Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.

Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.

Download on the App Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

So the whole AI movie thing is really moving along now…

124678

Comments

  • JanKunJanKun

    @NeuM said:

    @JanKun said:
    I am mostly interested in the creation section of this forum. And to be honest, I find that it has generally become a less enjoyable place to hang, mainly due to what I consider the AI pollution. I came to the point where I despise those AI generated things (cannot convince me to call that art) as much as advertisement. Though I must admit that I initially jumped on the train for a while to create some of my artwork, mea culpa.

    It is undeniable that AI will play a bigger and bigger role in our lives, but on the other hand, and judging by the different reactions on this thread, wouldn't it be good for everyone to establish clear space on this forum where each one of us could enjoy according to our own position on the AI topic?

    Not being a tech savvy, I have no idea how hard it would be to implement such a thing. maybe a good starting point would be to create a section dedicated to AI. Those who want to share their AI generated things could do it freely there without bothering people who still care about human generated art. @Michael would it be hard to do?

    I have noticed previously many people expressing interest in drumming tools which generate rhythmic patterns for them. And chord progression tools which are used to fill in gaps in people’s musical knowledge or to speed production. Or even something as seemingly mundane as the “Mastering” button in Logic Pro… Does use of these tools diminish the work of people or do these tools help them to express their own ideas faster and more easily?

    To answer your question, I can only speak for myself, I don't need chord generation tools, I gathered enough knowledge and vocabulary to bring what I want on the table by myself when I need it. And to be honest, I definitely recommend people to avoid those tools and use this slimy thing they have inside their skull instead. It is far more rewarding and feels like the creation is completely your own, it also gives a sense of achievement to be proud of, let alone the skill development.
    I agree about the narrow usage of AI for drums and the gain of time it represents. Not because I cannot do it on my own, but because it is a long process to do it right, the way I want it. So yeah The drummer in Logic is great and saves some time, but I often still need to edit it what he throws at me because I usually have a clear idea of what I want and it is good but still limited. Session bassist and keys are useless
    And to answer your last questions, using those tools to avoid having to learn the skills is lazy and extremely lame in my opinion. But we're very likely taking about people who are sitting alone in front of a screen and who don't have the skill to play a piece from beginning to end on an instrument, or play with other people. It is great for them if they find a way to express themselves easily and I encourage any kind of creative medium. But they're not musicians. And this might eventually be my whole point: people who took years to develop skills. That's were the magic and the artistic poetry of creation is. No machine will ever have that.

  • AudioGusAudioGus
    edited September 2024

    @NeuM said:

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @NeuM said:

    I have noticed previously many people expressing interest in drumming tools which generate rhythmic patterns for them. And chord progression tools which are used to fill in gaps in people’s musical knowledge or to speed production. Or even something as seemingly mundane as the “Mastering” button in Logic Pro… Does use of these tools diminish the work of people or do these tools help them to express their own ideas faster and more easily?

    AI seems the logical next step beyond specific-use pattern generators and sampling/collage art. Very few people can make compelling art with those techniques, but there are always a few who do.

    It seems to me to take the fun out of art. The main reward of art is in the making, and the more you outsource the less rewarding it is.

    And most of the output is devoid of interest for me. I'd rather listen to a beginner guitarist struggle with three chords in his living room than listen to the AI stuff I've encountered to date.

    What's the old saying? "Ninety percent of everything is crap." (Sturgeon's Law)

    But that more of less just proves the point... that everything is subjective.

    Some people also limit their judgement of 'AI' as the result they get after they give a simple text prompt. Others look at it as a suite of tools; but to the first group the moment you re-process, cull, fine tune results back on the original model etc. they say 'no, that is human interactivity'. But really the whole damn thing until it's completion as a model is all steered by 'human interactivity', (and I don't just mean the training data) so their arguments are somewhat bunk to begin with. These discussions do tend to be interesting in trying to suss out what individuals even refer to when they say 'AI' or even more curiously 'the AI' as though they consider it an entity and not just a collage machine.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @JanKun said:

    @NeuM said:

    @JanKun said:
    I am mostly interested in the creation section of this forum. And to be honest, I find that it has generally become a less enjoyable place to hang, mainly due to what I consider the AI pollution. I came to the point where I despise those AI generated things (cannot convince me to call that art) as much as advertisement. Though I must admit that I initially jumped on the train for a while to create some of my artwork, mea culpa.

    It is undeniable that AI will play a bigger and bigger role in our lives, but on the other hand, and judging by the different reactions on this thread, wouldn't it be good for everyone to establish clear space on this forum where each one of us could enjoy according to our own position on the AI topic?

    Not being a tech savvy, I have no idea how hard it would be to implement such a thing. maybe a good starting point would be to create a section dedicated to AI. Those who want to share their AI generated things could do it freely there without bothering people who still care about human generated art. @Michael would it be hard to do?

    I have noticed previously many people expressing interest in drumming tools which generate rhythmic patterns for them. And chord progression tools which are used to fill in gaps in people’s musical knowledge or to speed production. Or even something as seemingly mundane as the “Mastering” button in Logic Pro… Does use of these tools diminish the work of people or do these tools help them to express their own ideas faster and more easily?

    To answer your question, I can only speak for myself, I don't need chord generation tools, I gathered enough knowledge and vocabulary to bring what I want on the table by myself when I need it. And to be honest, I definitely recommend people to avoid those tools and use this slimy thing they have inside their skull instead. It is far more rewarding and feels like the creation is completely your own, it also gives a sense of achievement to be proud of, let alone the skill development.
    I agree about the narrow usage of AI for drums and the gain of time it represents. Not because I cannot do it on my own, but because it is a long process to do it right, the way I want it. So yeah The drummer in Logic is great and saves some time, but I often still need to edit it what he throws at me because I usually have a clear idea of what I want and it is good but still limited. Session bassist and keys are useless
    And to answer your last questions, using those tools to avoid having to learn the skills is lazy and extremely lame in my opinion. But we're very likely taking about people who are sitting alone in front of a screen and who don't have the skill to play a piece from beginning to end on an instrument, or play with other people. It is great for them if they find a way to express themselves easily and I encourage any kind of creative medium. But they're not musicians. And this might eventually be my whole point: people who took years to develop skills. That's were the magic and the artistic poetry of creation is. No machine will ever have that.

    I spend a lot of time playing keyboard simulating a guitarist playing in my music. Am I lazy or unskilled for doing this? I can answer that. No, I’m using my time to get the results I want by the using the best tools I have available to me. I’ve learned a lot about guitars in the process. Do I think my time would’ve been better spent actually playing guitar and mastering that instrument first? Absolutely not. I’ve learned to play a number of instruments in my life and I think my music is improved by that knowledge, but that’s not something a listener cares about when they experience the piece itself.

  • JanKunJanKun

    @NeuM said:

    @JanKun said:

    @NeuM said:

    @JanKun said:
    I am mostly interested in the creation section of this forum. And to be honest, I find that it has generally become a less enjoyable place to hang, mainly due to what I consider the AI pollution. I came to the point where I despise those AI generated things (cannot convince me to call that art) as much as advertisement. Though I must admit that I initially jumped on the train for a while to create some of my artwork, mea culpa.

    It is undeniable that AI will play a bigger and bigger role in our lives, but on the other hand, and judging by the different reactions on this thread, wouldn't it be good for everyone to establish clear space on this forum where each one of us could enjoy according to our own position on the AI topic?

    Not being a tech savvy, I have no idea how hard it would be to implement such a thing. maybe a good starting point would be to create a section dedicated to AI. Those who want to share their AI generated things could do it freely there without bothering people who still care about human generated art. @Michael would it be hard to do?

    I have noticed previously many people expressing interest in drumming tools which generate rhythmic patterns for them. And chord progression tools which are used to fill in gaps in people’s musical knowledge or to speed production. Or even something as seemingly mundane as the “Mastering” button in Logic Pro… Does use of these tools diminish the work of people or do these tools help them to express their own ideas faster and more easily?

    To answer your question, I can only speak for myself, I don't need chord generation tools, I gathered enough knowledge and vocabulary to bring what I want on the table by myself when I need it. And to be honest, I definitely recommend people to avoid those tools and use this slimy thing they have inside their skull instead. It is far more rewarding and feels like the creation is completely your own, it also gives a sense of achievement to be proud of, let alone the skill development.
    I agree about the narrow usage of AI for drums and the gain of time it represents. Not because I cannot do it on my own, but because it is a long process to do it right, the way I want it. So yeah The drummer in Logic is great and saves some time, but I often still need to edit it what he throws at me because I usually have a clear idea of what I want and it is good but still limited. Session bassist and keys are useless
    And to answer your last questions, using those tools to avoid having to learn the skills is lazy and extremely lame in my opinion. But we're very likely taking about people who are sitting alone in front of a screen and who don't have the skill to play a piece from beginning to end on an instrument, or play with other people. It is great for them if they find a way to express themselves easily and I encourage any kind of creative medium. But they're not musicians. And this might eventually be my whole point: people who took years to develop skills. That's were the magic and the artistic poetry of creation is. No machine will ever have that.

    I spend a lot of time playing keyboard simulating a guitarist playing in my music. Am I lazy or unskilled for doing this? I can answer that. No, I’m using my time to get the results I want by the using the best tools I have available to me. I’ve learned a lot about guitars in the process. Do I think my time would’ve been better spent actually playing guitar and mastering that instrument first? Absolutely not. I’ve learned to play a number of instruments in my life and I think my music is improved by that knowledge, but that’s not something a listener cares about when they experience the piece itself.

    If you managed to create guitar parts with your keys it's is good for you. It remains to be seen if a guitarist find them convincing, but I will try trust your on that. So it means you're a piano player. You must have spent years studying it, and I assume you must be able to play a complete piece when someone asks you to. There's at least one instrument that you learned to master and that you can use to fully express yourself. That's what I am talking about

  • Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredrWrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

    @Krupa said:
    I do think the real future of it is some worry of dream machine where we inhabit worlds partly of our own creation, partly themed or styled or concepted by the ‘directors’ of this new medium.

    Reality has always seemed like that to me already.

  • Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredrWrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

    @AudioGus said:

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @Krupa said:
    I can see new forms emerging though, prompts written as poetry with clever uses of double meanings a knowledge of the system to create combinations not seen before, all things are possible. Just so much of what’s being passed off at the moment is incredibly low effort, and it shows in audience antipathy…

    I fed ChatGPT a corpus of my poems, which have a very distinctive style, and asked it to write new ones in the same style. The output was completely worthless and unusable. Nothing remotely inspiring or even interesting.

    Feeding text to ChatGPT isn't actually doing any sort of training or fine tuning on the model and definitely not indicative of what AI/ML generators are capable of. There are much better open source tools for this.

    There are poetry machines? Please elaborate!

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited September 2024

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @Krupa said:
    I do think the real future of it is some worry of dream machine where we inhabit worlds partly of our own creation, partly themed or styled or concepted by the ‘directors’ of this new medium.

    Reality has always seemed like that to me already.

    Much of what we experience in our world might be considered a “shared illusion.” Our minds tend to complicate things when they really are quite simple.

    We live, we do something in the time we have and then we die. Our time is spent in the reality someone else determined, until someone decides to do things differently.

  • AudioGusAudioGus

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @Krupa said:
    I can see new forms emerging though, prompts written as poetry with clever uses of double meanings a knowledge of the system to create combinations not seen before, all things are possible. Just so much of what’s being passed off at the moment is incredibly low effort, and it shows in audience antipathy…

    I fed ChatGPT a corpus of my poems, which have a very distinctive style, and asked it to write new ones in the same style. The output was completely worthless and unusable. Nothing remotely inspiring or even interesting.

    Feeding text to ChatGPT isn't actually doing any sort of training or fine tuning on the model and definitely not indicative of what AI/ML generators are capable of. There are much better open source tools for this.

    There are poetry machines? Please elaborate!

    There are open source LLMs that you can finetune to your needs, be they poetry, essays, lyrics, novels, coding etc.

  • AudioGusAudioGus

    @NeuM said:

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @Krupa said:
    I do think the real future of it is some worry of dream machine where we inhabit worlds partly of our own creation, partly themed or styled or concepted by the ‘directors’ of this new medium.

    Reality has always seemed like that to me already.

    Much of what we experience in our world might be considered a “shared illusion.” Our minds tend to complicate things when they really are quite simple.

    We live, we do something in the time we have and then we die. Our time is spent in the reality someone else determined, until someone decides to do things differently.

    yah reality is flimsy flimsy

  • KrupaKrupa

    This guy is the one I mentioned earlier, this is a breakdown of him using his processes to make something that really works as a small piece of film making…

  • MadeofWaxMadeofWax

    I know that by some people’s standards what I am making isn’t art. By some people’s standards it’s not very good. But it allows me to express myself in a way that I couldn’t otherwise. When you’re 57 years old working in a dead end job at a factory sometimes you just want to piece together something that shows even a sliver of creativity. Something another person might appreciate. AI tools give me that.

    I have nothing but respect for people who have taken the time to learn music.
    Nothing but respect for people who have studied filmmaking and honed their craft.
    If things had gone differently in my life, my brother wouldn’t be the only one with a degree in composition from UNT. But we all make choices.

    In the end I’m like a director. I’m not the one performing, but it’s my vision.

    And I do lots and lots of editing:

    I purposely chose the most annoying song I have ever created to go with this.

  • SimonSimon
    edited September 2024

    The Ai gunner drone hovered above the car.

    The Ai camera scanned the car’s interior. One occupant. Male. Office worker. AudioBus Forum member.

    The Ai scanned his Forum posts.

    Ah - he’s a troublemaker. Lots of Drambo Desciple posts. “Drambo does this, Drambo does that”.

    The algorithm made it’s decision. The machine guns fired.

    One less customer for Bram Bos, 4Pockets Paul, and the other app rebels….

  • gardengarden

    @MadeofWax said:
    I know that by some people’s standards what I am making isn’t art. By some people’s standards it’s not very good. But it allows me to express myself in a way that I couldn’t otherwise. When you’re 57 years old working in a dead end job at a factory sometimes you just want to piece together something that shows even a sliver of creativity. Something another person might appreciate. AI tools give me that.

    I have nothing but respect for people who have taken the time to learn music.
    Nothing but respect for people who have studied filmmaking and honed their craft.
    If things had gone differently in my life, my brother wouldn’t be the only one with a degree in composition from UNT. But we all make choices.

    This is the most relevant, honest, and real statement in this entire conversation.

  • espiegel123espiegel123

    Here is a thing that I think people miss when using AIs based on learning models — the corporations that are behind these technologies oversell the degree to which the end-result is primarily the user’s creation and vastly vastly vastly undersell the degree to which the result is the fruit of a vast number of people whose work was required for the technology to do anything at all and who were not compensated at all.

    They constantly use language that treats artists as pompous elites and act as if they are democratizing art — but here is the catch: if it weren’t for thousands or millions of people that put in the hours to develop the skills to create works of merit — these AIs couldn’t produce anything of value. Literally. Learning machine based technologies only create anything of quality by having a quality corpus.

    Those pompous artists that put in the work are the soul of the machine. No offense to people creating work with these technologies, but when using them we are junior partners in the process.

    We really should be cognizant not just that these systems relied on the work of untold others, but that those people were not compensated and that the world is making it harder and harder for those people to make a living.

  • AudioGusAudioGus

    @espiegel123 said:
    Here is a thing that I think people miss when using AIs based on learning models — the corporations that are behind these technologies oversell the degree to which the end-result is primarily the user’s creation and vastly vastly vastly undersell the degree to which the result is the fruit of a vast number of people whose work was required for the technology to do anything at all and who were not compensated at all.

    They constantly use language that treats artists as pompous elites and act as if they are democratizing art — but here is the catch: if it weren’t for thousands or millions of people that put in the hours to develop the skills to create works of merit — these AIs couldn’t produce anything of value. Literally. Learning machine based technologies only create anything of quality by having a quality corpus.

    Those pompous artists that put in the work are the soul of the machine. No offense to people creating work with these technologies, but when using them we are junior partners in the process.

    We really should be cognizant not just that these systems relied on the work of untold others, but that those people were not compensated and that the world is making it harder and harder for those people to make a living.

    I wager most people in this thread have not missed this. The responses to it though are highly varied.

    As for 'most people' being 'most AI users' I wager you are right. I also wager with that group if you were to explain it to them that it would be either in one ear and out the other or a callus 'who cares the genie is out' attitude.

  • heshes
    edited September 2024

    @wim said:

    @Mountain_Hamlet said:
    What it does show is that no matter what these people do they will not find consciousness inside a computer….art still requires the talent of bringing through ideas and transforming them into emotion.
    AI is not going to do that. It is a tool not a life force.

    Wouldn't you agree though that AI is likely to evolve to the point that for most practical purposes humans won't be able to distinguish between it and actual consciousness? If so, then in what way would it matter to a human whether or not it's real?

    For some reason, this comment prompted me to ask ChatGPT this question: "In the world of art, a masterpiece is worth far more than forgery, even if the forgery is indistinguishable, or nearly so. Why is this?"

    A masterpiece holds intrinsic value due to its originality, authenticity, 
and the connection to the artist who created it. The artist’s vision, 
talent, and historical context imbue the work with meaning beyond
its physical appearance. Even if a forgery is visually identical, it lacks
this authenticity and the story behind the creation, which includes 
the artist's intentions, emotions, and creative process. 
Additionally, the market for art is built on trust, rarity, and 
provenance—elements a forgery can never replicate. 
People value the unique and unrepeatable nature of the 
original, making it irreplaceable.
  • wimwim

    @hes said:

    @wim said:

    @Mountain_Hamlet said:
    What it does show is that no matter what these people do they will not find consciousness inside a computer….art still requires the talent of bringing through ideas and transforming them into emotion.
    AI is not going to do that. It is a tool not a life force.

    Wouldn't you agree though that AI is likely to evolve to the point that for most practical purposes humans won't be able to distinguish between it and actual consciousness? If so, then in what way would it matter to a human whether or not it's real?

    For some reason, this comment prompted me to ask ChatGPT this question: "In the world of art, a masterpiece is worth far more than forgery, even if the forgery is indistinguishable, or nearly so. Why is this?"

    A masterpiece holds intrinsic value due to its originality, authenticity, 
and the connection to the artist who created it. The artist’s vision, 
talent, and historical context imbue the work with meaning beyond
its physical appearance. Even if a forgery is visually identical, it lacks
this authenticity and the story behind the creation, which includes 
the artist's intentions, emotions, and creative process. 
Additionally, the market for art is built on trust, rarity, and 
provenance—elements a forgery can never replicate. 
People value the unique and unrepeatable nature of the 
original, making it irreplaceable.

    That's actually a pretty good answer.
    It implies that the buyer/owner know it's an original. I was talking about circumstances where one wouldn't know (or wouldn't care).

  • AudioGusAudioGus

    @wim said:

    @hes said:

    @wim said:

    @Mountain_Hamlet said:
    What it does show is that no matter what these people do they will not find consciousness inside a computer….art still requires the talent of bringing through ideas and transforming them into emotion.
    AI is not going to do that. It is a tool not a life force.

    Wouldn't you agree though that AI is likely to evolve to the point that for most practical purposes humans won't be able to distinguish between it and actual consciousness? If so, then in what way would it matter to a human whether or not it's real?

    For some reason, this comment prompted me to ask ChatGPT this question: "In the world of art, a masterpiece is worth far more than forgery, even if the forgery is indistinguishable, or nearly so. Why is this?"

    A masterpiece holds intrinsic value due to its originality, authenticity, 
and the connection to the artist who created it. The artist’s vision, 
talent, and historical context imbue the work with meaning beyond
its physical appearance. Even if a forgery is visually identical, it lacks
this authenticity and the story behind the creation, which includes 
the artist's intentions, emotions, and creative process. 
Additionally, the market for art is built on trust, rarity, and 
provenance—elements a forgery can never replicate. 
People value the unique and unrepeatable nature of the 
original, making it irreplaceable.

    That's actually a pretty good answer.
    It implies that the buyer/owner know it's an original. I was talking about circumstances where one wouldn't know (or wouldn't care).

    (currently tripping balls thinking you are all bots now)

  • wimwim
    edited September 2024

    @AudioGus said:

    @wim said:

    @hes said:

    @wim said:

    @Mountain_Hamlet said:
    What it does show is that no matter what these people do they will not find consciousness inside a computer….art still requires the talent of bringing through ideas and transforming them into emotion.
    AI is not going to do that. It is a tool not a life force.

    Wouldn't you agree though that AI is likely to evolve to the point that for most practical purposes humans won't be able to distinguish between it and actual consciousness? If so, then in what way would it matter to a human whether or not it's real?

    For some reason, this comment prompted me to ask ChatGPT this question: "In the world of art, a masterpiece is worth far more than forgery, even if the forgery is indistinguishable, or nearly so. Why is this?"

    A masterpiece holds intrinsic value due to its originality, authenticity, 
and the connection to the artist who created it. The artist’s vision, 
talent, and historical context imbue the work with meaning beyond
its physical appearance. Even if a forgery is visually identical, it lacks
this authenticity and the story behind the creation, which includes 
the artist's intentions, emotions, and creative process. 
Additionally, the market for art is built on trust, rarity, and 
provenance—elements a forgery can never replicate. 
People value the unique and unrepeatable nature of the 
original, making it irreplaceable.

    That's actually a pretty good answer.
    It implies that the buyer/owner know it's an original. I was talking about circumstances where one wouldn't know (or wouldn't care).

    (currently tripping balls thinking you are all bots now)

    Don't neglect to question your own self as well.

  • AudioGusAudioGus

    @wim said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @wim said:

    @hes said:

    @wim said:

    @Mountain_Hamlet said:
    What it does show is that no matter what these people do they will not find consciousness inside a computer….art still requires the talent of bringing through ideas and transforming them into emotion.
    AI is not going to do that. It is a tool not a life force.

    Wouldn't you agree though that AI is likely to evolve to the point that for most practical purposes humans won't be able to distinguish between it and actual consciousness? If so, then in what way would it matter to a human whether or not it's real?

    For some reason, this comment prompted me to ask ChatGPT this question: "In the world of art, a masterpiece is worth far more than forgery, even if the forgery is indistinguishable, or nearly so. Why is this?"

    A masterpiece holds intrinsic value due to its originality, authenticity, 
and the connection to the artist who created it. The artist’s vision, 
talent, and historical context imbue the work with meaning beyond
its physical appearance. Even if a forgery is visually identical, it lacks
this authenticity and the story behind the creation, which includes 
the artist's intentions, emotions, and creative process. 
Additionally, the market for art is built on trust, rarity, and 
provenance—elements a forgery can never replicate. 
People value the unique and unrepeatable nature of the 
original, making it irreplaceable.

    That's actually a pretty good answer.
    It implies that the buyer/owner know it's an original. I was talking about circumstances where one wouldn't know (or wouldn't care).

    (currently tripping balls thinking you are all bots now)

    Don't neglect to question your own self as well.

    Ahhh gawdimmit, yah hadda go there!

  • heshes
    edited September 2024

    @wim said:

    @hes said:

    @wim said:

    @Mountain_Hamlet said:
    What it does show is that no matter what these people do they will not find consciousness inside a computer….art still requires the talent of bringing through ideas and transforming them into emotion.
    AI is not going to do that. It is a tool not a life force.

    Wouldn't you agree though that AI is likely to evolve to the point that for most practical purposes humans won't be able to distinguish between it and actual consciousness? If so, then in what way would it matter to a human whether or not it's real?

    For some reason, this comment prompted me to ask ChatGPT this question: "In the world of art, a masterpiece is worth far more than forgery, even if the forgery is indistinguishable, or nearly so. Why is this?"

    A masterpiece holds intrinsic value due to its originality, authenticity, 
and the connection to the artist who created it. The artist’s vision, 
talent, and historical context imbue the work with meaning beyond
its physical appearance. Even if a forgery is visually identical, it lacks
this authenticity and the story behind the creation, which includes 
the artist's intentions, emotions, and creative process. 
Additionally, the market for art is built on trust, rarity, and 
provenance—elements a forgery can never replicate. 
People value the unique and unrepeatable nature of the 
original, making it irreplaceable.

    That's actually a pretty good answer.
    It implies that the buyer/owner know it's an original. I was talking about circumstances where one wouldn't know (or wouldn't care).

    One of the most important things necessary as AI evolves, Yuval Harari (and I'm sure others) says, is to have laws that require AI participants in online conversations to clarify that they are AI, not human. This is because people understandably react differently to a speaker if they're aware of whether or not it's human or AI. And, of course, AI has no right to free speech, so they could be prohibited from participating.

    New technology will be required to police this, which is a kind of 'watermarking'. I asked ChatGPT a question for links to info on efforts to watermark AI creations, you can find it in the chat here: https://chatgpt.com/share/66fa1def-0ae0-8006-86ba-210256aae2c5

    As far as the question of what difference it makes to humans whether an AI is conscious or not, my own feeling is that, emotionally, it will be extremely difficult for us to treat an intelligent but non-conscious AI differently than a conscious being. Our emotions have developed over millions of years; not easy to just disregard them because we believe another being is not conscious, or is not conscious in the same way we are. I think most people who've interacted with AI like ChatGPT have felt this already. Very easy to get mad at the AI. Or to be grateful to it for being so helpful. To feel bad if you're rude to AI. Etc.

  • AudioGusAudioGus

    @hes said:

    @wim said:

    @hes said:

    @wim said:

    @Mountain_Hamlet said:
    What it does show is that no matter what these people do they will not find consciousness inside a computer….art still requires the talent of bringing through ideas and transforming them into emotion.
    AI is not going to do that. It is a tool not a life force.

    Wouldn't you agree though that AI is likely to evolve to the point that for most practical purposes humans won't be able to distinguish between it and actual consciousness? If so, then in what way would it matter to a human whether or not it's real?

    For some reason, this comment prompted me to ask ChatGPT this question: "In the world of art, a masterpiece is worth far more than forgery, even if the forgery is indistinguishable, or nearly so. Why is this?"

    A masterpiece holds intrinsic value due to its originality, authenticity, 
and the connection to the artist who created it. The artist’s vision, 
talent, and historical context imbue the work with meaning beyond
its physical appearance. Even if a forgery is visually identical, it lacks
this authenticity and the story behind the creation, which includes 
the artist's intentions, emotions, and creative process. 
Additionally, the market for art is built on trust, rarity, and 
provenance—elements a forgery can never replicate. 
People value the unique and unrepeatable nature of the 
original, making it irreplaceable.

    That's actually a pretty good answer.
    It implies that the buyer/owner know it's an original. I was talking about circumstances where one wouldn't know (or wouldn't care).

    One of the most important things necessary as AI evolves, Yuval Harari (and I'm sure others) says, is to have laws that require AI participants in online conversations to clarify that they are AI, not human. This is because people understandably react differently to a speaker if they're aware of whether or not it's human or AI.

    New technology will be required to police this, which is a kind of 'watermarking'. I asked ChatGPT a question for links to info on efforts to watermark AI creations, you can find it in the chat here: https://chatgpt.com/share/66fa1def-0ae0-8006-86ba-210256aae2c5

    first thing I did was check your chat history to see whether or not you were a bot...

  • simonnowissimonnowis
    edited September 2024

    (currently tripping balls thinking you are all bots now)

    Don't neglect to question your own self as well.

    i remember the tears at seriously considering this ... nought but a layer in the onion of the machine

    slowly, and less slowly, our devices stroke us to sleep - "don't worry, i'll do that for you Dave"

    this feeling becomes even more intense on upgrading a device - "it's ok Dave, sit me next to your old device, i'll set myself up" - no need to remember or think of anything.

    i try never to forget that this is a black mirror i hold in my hands - all that returns a reflection of my self - but is humanity really ready to see itself? who or what is the Prometheus of our situation?

    I do think the real future of it is some worry of dream machine where we inhabit worlds partly of our own creation, partly themed or styled or concepted by the ‘directors’ of this new medium.

    or as a tool to 'fix' 'wrong' think ... https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq1814

    it's said, that if money grew on trees, there'd be a lot more trees ... and now they wish our money to grow in machines ...

    the confusion between "money" (an accounting system) and the the "wealth" of this planet (us and all that is here) has opened up humanity to many problems...

    i only hope «controll» can find a use for us that we all enjoy :))

  • wimwim

  • KrupaKrupa

    @MadeofWax said:
    I know that by some people’s standards what I am making isn’t art. By some people’s standards it’s not very good. But it allows me to express myself in a way that I couldn’t otherwise. When you’re 57 years old working in a dead end job at a factory sometimes you just want to piece together something that shows even a sliver of creativity. Something another person might appreciate. AI tools give me that.

    I have nothing but respect for people who have taken the time to learn music.
    Nothing but respect for people who have studied filmmaking and honed their craft.
    If things had gone differently in my life, my brother wouldn’t be the only one with a degree in composition from UNT. But we all make choices.

    In the end I’m like a director. I’m not the one performing, but it’s my vision.

    And I do lots and lots of editing:

    I purposely chose the most annoying song I have ever created to go with this.

    Yup, I completely get where you’re coming from and that’s great. I actually find this blooper reel engaging, there’s a degree of excitement from the unpredictability of it all going wrong😅

    I’d be upset that this discussion would put anyone off trying anything to express themselves creatively, though I’m pretty sure from your response that you’re not ✊ It’s definitely great that you can direct this stuff to your satisfaction and scratch that itch; my old man worked more than half his life in factories before he found a way to express himself and I learned from that not to follow him there so I was lucky in that respect. (Though I sometimes envy those who work separately from their creative lives as working within it can drain most of that energy before you get to think about your own stuff, that and your income tends to be far more stable when not working in creative fields)

    My beef tends to be with the over hype of a total revolution in the industry when it’s so far really not apparent that it will happen in that way, and it’s always “just around the corner” (for the last three years and counting). Maybe some of the very commercial work will go that way, and the tools will certainly be incorporated as they mature, and legal frameworks allow. But I really do believe that it’ll be the new forms that emerge from all of this where things will get exciting…

  • AudioGusAudioGus
    edited September 2024

    @Krupa said:
    My beef tends to be with the over hype of a total revolution in the industry when it’s so far really not apparent that it will happen in that way, and it’s always “just around the corner” (for the last three years and counting). Maybe some of the very commercial work will go that way, and the tools will certainly be incorporated as they mature, and legal frameworks allow. But I really do believe that it’ll be the new forms that emerge from all of this where things will get exciting…

    I work in games making graphics and have been using generative images in my commercial work for concepting and source material over the past three years. At first it started as something like a creative Rorschach Ouija Board with very abstract jumping off points of inspiration. Now with a few somewhat basic, albeit idiosyncratic tools, I literally do two days of work in 30 minutes. But then my job has also always been to do the stuff that comes after those two days (say upwards of a week or two) that AI/ML doesn't really help with yet. Shaving those two days off was a revolution in the industry for many of us though. Some people's livelihood was entirely repeating those two day loops and they are simply no longer valuable. So to them the revolution came, gobbled them up and left. No headlines, no strikes etc. This will be how most of the 'revolutions' happen with this stuff.

  • KrupaKrupa

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:
    My beef tends to be with the over hype of a total revolution in the industry when it’s so far really not apparent that it will happen in that way, and it’s always “just around the corner” (for the last three years and counting). Maybe some of the very commercial work will go that way, and the tools will certainly be incorporated as they mature, and legal frameworks allow. But I really do believe that it’ll be the new forms that emerge from all of this where things will get exciting…

    I work in games making graphics and have been using generative images in my commercial work for concepting and source material over the past three years. At first it started as something like a creative Rorschach Ouija Board with very abstract jumping off points of inspiration. Now with a few somewhat basic, albeit idiosyncratic tools, I literally do two days of work in 30 minutes. But then my job has also always been to do the stuff that comes after those two days (say upwards of a week or two) that AI/ML doesn't really help with yet. Shaving those two days off was a revolution in the industry for many of us though. Some people's livelihood was entirely repeating those two day loops and they are simply no longer valuable. So to them the revolution came, gobbled them up and left. No headlines, no strikes etc. This will be how most of the 'revolutions' happen with this stuff.

    Interesting, and tragic really. I have tbh seen a few storyboards made this way, and had to use them. I think that those haven’t dislodged any freelancers though, they’re just an addition to the process that would normally have been in a much more storyboard like state rather than full concept images. Kinda a double edged sword in my opinion as you’re then second guessing how close to go to the style and finish of the generated images, we actually had to have meetings last time it happened as what we were doing was supposed to be a bit more lofi in keeping with the theme of the show, while the mid journey gear was typically extremely polished.

    Really sad to hear about talented artists losing roles 🫤

  • AudioGusAudioGus
    edited September 2024

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:
    My beef tends to be with the over hype of a total revolution in the industry when it’s so far really not apparent that it will happen in that way, and it’s always “just around the corner” (for the last three years and counting). Maybe some of the very commercial work will go that way, and the tools will certainly be incorporated as they mature, and legal frameworks allow. But I really do believe that it’ll be the new forms that emerge from all of this where things will get exciting…

    I work in games making graphics and have been using generative images in my commercial work for concepting and source material over the past three years. At first it started as something like a creative Rorschach Ouija Board with very abstract jumping off points of inspiration. Now with a few somewhat basic, albeit idiosyncratic tools, I literally do two days of work in 30 minutes. But then my job has also always been to do the stuff that comes after those two days (say upwards of a week or two) that AI/ML doesn't really help with yet. Shaving those two days off was a revolution in the industry for many of us though. Some people's livelihood was entirely repeating those two day loops and they are simply no longer valuable. So to them the revolution came, gobbled them up and left. No headlines, no strikes etc. This will be how most of the 'revolutions' happen with this stuff.

    Interesting, and tragic really. I have tbh seen a few storyboards made this way, and had to use them. I think that those haven’t dislodged any freelancers though, they’re just an addition to the process that would normally have been in a much more storyboard like state rather than full concept images. Kinda a double edged sword in my opinion as you’re then second guessing how close to go to the style and finish of the generated images, we actually had to have meetings last time it happened as what we were doing was supposed to be a bit more lofi in keeping with the theme of the show, while the mid journey gear was typically extremely polished.

    Really sad to hear about talented artists losing roles 🫤

    Yah there is certainly a shake up now for telephoning ideas between relatively siloed departments / aspects of the process. For storyboards specifically I have played with some Stable Diffusion lora that can do a great job at keeping things more impressionistic and gestural with a classic storyboarding style. Have definitely seen how full on generated concept renders can throw things off at the early stages of a project, particularly if they pass by execs (typically lacking vocabulary and visualization skills) and influence their expectations and throw off their own messaging about the project.

    Now I am on a crazy small skeleton crew and get to show just how much an individual who is motivated can do with lots of singular ownership of large tasks that used to have many smaller siloed departments. All the middle management, excessive detrimental breakdowns and crippling over analysis simply don't have as much opportunity to settle in. If I found myself at a company that did not use these tools internally I would get completely frustrated by stone age thinking. These new paradigms can take root in our thinking so quickly, it is kind of scary.

    I know people who have been out of work the past year and they are almost waiting for this to pass or just grateful for an excuse to retire early because their head wasn't really fully in it before. It has always been an industry and a machine where people were expendable (just talking the games industry) yet there was a phase where 'artists' would place themselves central to the whole thing and not even explore potential efficiencies in seemingly alien experimental approaches. To them it was all about their skillset, one based in as deep a legacy of tradition as possible, seemingly in denial of the obvious looming automation / procedural big picture.

  • KrupaKrupa

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:
    My beef tends to be with the over hype of a total revolution in the industry when it’s so far really not apparent that it will happen in that way, and it’s always “just around the corner” (for the last three years and counting). Maybe some of the very commercial work will go that way, and the tools will certainly be incorporated as they mature, and legal frameworks allow. But I really do believe that it’ll be the new forms that emerge from all of this where things will get exciting…

    I work in games making graphics and have been using generative images in my commercial work for concepting and source material over the past three years. At first it started as something like a creative Rorschach Ouija Board with very abstract jumping off points of inspiration. Now with a few somewhat basic, albeit idiosyncratic tools, I literally do two days of work in 30 minutes. But then my job has also always been to do the stuff that comes after those two days (say upwards of a week or two) that AI/ML doesn't really help with yet. Shaving those two days off was a revolution in the industry for many of us though. Some people's livelihood was entirely repeating those two day loops and they are simply no longer valuable. So to them the revolution came, gobbled them up and left. No headlines, no strikes etc. This will be how most of the 'revolutions' happen with this stuff.

    Interesting, and tragic really. I have tbh seen a few storyboards made this way, and had to use them. I think that those haven’t dislodged any freelancers though, they’re just an addition to the process that would normally have been in a much more storyboard like state rather than full concept images. Kinda a double edged sword in my opinion as you’re then second guessing how close to go to the style and finish of the generated images, we actually had to have meetings last time it happened as what we were doing was supposed to be a bit more lofi in keeping with the theme of the show, while the mid journey gear was typically extremely polished.

    Really sad to hear about talented artists losing roles 🫤

    Yah there is certainly a shake up now for telephoning ideas between relatively siloed departments / aspects of the process. For storyboards specifically I have played with some Stable Diffusion lora that can do a great job at keeping things more impressionistic and gestural with a classic storyboarding style. Have definitely seen how full on generated concept renders can throw things off at the early stages of a project, particularly if they pass by execs (typically lacking vocabulary and visualization skills) and influence their expectations and throw off their own messaging about the project.

    Now I am on a crazy small skeleton crew and get to show just how much an individual who is motivated can do with lots of singular ownership of large tasks that used to have many smaller siloed departments. All the middle management, excessive detrimental breakdowns and crippling over analysis simply don't have as much opportunity to settle in. If I found myself at a company that did not use these tools internally I would get completely frustrated by stone age thinking. These new paradigms can take root in our thinking so quickly, it is kind of scary.

    I know people who have been out of work the past year and they are almost waiting for this to pass or just grateful for an excuse to retire early because their head wasn't really fully in it before. It has always been an industry and a machine where people were expendable (just talking the games industry) yet there was a phase where 'artists' would place themselves central to the whole thing and not even explore potential efficiencies in seemingly alien experimental approaches. To them it was all about their skillset, one based in as deep a legacy of tradition as possible, seemingly in denial of the obvious looming automation / procedural big picture.

    Good that middle management are being edged out, and also that things are being shaken up. Sounds like a positive experience for the most part! I only ever worked in the fringes of the games industry, but did notice the resistance to change even from that distance; late nineties and still the pixel artists ruled the roost, whereas we were going in making our textures as 3D objects and rendering them, sometimes with animated lighting changes, too much for the system to deal with, though our coders dealt with it admirably 😅

  • AudioGusAudioGus

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @Krupa said:
    My beef tends to be with the over hype of a total revolution in the industry when it’s so far really not apparent that it will happen in that way, and it’s always “just around the corner” (for the last three years and counting). Maybe some of the very commercial work will go that way, and the tools will certainly be incorporated as they mature, and legal frameworks allow. But I really do believe that it’ll be the new forms that emerge from all of this where things will get exciting…

    I work in games making graphics and have been using generative images in my commercial work for concepting and source material over the past three years. At first it started as something like a creative Rorschach Ouija Board with very abstract jumping off points of inspiration. Now with a few somewhat basic, albeit idiosyncratic tools, I literally do two days of work in 30 minutes. But then my job has also always been to do the stuff that comes after those two days (say upwards of a week or two) that AI/ML doesn't really help with yet. Shaving those two days off was a revolution in the industry for many of us though. Some people's livelihood was entirely repeating those two day loops and they are simply no longer valuable. So to them the revolution came, gobbled them up and left. No headlines, no strikes etc. This will be how most of the 'revolutions' happen with this stuff.

    Interesting, and tragic really. I have tbh seen a few storyboards made this way, and had to use them. I think that those haven’t dislodged any freelancers though, they’re just an addition to the process that would normally have been in a much more storyboard like state rather than full concept images. Kinda a double edged sword in my opinion as you’re then second guessing how close to go to the style and finish of the generated images, we actually had to have meetings last time it happened as what we were doing was supposed to be a bit more lofi in keeping with the theme of the show, while the mid journey gear was typically extremely polished.

    Really sad to hear about talented artists losing roles 🫤

    Yah there is certainly a shake up now for telephoning ideas between relatively siloed departments / aspects of the process. For storyboards specifically I have played with some Stable Diffusion lora that can do a great job at keeping things more impressionistic and gestural with a classic storyboarding style. Have definitely seen how full on generated concept renders can throw things off at the early stages of a project, particularly if they pass by execs (typically lacking vocabulary and visualization skills) and influence their expectations and throw off their own messaging about the project.

    Now I am on a crazy small skeleton crew and get to show just how much an individual who is motivated can do with lots of singular ownership of large tasks that used to have many smaller siloed departments. All the middle management, excessive detrimental breakdowns and crippling over analysis simply don't have as much opportunity to settle in. If I found myself at a company that did not use these tools internally I would get completely frustrated by stone age thinking. These new paradigms can take root in our thinking so quickly, it is kind of scary.

    I know people who have been out of work the past year and they are almost waiting for this to pass or just grateful for an excuse to retire early because their head wasn't really fully in it before. It has always been an industry and a machine where people were expendable (just talking the games industry) yet there was a phase where 'artists' would place themselves central to the whole thing and not even explore potential efficiencies in seemingly alien experimental approaches. To them it was all about their skillset, one based in as deep a legacy of tradition as possible, seemingly in denial of the obvious looming automation / procedural big picture.

    Good that middle management are being edged out, and also that things are being shaken up. Sounds like a positive experience for the most part! I only ever worked in the fringes of the games industry, but did notice the resistance to change even from that distance; late nineties and still the pixel artists ruled the roost, whereas we were going in making our textures as 3D objects and rendering them, sometimes with animated lighting changes, too much for the system to deal with, though our coders dealt with it admirably 😅

    hehe yah, I do miss the olde experimental days, in may ways they are back but with different tools. Not too sure how reflective of the industry my experience is. I do imagine larger companies are for the most part going through very different things right now. I guess in my small scale experience right now I get to clearly see how AI/ML manifests when there is not a ton of legacy momentum applied. The situation I am in now the best means simply have to rise to the surface and we are not under a gamer fanboy microscope.

Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025