Prog created with the help of AI

wiz_d_kidd wrote: Music created by AI sounds like Steely Dan... and vice versa.

The main problem for me however, is when I see art made by stable diffusion, I see not the person who curated the art, but stable diffusion.
It's not so much because of the mistakes it makes, but the peculiarity of its rendering. There is a certain recognizable pattern to its texture, and it's never ever had fooled me.
Same goes with music software like Suno. A buddy of mine tried to trick me with it, but because I've already engaged with that platform, and I immediately recognized it for what it is.
There is a certain compression, the way the notes overlay upon one another, the occasional clipping, the tuning, and many other small things.
I guess that there is a lot of mediocre art, which makes AI works look good in comparison, but does it makes it outstanding?
Everyone just so decided to pretend that they don't see the obvious difference between a real flower and a plastic reproduction.
I especially loathe those "influences" who have art related jobs, but choose to double down on that frenzy, as if they so suddenly lost all of their experience and human intuition.
And if some corporations are eager to replace human resource with an AI one, so what?
Corporations were already forcing artists to produce art under extreme limitations, ultimately leading to homogenized aesthetics.
AI can imitate certain patterns but its struggles to create truly spontaneous aesthetics. For example Beksiński made a very sudden shift in his direction during the 90s.
Since AI is heavily reliant on a foundational database its struggles with fast changes. Think of it like that: How long it would take for an AI to result in an Anime-like aesthetic if one is forced to rely only on realistic painting and photographies? AI can create nominally "new" aesthetics, which lack the seed of novelty.
And as for programmers, I really don't see an AI replacement of human resource happening anytime soon. Normal people seems to assume that anyone who has/had software/programming related job is a "programmer", which is not true.
There are some people who get into the industry to do automation related tasks, something that can be potentially done slightly faster with a pre-set pattern recognizing AI.
Incompetent programmers exist as-well, and their bloated and dysfunctional code wouldn't be much more optimized if they resorted to a help of an AI.
And mind you, I'm not an enemy of AI. I think it has a its use cases, such as automation of tasks. I personally used vocal separation AI, as the results weren't significantly worse from ones made by slower methods.
I also think that "mechanical" AI-vocalist can be an accessible replacement for VOCALOIDs.

Edited by KorgC3 - July 09 2024 at 23:01

The Dark Elf wrote: AI composed and rendered music removes the human element of creativity

I loathe the prevalence of AI. Death to AI.  Long live the new flesh.

Hrychu wrote: If I compose a piece of music on a computer and have it played to a synthesiser via MIDI, is that being dishonest because I didn't manually play it? No. Because you're still the composer, mixer, arranger. Is it being dishonest because they're not real instruments? No. If I create a piece of music by multitracking several different performances together, is that being dishonest because I didn't manually play it in real time? No. As I said, you're still responsible for majority of the the creative decisions. Though here, it's kind of a grey area. It really depends on how much of the track is of your own composition. If I apply an effect to modify my singing voice, is that being dishonest because it's not my real voice? It depends of what effect it is. But generally, no. If I use the roll of the dice to assist in what notes or chords to use in a composition, is that being dishonest because the choices made were not entirely mine? Rolling the dice doesn't involve machine learning. If I edit a composition created by AI to conform to my tastes, is that still being dishonest because I didn't do all of the work even though it contains many decisions that are mine? Depends on how much of this is edited and on how big is your creative input.

I prophesy disaster wrote: Hrychu wrote: Claiming authorship for a soulless turd made and more importantly conceived entirely by a machine, with no real intention regarding the majority of creative decisions in the "music" is simply being dishonest with the consumer. 👎   Oh really?!! If I compose a piece of music on a computer and have it played to a synthesiser via MIDI, is that being dishonest because I didn't manually play it? Is it being dishonest because they're not real instruments? If I create a piece of music by multitracking several different performances together, is that being dishonest because I didn't manually play it in real time? If I apply an effect to modify my singing voice, is that being dishonest because it's not my real voice? If I use the roll of the dice to assist in what notes or chords to use in a composition, is that being dishonest because the choices made were not entirely mine? If I edit a composition created by AI to conform to my tastes, is that still being dishonest because I didn't do all of the work even though it contains many decisions that are mine?   You are arguing from a position that is self-contradictory. On the one hand, you are arguing that AI music is grossly inferior, but on the other hand, you are arguing that the consumer is being deceived by it. What if AI music eventually becomes as good as that from the best human artists?

Oh really?!!

Yes. Really.

If I compose a piece of music on a computer and have it played to a synthesiser via MIDI, is that being dishonest because I didn't manually play it?

No. Because you're still the composer, mixer, arranger.

Is it being dishonest because they're not real instruments?

No.

If I create a piece of music by multitracking several different performances together, is that being dishonest because I didn't manually play it in real time?

No. As I said, you're still responsible for majority of the the creative decisions. Though here, it's kind of a grey area. It really depends on how much of the track is of your own composition.

If I apply an effect to modify my singing voice, is that being dishonest because it's not my real voice?

It depends of what effect it is. But generally, no.

If I use the roll of the dice to assist in what notes or chords to use in a composition, is that being dishonest because the choices made were not entirely mine?

Rolling the dice doesn't involve machine learning.

If I edit a composition created by AI to conform to my tastes, is that still being dishonest because I didn't do all of the work even though it contains many decisions that are mine?

Depends on how much of this is edited and on how big is your creative input.

You are arguing from a position that is self-contradictory.

No. I'm not.

On the one hand, you are arguing that AI music is grossly inferior, but on the other hand, you are arguing that the consumer is being deceived by it. What if AI music eventually becomes as good as that from the best human artists?

I have no clue what you meant actually. It's "inferior" because it replaces the authors conscious creative decisions.

Edited by I prophesy disaster - July 06 2024 at 05:39

Catcher10 wrote: If any artist uses AI to create music, I think the artist should have full disclosure in the liner notes, giving consumers the choice to buy it or not.

Edited by suitkees - June 25 2024 at 08:35