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
This is never going to get anywhere near 90% of Disney or equivalent. Maybe 0.90%.
There would be an infinite market for such a device, lol
I hope she's not reading the forum.
IMO to say VEO3 can already produce results 90% qualitatively equivalent to what we see Disney producing is being charitable to Disney and is more likely to be an underestimate of VEO3.
AI slop is never going to replace talented animators, writers and voice actors.
Have GPT listen to the ai tracks and take the surveys for you.
I get more false negatives. "Why aren't you listening to me?". Because I thought you were talking to the dog.
I write and edit B2B marketing copy for a living. These days, I continue to tell people that I write, but my main strategy for finding work is to emphasize that I know how to leverage AI and can teach others how to do it. The writing itself is devalued and will get more devalued as time goes on.
The problem is not that AI is a better writer. The problem is that the people in charge of spending decisions aren't artists or interested in art and creativity. Nor are they particularly literate. When I point out the obvious problems with AI "writing" I'll see shrugs and eyerolls, because all they see is a competent-looking set of paragraphs that pass an initial smell test.
It's not that they don't need creative people, they just think they need one where once they needed ten.
I'd bet the same is true for commercial music production.
The externalities don't factor into their thinking. At the largest and most "progressive" companies, the problem shifted to the executive in charge of the carbon offset program. No one worries about how AI promises to atrophy our minds, privatize all of human creativity, or accelerate climate disaster.
I assume AI will develop some kind of Voight-Kampff test to verify humans.
You may be a little behind the times. It has been a while already now since they stopped hiring rooms full of animators drawing mice on mylar sheets. Manipulations of digitized recordings of voices of people living and dead have been used for years. Disney/Hollywood etc. have been using computer animation for years and are using AI extensively now. The only difference is more people have access to tools of similar quality (better quality than Hollywood had ten years ago) for less money.
Doubtless there will continue to be a human element, but if anyone thinks human jobs will not be lost at exponentially greater rates than ever before with this revolution I think their head is firmly embedded in sand (no disrespect intended -just saying).
To what extent the number of human jobs will diminish in the industry is something history will decide, not LoopyPro forum. You are free to disagree this will happen, but I and many others think the writing is already on the wall:
Mene Tekel Mene Upharsin.
+++
...
Totally. I'm surprised at some of the responses you received in this thread @UrbanNinja. You seem well informed and you're not claiming that the dangers posed by AI are insignificant. I'm glad you've been brave enough to stand your ground, that can be difficult in a public online forum, especially when some commenters misinterpret a post's message and intention.
Completely agree, (unfortunately). The view that ‘AI can never replace human creativity’ might, debatably, be true in a sense - it will always, in its current form at least, be a pastiche, however brilliant, created to fulfill what the AI model thinks we want rather than achieving its own goals and expression. However, taking that view is also sleep walking into the future, while the possibilities and dangers of AI should be faced head on rather than just assuming everything will be okay.
AI is getting better at what it can do at astonishing, terrifying speed.
Tesla’s robots are coming soon and may genuinely cause enormous unemployment around the world - one human employee in your factory that you have to pay year in, year out or a one off purchase of a Tesla robot for $30,000? Plenty of employers without a conscience who’ll go for that unfortunately i imagine.
The possibilities are very worrying and should be taken seriously rather than just assuming it can never replace human beings - such complacency is why it happens.
The problem too is that even employers with a conscience will feel they have to compete by cutting costs in this way, using robots, AI, and other forms of automation. That’s how we end up in a race to the bottom. History is full of examples: mass child labour during the Industrial Revolution, sweatshops in the age of globalisation, zero-hours contracts in the post-Über gig economy, and now AI slop flooding in the 'content' creation era.
I’m really not sure how this gets solved. Probably some mix of regulation and something like a universal basic income, though actually implementing that is far more complicated than first appears, especially when you start asking what “universal” means, and who exactly funds it. Yuval Harari made some great points about that in '21 Lessons for the 21st Century'. For instance, if richer countries can afford a generous UBI and poorer ones can't, the global divide will widen, and you'll end up with scenes not far removed from those in the immigration holding pens in movies like Children of Men.
Tesla's robots are terrible. There is absolutely no way that the company will be producing a workable one that replaces any skilled jobs for $30k anytime soon. This whole debate is full of really ill-informed speculation about potential, rather than the facts on the ground:
https://freedium.cfd/https://wlockett.medium.com/teslas-robot-is-utterly-pathetic-365874848eb6
I'm plugged pretty hard into folk from the creative industries, including people who work in music, videogames, movies, TV and visual FX. I could count on one hand the number of them doing the work who think that AI could ever 'replace' what they do to a similar or better standard, or even a workable one. It's a house of cards where many companies are betting the farm and are going to crash hard.... probably far too late to prevent the consequences of laying off all the people they'll find they actually need. We're going to be drowning in AI slop from people who think they're creative but aren't, while actual creatives who are professionals in these industries will now be having to fix the mistakes, hallucinations and general bad output of AI.
And for non-creative industries such as financial services, the amount of hallucinations and sheer wrong answers are ridiculous and make AI a non-starter as a replacement for human labour. When you have to get someone to check everything the AI is spitting out because otherwise you risk it being wrong and costing you loads of money, it has little value.
And then we have the IT industry: https://old.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/1krttqo/my_new_hobby_watching_ai_slowly_drive_microsoft/
In the next 5 years, AI is likely going to decimate the worker economy when execs get dollar signs in their eyes. Lay off workers, use AI to replace them, spend way less money, make way more money - it's perfect, right?! Unfortunately this gargantuan bet on AI will also decimate the actual economy when the Emperor's New Clothes of it all becomes clear and people wipe the scales from their eyes. For example, the progress made with each LLM model is lower despite each one being trained on more and more data. The ratio between advancement and the necessary resources to advance gets ever worse. And the models are even going to run out of new data to be trained on before long! Unless someone comes up with a whole new way of doing things, progress is going to stall much more quickly than you might think on the present path.
Oh, and then there's the environmental impact of all this which is being conveniently ignored: https://mashable.com/article/energy-ai-worse-than-we-thought
I used to be a big advocate of AI. I thought it was going to be incredible. But the more I see, the more obvious its flaws are, and the more obvious it is that it isn't going to be the saviour of everything.
Many valid points here too.
All of that! 👆
The real test will be to compare extended scenes and cuts with continuity and intention. Stills and short disjointed clips from VEO3 are not really convincing.
Also the above video clip is not simply 'prompt and ghost' styled AI. The person who made it (who has been doing animation for 20+ years, won a bunch of awards, Cannes etc) is using AI more like a rendering filter on top of conventional 3D and 2D. So when people say they 'made it using AI', with the better examples it is often as a tool by pros who integrate it in to an established skillset and not just typing out a single prompt spitting out results.
Interesting points regarding the potential problem of implementing a universal basic income, thanks @Gavinski. Something will have to get done though: it’s no good businesses getting rid of human employees to cut costs if the net result is that no one has any money to buy their products.
I totally agree, once again, collectively we have screwed the proverbial pooch
maybe I’ll get one for 30k and send it to do my work so I can spend my time with my creative hobbies. Win-win?
Definitely, the greed and the short term thinking, the need to keep shareholders happy etc, are major weaknesses of our current system. See the book "End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration" by Peter Turchin. Either we'll have a revolution or we'll have a total societal collapse.
Some really interesting points @Michael_R_Grant.
I hope you and your acquaintances in creative industries are right that AI cannot replace what we do, I really do. And i hope you’re right about the current model stalling. It seems to me though that the when AI stalls, or progresses sufficiently enough, they will ask AI to design an even better AI model, Douglas Adam’s style.
My point is we need to consider the consequences if AI is really good - it’s no good looking at the status quo and assuming things won’t change. Tesla robots may well be terrible now, but that doesn’t mean they will always be terrible - it pays to be prepared and assume that one day they will be very capable indeed. It’s entirely possible that within the next decade, Tesla will be known more as a manufacturer of robots than of cars.
I certainly share your opinion that AI is a negative advancement for us overall.
Thanks for the book suggestion. When i look at what’s happening, I tend to agree with your last sentence!
Regarding the expected "mass unemployment" to come from legions of robots replacing people who are doing repetitive, dangerous and/or boring work: It's coming and nothing will prevent it. On the other hand, a one person business will also have the power to grow and adjust operations as needed to meet demand. Small business owners will suddenly be able to compete. One need not even have a vivid imagination to realize the boon to entrepreneurial activities this will represent. Most business owners run small businesses and there are more than 1 million empty job positions in the US today. There is a shortage of workers. Robots will fill many of these roles. A.I. will also fill many of these empty positions. The very nature of work is changing and it's "adapt or die" time.
I don’t even know anymore. 😵💫
Interesting discussion.
The problem is, is it acceptable that those who don’t, or can’t, adapt should figuratively or even literally die? Just so others can maximise their profits? Such questions should matter to human beings in my opinion.
I guess it depends on a person’s willingness to pay for someone else’s lifestyle. I think most people are willing to help those in need if they are incapable of caring for themself, but what if that person is a self-destructive drug addict or alcoholic? Such a person has to take responsibility for their own life, don’t you think? If a person is willing to change for the better, I think people who are willing to help will always be there.