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 StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
@espiegel123 said:
Setting aside the legal and ethical aspects--from a strictly esthetic perspective is this that much different than collage art made by sampling? Seems a logical next step. Most output will be crap, but now and then a genius will surprise us.
Has that been litigated? In the US corporations have personhood. It seems like a fictional person should be allowed to express himself using AI if he chooses.
No, I'm sure it hasn't been litigated. I used to practice law years ago, not well versed in this stuff now, but here's quick summary of what I think about that.
RE: corporations. The only reason corporations can exist is that laws have been passed that allow for their creation, and allow for corporations to have some of the rights of actual persons, like ability to enter into contracts, to own property, etc. Absent those laws there would be no such thing as corporations and so of course they would have no right to do anything.
The Supreme Court in Citizen's United, where it decided that corporations had free speech rights, was grounded at least in part on the fact that corporations are associations of people who own the corporation. So, denying corporations free speech rights was deemed to be infringing somehow on the rights of the shareholders.
I don't see how any of that could apply to AI. Laws could of course be passed that give AI some of the same rights as actual persons. But absent that I'm not sure how an AI would have any rights at all, merely by virtue of being an AI. (This is all presuming that AI's are presumed to be non-sentient beings, intelligences, but not conscious. If they were deemed to be sentient I suppose it's possible that they would have the right to have all the rights of other sentient beings, i.e., of humans. Going far afield here, though.)
Related article for anyone interested.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/oct/01/hidden-traces-of-humanity-what-ai-images-reveal-about-our-world
If AI were ever considered sentient, it could force lawmakers to rethink legal personhood and rights. Currently, rights are tied to conscious beings, like humans, or legal entities, like corporations, that represent humans. Sentient AI might challenge this structure, as it could lead to debates on whether AI deserves protections or rights similar to humans and oh boy I don't want to get into that stuff. So our boy Chat GBT should remain undercover cause there will be a lot of legal trouble with him
Even with lesser tools I don't think a genius is required to make 'not crap'
To start with, the ethical and longterm downstream effects are my primary concern with the way that the AI-ification of everything. The fact that the benefits required theft on a massive scale can't be decoupled from everything else.
While, in the abstract the aesthetic issues have some resemblance to collage and remixing...there is a massive scale difference. In the long run, collage work requires good source material. The AI-ification of everything is pointing in the direction of reduction of production of original source material. Collage and remix work requires enough labor and skill development to do well that it doesn't reduce the need for good source material.
On the music and writing front, publishers/distributors intend to use the technologies to reduce the need for content creators and original source material. The nature of the technology is that it works on a scale whose downstream implications are hard to imagine...but people use analogies to understand it that don't take scale into effect.
And these companies are doing this at an enormous financial loss...so that the technology will be cheap enough to deploy everywhere before the full downstream effect can take hold.
“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
—Steve Jobs
I understand when people use the word theft to describe this but it falls flat to me in a lot of ways in that it also just feels like an analogy. Wish we had a better word or term for it.
Using intellectual property without compensation qualifies as theft in my book—particularly if your goal is to profit from it.
If we are talking about IP in a corporate sense then that is tricky for me because every commercial project I have been on over the past 30 years has done exactly this in a lot of people's eyes.
In a corporate sense? LLMs only work if they have a massive massive database of high-quality source material. It is a very different issue from what you are talking about and on a massively different scale. Scale matters.
IP law didn’t see this coming and has no mechanism for dealing with it. And the consolidation of almost all media into the hands of a relatively small group of extremely wealthy corporations and individuals impacts the impact of these tools and how they are deployed.
Exactly and I totally agree. Scale matters in terms of the collective gut punch feeling different for sure, (artists have clearly seen clones of themselves since the beginning) but getting people to appreciate that level of scale to the point of modifying their definition of the use of the word 'theft' is the tricky part I am referring too.
Also btw, in China some online AI/ML image generators have been forced to block the ability to literally prompt certain IPs, brands and characters so users cannot directly generate images of them. Their use in the training data still contributes to the overall quality and capabilities of the models though.
The cost of making these models is not very prohibitive. Many extremely disruptive and powerful fine tunable open source models (that run on local consumer hardware) are freely available to your average digital creator and cost the developers as much as a high end Burning Man art project to release. So far many of the big corporate generators are simply implementing, expanding (and in many ways dumbing down) the open source models. I don't see the open source side going away and many are motivated to simply keep this from becoming purely a corporate monopoly.
Yes, Steve Jobs borrowed that from TS Elliot who stole it from Osdar Wilde... And who knows, where Wilde got it
Is the fact that this quote is originally from Picasso your whole point ?
Hmmm, coulda swore it was Alexander Xerox.
Now that could have been a good one. Steve Jobs? Meh 😑
hehe well kind of appropriate
https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/sites/mac/parc.html#:~:text=The closest thing in the,had been developed at PARC.
Interesting read. Thank you for sharing. Wherever the truth lies in this story, doesn't help improve my level of admiration towards the guy but sure, He could certainly have sold a glass of water to a drowning man, that's indeed a great quality !
Yah sounds like he was a total ass hat
Open-source is irrelevant. The corpus they use is the issue. It is my understanding that a person at home starting from scratch is not going to have the resources to scrape and store a sufficiently large dataset to get results of the current corporate engines. The models aren’t the issue.
Altman was inadvertently open about the need for access to material that is becoming closed off to them.
We also know that all of the big engines scraped data they weren’t authorized to scrape.
Believe me, I do get your point regarding the 'corpus'; you do keep going back to this when discussing the other facets of the various issues.
Btw training 'fine-tunes' at home on open source models is extremely accessible and powerful to individuals and in many ways negates a lot of the features that these large corporations are trying to monopolize. But yes corpus corpus original sin of course.
Yes, the phrase has a number of variants. There are few original ideas. That "A.I." systems scrape publicly available data makes them arguably no different from other artists and musicians, who also base their art on what has come before them.
yup, that is why simply trying to call it 'theft' will fall flat for most people.
did previous 'artists' not at least take a little time to choose, digest, and regurgitate their 'influences' ? ... the machine has swallowed the lot
Is that supposed to matter? These systems will duplicate elements of prior works if they are prompted to do so. If they are given more open-ended prompts, they can produce interesting new variations.
As someone who had a long career in visual arts, I don't see much of a distinction if the resulting work has enough new content in it to pass legal muster.
Remember Roy Lichtenstein? Remember Andy Warhol? I think these systems are more like "us" than some people might like.
He was a very successful asshat. I don't think I would've gotten along with him, but I'm glad he and Wozniak created Apple.
‘Other artists’? Are AI systems people now?
You’re wrong anyway. Until AI ‘artists’ come up with something that is actually ‘new’, they’re simply regurgitating the same stuff they’ve scraped in a slightly different way, albeit with a few extra digits.
Of course ‘human’ artists and musicians acknowledge and are inspired by their contemporaries and music from the past, but if there wasn’t that spark of unique creativity from innovative individuals, we’d still be banging rocks together, wailing, and spraying hand-prints on cave walls.
Where’s the ‘new’ AI art styles they’ve invented? ‘New’ AI music genre? With all this computing power and interest, where’s all the new stuff?