then someone asks you for your opinion on whether it's good or not. It would seem quite strange for you to say, "Well, I can't really give you an answer on that yet. First, tell me whether it was written by a person or created by AI." (And think of the absurdity of taking focus on identity of the creator even further: "Okay, good, now that you've told me it was written by a person, next tell me whether it was created by a man or a woman. Then I'll be able to tell you whether it was a good novel or not.")

Maybe there are some kinds of art where the creation can't stand by itself apart from the creator. Performance art is close to that. Even then, e.g., with dance (which certainly includes human body), the choreographer is usually seen as the "creator"; the dancers are elements of the composition.

And even with human performers, it's not hard to imagine, in the far future, AI either (1) creating (or being) androids that are indistinguishable from humans (at least on the outside) or (2) AI manipulating our brain to give us the absolute feeling of some experience, e.g., of an artistic performance by some human,or (3) various other possible ways, I'm sure, e.g, holograms.

It helps to stop thinking of our technology today as "advanced". We are in the absolute infancy of the digital age. Maybe not even infancy. Think more "embryo". Stop thinking about where we are now, or where we'll be in five or ten years. Start thinking about where technology could be in 100 years, or 1,000 years. Of what is possible. If mankind survives (which I tend to think is rather doubtful and really not very important).

RockySmalls

@monz0id said:

@purpan2 said:

@monz0id said:

@SevenSystems said:

@monz0id said:
I do code all week, I’m buggered if I’m going to spend my creative time off listening to it’s gargled, scraped data outpourings. Zzzz.

Maybe one last thing before you leave 😉 AI is not code. It's not at all like a program. AI is -- just like a biological brain -- hundreds of billions of individually tuned connections (synapses or "weights") between numbers (neurons). You probably know that already. If not: Nobody has sat down at OpenAI and written billions of 'if' / 'then' statements (obviously). In fact, nobody knows why ChatGPT actually works so well. Just as nobody really knows why the human brain works as well.

It is entirely possible that the creativity shown by ChatGPT works exactly the same as the creativity in a human brain, and would therefore be equivalent.

Also, before you say that "ChatGPT only mixes up a few existing pieces and jumbles them together into something that looks new" -- well, that is the definition of creativity in neuroscience 😄

Sorry!

I said, I’d stop, but just to clarify:

It’s not what it does, it’s what is doing it, that leaves me unimpressed.

I’m sure it will evolve to sound and look as good as what human artists can create. But I’m not just interested in products, I’m interested in the artists and musicians that make them - their story, where they get their inspiration from, the whole package.

So for example one of my favourite painters, Robert Lenkiewicz (look him up), had the body of a deceased tramp friend embalmed in a casket by his bed. He’d paint characters in his rambling, converted warehouse in Plymouth, put on food for local vagrants, had a library of occult and other-worldism books and was an incredibly, fascinating character. I met him a few times, watched him paint, and it was akin to being in the presence of someone from another world.

A digital picture created by John from sales, who typed in some keywords and tweaked the results a bit before uploading them onto his Instagram account really doesn’t have the same effect on me.

What worries me, is that with so much of this stuff being pumped out, future Robert Lenkiewicz‘s, future Dali’s, future McCartney’s won’t get a look in, and we’ll just have endless, regurgitated AI pulp until it eats its own data, an eternal Ouroboros loop for the TikTok generation.

Less game-changer, more game-over.

I tend to agree. Art is evasive to define, and one of the most used definitions is that art is something that an artist creates. So far, all the AI stuff I’ve seen, chatgpt included, don’t fit that definition. Visually, there seems to be a bias towards derivative, scifi, world of warfare, k-pop stuff. It’s almost as if you can see where AI has been told to look.

There’s an offbeat, unpredicable element to human creativity that, at its most remarkable, avoids cliché. That doesn’t seem to be happening yet with AI. Maybe it will, but I doubt it. Perhaps the problem is that machine intelligence is only sourcing its influences from the internet. AI doesn’t go outside. It doesn’t know what rain feels like. It hasn’t ever been tired, or breathless, or afraid of that bad bit of town on the walk home from the station. It can mimic those things if it reads about them on the internet, but mimicking is all it can do, because rain won’t ever fall on AI, and no one will ever step out of the shadows to put the fear of god into it. It will always be a good mimic. No more.

Yep, totally agree.

I’ve yet to see one single unique image out of the tens of thousands being regurgitated across my Instagram feed. Not one single image has produced anything that couldn’t have been mocked up 30 years ago in Photoshop, or knocked out by someone like me, as an illustrator. Nothing new, just facsimiles of what it thinks sci-fi, horror, fantasy art etc. should look like.

If it hadn’t been for the work of scores of traditional fantasy artists, or the Surrealists to be able to scrape and absorb, for example, vast swathes of AI data would now not even exist.

As Joni once sang: ‘you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone’.

Aeye, make me a picture of “ pissed a tequila the length of a parking lot “

AudioGus

@monz0id said:

@AudioGus said:

@monz0id said:

@AudioGus said:

@monz0id said:

@SevenSystems said:

@monz0id said:
I do code all week, I’m buggered if I’m going to spend my creative time off listening to it’s gargled, scraped data outpourings. Zzzz.

Maybe one last thing before you leave 😉 AI is not code. It's not at all like a program. AI is -- just like a biological brain -- hundreds of billions of individually tuned connections (synapses or "weights") between numbers (neurons). You probably know that already. If not: Nobody has sat down at OpenAI and written billions of 'if' / 'then' statements (obviously). In fact, nobody knows why ChatGPT actually works so well. Just as nobody really knows why the human brain works as well.

It is entirely possible that the creativity shown by ChatGPT works exactly the same as the creativity in a human brain, and would therefore be equivalent.

Also, before you say that "ChatGPT only mixes up a few existing pieces and jumbles them together into something that looks new" -- well, that is the definition of creativity in neuroscience 😄

Sorry!

I said, I’d stop, but just to clarify:

It’s not what it does, it’s what is doing it, that leaves me unimpressed.

I’m sure it will evolve to sound and look as good as what human artists can create. But I’m not just interested in products, I’m interested in the artists and musicians that make them - their story, where they get their inspiration from, the whole package.

So for example one of my favourite painters, Robert Lenkiewicz (look him up), had the body of a deceased tramp friend embalmed in a casket by his bed. He’d paint characters in his rambling, converted warehouse in Plymouth, put on food for local vagrants, had a library of occult and other-worldism books and was an incredibly, fascinating character. I met him a few times, watched him paint, and it was akin to being in the presence of someone from another world.

A digital picture created by John from sales, who typed in some keywords and tweaked the results a bit before uploading them onto his Instagram account really doesn’t have the same effect on me.

What worries me, is that with so much of this stuff being pumped out, future Robert Lenkiewicz‘s, future Dali’s, future McCartney’s won’t get a look in, and we’ll just have endless, regurgitated AI pulp until it eats its own data, an eternal Ouroboros loop for the TikTok generation.

Less game-changer, more game-over.

So given your interests I assume then that you have been pretty much uninterested in the vast majority of commercial art (content (shudder)), where the people behind it are faceless/unknown, not really expressing their own ideas, just drone like factory workers anyway etc. I really don't think there will be a shortage of fine artists and genuine performers at all. If those types of genuine concepts survived the past fifty years of disposable filler sausage being pumped out then I am sure they will continue to do so.

I am a commercial artist, it’s part of what I’ve been doing along with UI design, web-building etc. for over 40 years, and I am interested in it in a professional capacity. But I’ve never felt like a drone worker - quite the opposite - most of my clients, and companies I’ve worked for have employed me because of work I’ve already done, they want that style/approach that I have as they’ve seen it work for other companies. I usually get to put my own stamp on the work I do.

I can think of worse ways to earn a living.

I wasn't talking about your appreciation of your own craft/art, (after all you have a front row seat there in terms of apreciating the artist behind the work ;} ) but rather what is produced by others that you have no window into the actual creators thinking. Ie. the vast majority of commercial art out there.

I can only comment on personal experience, the commercial artists and designers I’ve worked with over the last 40 years, but I can’t remember any feeling as if they were drone-like factory workers. We all get the occasional crappy, unrewarding job but I can’t remember any being less than chuffed with the jobs they had. Annoying managers, wanting more money, of course - but that’s the same with most jobs.

I guess it depends on the type of industry they’re working in - I’ve never worked in the games industry for example, so maybe that’s less satisfying?

I've managed to eek out my own satisfying oasis/niche that is pretty atypical of the games industry, meaning I am a happy boy (especially since covid means I don't have to be in an office poisoned by miserable cunts, lol). But yes, I just figured most creative folks have heard the tales of the general dissatisfaction with the factory process that drives most of games/movies/tv out there. I can appreciate the work of slaves but I figured that if having insight into the artists relationship with their work being pivotal for you that a lot of that manufactured stuff would just fall flat for you in the end.

Svetlovska

As the Prophets said:

“In the year 5555
Your arms hangin' limp at your sides
Your legs got nothin' to do
Some machine's doin' that for you.”

Now it’s been 10,000 years, Mans cried a billion tears…

cyberheater

@Svetlovska said:
The aim of the research team apparently is to evolve the system to the point that it can upgrade its physical components without any human intervention at all.

What could go wrong.

Very interesting research.

[Deleted User]

@AudioGus said:
I've managed to eek out my own satisfying oasis/niche that is pretty atypical of the games industry, meaning I am a happy boy (especially since covid means I don't have to be in an office poisoned by miserable cunts, lol).

Self-employment/freelance is the best for keeping a distance from orrible office grumps, though to be fair I was usually in a room filled with mad designers and coders who were a right ole larf.

[Deleted User]

@RockySmalls said:

@monz0id said:

@purpan2 said:

@monz0id said:

@SevenSystems said:

@monz0id said:
I do code all week, I’m buggered if I’m going to spend my creative time off listening to it’s gargled, scraped data outpourings. Zzzz.

Maybe one last thing before you leave 😉 AI is not code. It's not at all like a program. AI is -- just like a biological brain -- hundreds of billions of individually tuned connections (synapses or "weights") between numbers (neurons). You probably know that already. If not: Nobody has sat down at OpenAI and written billions of 'if' / 'then' statements (obviously). In fact, nobody knows why ChatGPT actually works so well. Just as nobody really knows why the human brain works as well.

It is entirely possible that the creativity shown by ChatGPT works exactly the same as the creativity in a human brain, and would therefore be equivalent.

Also, before you say that "ChatGPT only mixes up a few existing pieces and jumbles them together into something that looks new" -- well, that is the definition of creativity in neuroscience 😄

Sorry!

I said, I’d stop, but just to clarify:

It’s not what it does, it’s what is doing it, that leaves me unimpressed.

I’m sure it will evolve to sound and look as good as what human artists can create. But I’m not just interested in products, I’m interested in the artists and musicians that make them - their story, where they get their inspiration from, the whole package.

So for example one of my favourite painters, Robert Lenkiewicz (look him up), had the body of a deceased tramp friend embalmed in a casket by his bed. He’d paint characters in his rambling, converted warehouse in Plymouth, put on food for local vagrants, had a library of occult and other-worldism books and was an incredibly, fascinating character. I met him a few times, watched him paint, and it was akin to being in the presence of someone from another world.

A digital picture created by John from sales, who typed in some keywords and tweaked the results a bit before uploading them onto his Instagram account really doesn’t have the same effect on me.

What worries me, is that with so much of this stuff being pumped out, future Robert Lenkiewicz‘s, future Dali’s, future McCartney’s won’t get a look in, and we’ll just have endless, regurgitated AI pulp until it eats its own data, an eternal Ouroboros loop for the TikTok generation.

Less game-changer, more game-over.

I tend to agree. Art is evasive to define, and one of the most used definitions is that art is something that an artist creates. So far, all the AI stuff I’ve seen, chatgpt included, don’t fit that definition. Visually, there seems to be a bias towards derivative, scifi, world of warfare, k-pop stuff. It’s almost as if you can see where AI has been told to look.

There’s an offbeat, unpredicable element to human creativity that, at its most remarkable, avoids cliché. That doesn’t seem to be happening yet with AI. Maybe it will, but I doubt it. Perhaps the problem is that machine intelligence is only sourcing its influences from the internet. AI doesn’t go outside. It doesn’t know what rain feels like. It hasn’t ever been tired, or breathless, or afraid of that bad bit of town on the walk home from the station. It can mimic those things if it reads about them on the internet, but mimicking is all it can do, because rain won’t ever fall on AI, and no one will ever step out of the shadows to put the fear of god into it. It will always be a good mimic. No more.

Yep, totally agree.

I’ve yet to see one single unique image out of the tens of thousands being regurgitated across my Instagram feed. Not one single image has produced anything that couldn’t have been mocked up 30 years ago in Photoshop, or knocked out by someone like me, as an illustrator. Nothing new, just facsimiles of what it thinks sci-fi, horror, fantasy art etc. should look like.

If it hadn’t been for the work of scores of traditional fantasy artists, or the Surrealists to be able to scrape and absorb, for example, vast swathes of AI data would now not even exist.

As Joni once sang: ‘you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone’.

Aeye, make me a picture of “ pissed a tequila the length of a parking lot “

Told you it was crap:

….

Sam23

wow…
https://youtu.be/y0OsCAzR7dc

Simon

"The future of AI is chilling – humans have to act together to overcome this threat to civilisation":

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/26/future-ai-chilling-humans-threat-civilisation

NeuM

@Simon said:
"The future of AI is chilling – humans have to act together to overcome this threat to civilisation":

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/26/future-ai-chilling-humans-threat-civilisation

The biggest threats to civilization are still people, not A.I.