That will absolutely happen - smart FOH people will use it as a way of roughing things in, so they can save their ears for fine tuning things.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
The real reason AI generated content is no threat
- Thread starter 40Hz
- Start date
That will absolutely happen - smart FOH people will use it as a way of roughing things in, so they can save their ears for fine tuning things.
Who is paying royalties of the music used for training the AI ?
(Via Google Translate)
'Falske coversange' går viralt på sociale medier. Nu vil verdens førende pladeselskab stoppe trenden
(Via Google Translate)
'Falske coversange' går viralt på sociale medier. Nu vil verdens førende pladeselskab stoppe trenden
It would probably do a better job than the drummer's brother-in-law and you don't have to buy it beer.
this is what i foresee as well. even with all the recent corporate job cuts, i expect more 'shedding of human capital' on the horizon.
MDBass
Supporting Member
- Nov 7, 2012
- 8,590
- 14,892
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Dingwall-Fender-Bergantino-Dunlop-Tech 21-Darkglass-Nordstrand
This. 1000%
Copyrights have nothing to do with how companies are using/going to use AI, or how it will directly impact people working in a huge variety of creative fields.
I'm also involved in an industry (translation) where AI could well be an existential threat, but this thread is essentially about creative rather than interpretive work. Given the inevitable use of AI platforms to generate work traditionally assigned to creatives for commercial purposes, probably quite a lot of it, I have to speculate that it could very well change how we define 'creative,' both noun and adjective.
I think of the endless stream of Tin Pan Alley songs generated in the 1930s-'50s based on predictable melodies, harmonization and lyrics, or those of the disco boom of the '70s, or the grunge boom of the '90s, or pretty much all of rap, and I can't help thinking we've been facing this sort of non-creative reiteration in the music industry for a very long time, I think from the beginning of mass commercialization.
What if AI takes that sort of cookie-cutter moneymaking off the table entirely, and musicians are challenged to either make work that AI can't, or get another job?
This will come for us as performers as well, mind, just as rap did, substituting low-cost machine-generated sound for high-cost human-generated sound in live performance, controlled by a person or not. Again, this is not completely new to anyone who's lived with a chord organ or player piano, or used tracks onstage to fill out the sound of too few performers. What if there's no longer enough value in just being able to cover a song or performance style?
What if continuing to do this work commercially means we all have to radically up the game?
I think of the endless stream of Tin Pan Alley songs generated in the 1930s-'50s based on predictable melodies, harmonization and lyrics, or those of the disco boom of the '70s, or the grunge boom of the '90s, or pretty much all of rap, and I can't help thinking we've been facing this sort of non-creative reiteration in the music industry for a very long time, I think from the beginning of mass commercialization.
What if AI takes that sort of cookie-cutter moneymaking off the table entirely, and musicians are challenged to either make work that AI can't, or get another job?
This will come for us as performers as well, mind, just as rap did, substituting low-cost machine-generated sound for high-cost human-generated sound in live performance, controlled by a person or not. Again, this is not completely new to anyone who's lived with a chord organ or player piano, or used tracks onstage to fill out the sound of too few performers. What if there's no longer enough value in just being able to cover a song or performance style?
What if continuing to do this work commercially means we all have to radically up the game?
When I first read the subject, The real reason AI generated content is no threat, my immediate question was, what's the AI generated reason why there is no real threat to my content?
When the AI government prohibits humans from embarking on creative endeavors, I will contemplate feeling threatened. I have no aspirations to or delusions of grandeur. I play and create because I enjoy it and will use whatever tools seem fitting to those ends, including AI, if it makes sense.
Reason AI won't succeed is it's too edgy and experimental when you compare it to the safe bland tripe made and consumed by humans.
- Apr 22, 2016
- 780
- 1,221
- 49
- Disclosures
- Breaking even is the new making money.
I suspect, for the time being, OP is right. But the real issue is the monetization of AI output.
I've played with AI quite a bit to see what its capabilities are, mostly because as a creative professional (writing, editing, graphic design, etc.) I wanted to see how far it has gotten in a semi self preservation type of thing, but also because it's fun to see what it can do.
My assessment is that right now, it's not to the point where I'm worried about it affecting my work, yet. But that said, all of the various AIs outputting media (art, text, music, etc.) are trained on the creations of creative humans, and the moment corporations start using these things for a profit, the original creators used to train the models will have a field day with lawsuits. Governments are slow to regulate new tech, but probably, AI gen'd content will need to have disclaimers in one way or another.
I've played with AI quite a bit to see what its capabilities are, mostly because as a creative professional (writing, editing, graphic design, etc.) I wanted to see how far it has gotten in a semi self preservation type of thing, but also because it's fun to see what it can do.
My assessment is that right now, it's not to the point where I'm worried about it affecting my work, yet. But that said, all of the various AIs outputting media (art, text, music, etc.) are trained on the creations of creative humans, and the moment corporations start using these things for a profit, the original creators used to train the models will have a field day with lawsuits. Governments are slow to regulate new tech, but probably, AI gen'd content will need to have disclaimers in one way or another.
Humans can ruin anything. Politics, religion. Online scanning is absolutely going through the roof here this year.
“I never saw no miracle of science, that didn’t turn go from a blessing to a curse” Sting
“I never saw no miracle of science, that didn’t turn go from a blessing to a curse” Sting
Last edited:
Of course, this argument assumes that anyone who listens to music actually gives a rat's ass whether that song they like was written by a human and has a copyright. My guess is that no one does. If people hear a song they like, they download it on their phone and that's that. I highly doubt that anyone, who isn't a musicians, will actually care where that song came from.
MDBass
Supporting Member
- Nov 7, 2012
- 8,590
- 14,892
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Dingwall-Fender-Bergantino-Dunlop-Tech 21-Darkglass-Nordstrand
AI generating content is already beating human man creative content in some cases, and we’ve only just entered the dial up modem stage of its development.
Suggesting that it’s not a threat because there are no copyright issues is missing the forest for the trees here.
Netflix wasn’t a threat to Blockbuster at one time either
Last edited:
Yep…except this “schmuck” as you chose to characterize him just so happens to be a well known and respected US copyright attorney. And his channel is well worth watching if you’re at all interested in the litigious world of IP.
Last edited:
If the product isn’t protectable, it removes a lot of the incentive for commercial production and distribution. And the possibility of commercial exploitation of their creative efforts is what drives a lot if creatives.
Creativity isn’t necessarily all about the money. But when it comes to music it almost always is. If it weren’t we’d all be playing for free in the park every night and happy to do so. Just listen to the constant litany of: “when they pay me” you hear so often around here if you don’t believe it.
The 21st century isn't going like I thought it would 
MDBass
Supporting Member
- Nov 7, 2012
- 8,590
- 14,892
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Dingwall-Fender-Bergantino-Dunlop-Tech 21-Darkglass-Nordstrand
If the product isn’t protectable, it removes a lot of the incentive for commercial production and distribution. And the possibility of commercial exploitation of their creative efforts is what drives a lot if creatives.
Creativity isn’t necessarily all about the money. But when it comes to music it almost always is. If it weren’t we’d all be playing for free in the park every night and happy to do so. Just listen to the constant litany of: “when they pay me” you hear so often around here if you don’t believe it.
Musicians are a tiny portion of the creatives who are going to be effected.
Licensing and synch is also a giant segment of the commercial music industry: if AI gets good enough that it can write a “U2 sound-alike” song just as well as a production team can, it’s going to have a MASSIVE impact on that sector.
It’s not there yet, but again AI is very much only in it’s infancy.
Regardless “creatives have nothing to fear” is simply not a true thing to say about how AI is already effecting, and will only continue to increase effecting, the various industries that employ creatives both in house and freelance.
