Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 275
- 2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Here's Udio, a new AI music generator that has emerged as a competitor to Suno. There's less of the audio "artifacting" that exists in a lot of AI music tools, and it can actually do some pretty decent generation from keywords. It's early days and there are limitations and still identifiable signs of AI-ness, but it's quite a large step forward from the previous iterations.
The emergence of all these musical AIs as of late has been quite validating, especially since I've had a good amount of arguments with art people I know about the ability of AI to create music - as someone who makes music as a hobbyist I've come at it from the perspective of "these are all just patterns and systems of rules, and can be imitated easily by an agent familiar enough with those rules". In similar fashion to those who predicted that visual art would be difficult to achieve via AI, those who were predicting that this ability was not generalisable to music were wrong.
To some extent, it's understandable - it must be a pretty big blow to one's ego for the art one prides themselves on to be so easily recreated and automated by the equivalent of a Chinese Room, especially when the field is still in its infancy and hasn't even come close to anything we would consider agentic - but I can't help but see many of the naysayers about the ability of AI to achieve supposedly uniquely "human" tasks as being clearly myopic and wrong.
The human brain is a "chinese room". Also AI has done many agentic things. Any definition of agentic that would exclude everything an AI has done would be so strict as to be obviously fragile and not that meaningful.
Not exactly, ChatGPT isn't possessed of "understanding" of textual content like humans are, but it can generate text very competently nonetheless.
I mean, I agree that the distinction between an agent and automation is a completely arbitrary distinction predicated solely on degree, but the fact remains people don't think of AI as agents in any real sense at the moment. I think as the progress of the field goes on that perception will shift.
What do you mean that ChatGPT doesn't possess understanding? How would you even determine that?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wonder how differently this will impact the music industry versus how generative AI has and will impact the digital illustration industry. I'm not much into music, but I feel like a lot more of the appeal to music comes from the personalities attached to the songs than in the case of illustrations. And the personalities can't ever be truly copied without deception; even if we reach AGI with AI personalities indistinguishable from a human, the knowledge that the personality came from a computer instead of a human who had actually popped out of another human will color the perception. When someone puts on a Taylor Swift song during their daily commute or a workout, the knowledge that it was actually written and sung by Taylor Swift almost certainly plays a significant factor in their preference to listen to that song over something else.
That said, there are plenty of more functional uses of music, like BGM for ambience in works like video games, TV shows, films, other videos, b-rolls and the like, where no such personality matters. Even for big time composers like John Williams or Hans Zimmer, I'd bet the typical movie fan wouldn't care if the music had been made by AI, as long as the music actually served the purpose exactly as well as music that had been written by those people. This is analogous to the functional use of illustrations like for movie props, game textures, or book illustrations that provide employment for unknown low-level illustrators, which is what AI seems to be best positioned to disrupt (probably is already). But what I perceive with the music industry is that, even at the low level, fans tend to care about the musicians attached to the music; they don't go listen to the small local band or buy their albums just because of the audio that they put out, they do so because they want to support those people in particular. Again, AI fundamentally can't challenge this without deception, so those low-level employment opportunities for unknown musicians may survive in a way that it won't for unknown illustrators.
Another aspect is how using technology to automate music production seems to have been more accepted than for illustrations pre-AI, i.e. sampling and stuff like that. Some illustrators seem to see AI art as "cheating" because it allows the creation of very high fidelity, high detail illustrations without developing one's hand-eye coordination through years of practice. Whereas musicians are still respected even if they don't play the instruments or sing the vocals themselves. But generative AI will allow people who didn't even write the music or have any understanding of music to produce high quality songs merely from a text prompt, which is certainly a big difference. But also, just like how AI art is being used by illustrators to aid in their workflow, I wonder how/if AI music could play into it. Udio and Suno go straight from prompt to produced song, but what about prompt to lyrics and sheet music, or prompt + lyrics and sheet music to produced song, or any other intermediate steps? In illustrations, it's pretty easy to use the same tool selectively to aid in the workflow since it's all just putting pixels on a grid at the end of the day, but with song production with the different mediums involved, we'd need to see more specialized tools to aid musicians' workflows.
I had a conversation with someone last year who was insistent that actually good (i.e. human-equivalent) voice acting AI would require us to first invent general AI, because the various tones and inflections needed to properly convey the character's emotions to the audience would require actual understanding of what the character was going through with all the various nuances and details and such. I just don't understand this perspective, since voice acting, like music, is merely the production of sound waves at the end of the day. AI will only get better at manipulating sound waves, and there's no need to understand the emotions of the character the same way a human actor needs to, merely what sorts of sounds give positive feedback from the human audience (i.e. evokes certain emotions). Same goes for text, images, and video, of course. But even once these technologies become superhuman in ability to create truly meaningful, inspiring, insightful works of art, I imagine there will always be a subculture of people who will insist on only appreciating the maximally manually produced artworks. It's just hard to tell right now if they will be the mainstream or a tiny niche like the Amish.
I really just think this is based on a lack of understanding of how one can converge on the same outcome through radically different methods, and how meaning can just come along for the ride once you're appropriately good at pattern-generation. So you get all these midwit "critiques" and outlinings of the supposed limitations of AI by people with no grasp on the idea that human-level output can be generated through radically inhuman processes.
More options
Context Copy link
Based on my limited interactions with musicians, they seem to have less of a fetish for authenticity than visual artists do.
Professional commercial art has always been no-rules-anything-goes of course. Even before AI you had photobashing, various digital effects, tracing over 3D models, etc. But there was always a vocal subset of artists (usually on the more hobbyist/indie side) who felt that these methods were "cheating" in a way, and if you couldn't draw something with good ol' pen and paper then it wasn't "real skill". My impression is that this sort of sentiment is largely absent even in indie musicians - they view digital mixing and post-processing as simply a normal part of the process, they never think twice about it.
I think in some sense music is inherently more reliant on technology than visual art is - if you want to create any sort of durable recording of a song, something that can persist even in the absence of the original composer and performer, then you need to rely on technology that's only been around since 1877, whereas people were inscribing paintings onto stone many thousands of years ago. Musicians have just been living with technology longer, they were using electric guitars when most professional illustrators didn't need anything more high tech than ink and oil paints. So I think that's part of the reason why they have a friendlier disposition towards technology in general.
More options
Context Copy link
I think you're generally right about the personality aspect of music, but you don't take it far enough.
Lots of musicians don't write their own music or lyrics and people still lap it up. The ultimate manifestation of this is kpop bands where there's a whole back office running the band. If the songwriters and lyricists out of the public eye were replaced with AI, I doubt the consumers would care.
Oh yeah, for manufactured pop bands, of which Kpop is perhaps the perfected version, I feel like they're appreciated more for their performance abilities than for their song recordings. So fans might insist on actual human dancers and singers (I don't know how much lip sync is common in these performances; do fans insist they actually sing into the mics while also doing complicated/strenuous dance moves in concerts?), even if they don't care about the AI writing the songs or even "performing" the music. Virtual concert performances like the Crypton Future Media Vocaloids might gain traction, but I also imagine they'd have to be some rare major figure like a Hatsune Miku or perhaps some popular Vtuber (whether human or AI-controlled) for fans to actually want to come out to watch such things.
But with AI songwriting, that's the kind of thing that real human songwriters could employ and just lie about pretty easily, to get the best of both worlds. If Taylor Swift used ChatGPT extensively to write her lyrics or used Suno and reverse-engineered its melodies for her own melodies and just lied about it, no one would ever know, and fans would get the enjoyment of genuinely believing that they're hearing songs that came pouring out of Swift's heart or whatever.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't blame the artists for being so prissy and pissed off about AI taking their lunch. It'll come for me too, I pride myself on being able to write, and Claude Opus is close. Scarily so.
But it'll also come for my actual job too, and sooner than I'd like. After all, I write for fun and public validation. But I do need to eat too.
Sadly, their approach is wrong, not that I blame them. Most artists are already quite commoditized, and even the ones with an established niche won't have it uncontested much longer. What we should all prepare for is actual UBI, even a minimal one because motherfucker, I don't care how many PhDs you've got, it's coming for you too. And if you've got that many, you're probably partially responsible for it to boot. But in the meantime, I chuckle, but do feel bad for them, I too was surprised that AI demolished the creative arts first, and recently I saw some rather creative mental gymnastics on Twitter about the limitations of current AI, which can be best summed up as "See, humans are still better than LLMs at cold, inhuman logic".
We're in for a rough decade. May it end well nonetheless.
More options
Context Copy link
The people I know that work in music (I've done so a bit myself too) don't really give a shit.
Composition was already a winner takes it all kind of thing and the vast majority of money is made through live performances. To the extent that this replaces anything I don't know anyone that has gotten paid anything meaningful for creating equivalent (or adjacent) audio slop.
We've talked about this previously but these kinds of jobs are not handed out on a merit or cost basis, and there is already an extreme oversupply of people capable of doing them.
I don't think this changes anything at all, but it is certainly interesting.
I think it’s a self-preservation thing. Lots of people just have this odd need to believe that AI isn’t really going to take over the art scene, from movies to music to writing and painting and so on. And it will end those pursuits as a viable career simply because it will be orders of magnitude cheaper to have an AI write and make the next Star Wars movie than it will be for them to waste that money on human writing and acting and so on. Just a few humans to tweak the output is all you really need, and that’s essentially one guy doing the fixing.
It’s already getting hard to tell the difference between a human and a bot, and that’s tools that are pretty stable and probably were developed and trained 3-5 years ago. Give it five more years and the professional arts will be dying because they’re no longer different enough from AI to justify the price.
That's the thing, I don't think it will. The art scene isn't driven by cost or even talent considerations (beyond a certain threshold).
For the things this will be viable for I don't think anyone gives a shit who is doing the composing and it employs a microscopic amount of people.
If you want to look at ai impact on employment i would look at some kind of cost competitive field that actually employs a lot of people, like animation.
More options
Context Copy link
Yup. It doesn't matter if AI, as is the case circa Early 2024 AD (we need to be specific) can't fully replace humans.
Only modest progress is needed till all you need is one very good human, assisted by an AI, doing the work of ten average ones. Or a hundred. And then you have somewhere from 90-99% of the workforce redundant.
Much of the code for Dingboard was written by AI, even if the creator is human. He says he wouldn't have been able to pull it off, not without a lot more money or people, not in this little time.
Of course, I expect that is inevitable, as is complete automation, but even most people being unable to meaningfully contribute to the economy will be catastrophic unless great care is taken, be it in cognitive or physical labor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think we're discussing different music crowds here. There's probably a difference in mindset between people who work professionally in music for a wage and "art people" - the young, generally progressive music fanatics who are extremely interested in music as an artform, who really care about cultivating the image and mindset of what they perceive artists are like, and believe that the value of music is in communication between individuals. These people find that AI art devalues artforms and believe it is meaningless due to the lack of human involvement. I will not debate the validity of that position (though I disagree), but it leads them to be disturbed by the idea of AI art and they as a result have a very strong incentive to downplay the capabilities of AI.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ego is one thing, basic self-interest is another, but more importantly, I'm not sure who's being myopic here. Technology was supposed to automate away the drudgery, so we can devote ourselves to higher pursuits like art, philosophy, and science. The way things are going, it looks like we're going to automate away the higher pursuits so we can send more people to the cobalt mines, because handing someone a pickaxe, and feeding them insects might be easier than figuring out and maintaining bipedal robots.
I think technology has done a lot of that, though, with things like dishwashers, washing machines, running water, elevators, cranes, cars, and such. These are all "dumb" tech, though, and they hit diminishing returns; we still have to load our dishwashers and steer our cars (for the most part) manually. I think this just speaks to how difficult the precise and fine manipulation of objects in the physical world really is. From what I heard, image generation AI was actually a consequence of trying to solve this problem; we needed AI to be able to perceive the world similar to humans, which meant identifying objects in images, which was able to be reversed in some way to create new images. And this happened much more quickly than the robotics controls, because manipulating stuff in the digital world is much easier than in the real world.
It's still way too early to tell, but I could also see the argument that AI art does automate away the drudgery so we can devote ourselves to higher pursuits, since it's really primarily good at creating high fidelity illustrations while lacking the good taste or artistic vision required to convey some emotion in a pleasing or provocative way (this is arguable). This allows people to work on the more high level vision of what they want their illustration to look like instead of devoting the time required to develop their manual muscle control.
More options
Context Copy link
Whether this is good or not is a question of values and not really related to the point, the topic of discussion is more about whether it's possible.
I think your scenario is unrealistic in any case - automation of manual labour tasks is certainly feasible (and has been achieved in many cases) and more such jobs in these domains will eventually become obsolete once technological advances make the cost of doing so lower than employing human labour, but that's besides the point. You can be an AI doomer and still realise that AI has immense potential. Plenty of the people discussed on this forum certainly believe so (Yudkowsky, Bostrom, etc). But there are still a lot of people basically treating AI as a hype-fad pushed by techbro caricatures, who regard automation of all these oh-so-human pursuits as practically impossible and scoff at the mention of AGI, and pretty much every two years their predictions get overturned.
Way back when, before I joined this place but was already keeping an eye on the rat-sphere, one of the AI Apocalypse scenarios thrown around was "technological unemployment", and one of the counter-arguments to it, other than "it's just a hype-fad" was "comparative advantage". Already at that time the Rats have discredited themselves as careful thinkers in my eyes, because they waved it away with the magic of recursive improvement. A careful thinker would look at where the logic of comparative advantage leads, and it's the scenario I outlined. You see it's not enough that we eventually figure out robotic/AI alternatives to manual labor, and it's not even enough that they are strictly superior to human labor in every way, they have to be superior to devoting the same AI resources to something else while having humans dig the fucking hole.
But back to your point, yeah the progress in AI is pretty wild, and people predicting that nothing will come out of it were clearly wrong. At the same time I'm having trouble saying anything meaningful about it, or where it will end up going, which is why I kind of went off topic relative to your original post.
And yet that's not how mining works in any country but the shittiest on earth, so it's not clear to me why the practice would suddenly spread.
Yes it does. People who have talents in more lucrative fields than mining, tend to go those fields, even if they are better than the average miner.
Almost all mining is already "automated" to a certain extent by either gigantic machines that can do the work of 100,000 kids with pickaxes or other force multiplying tech. He was asking why we would ever go back to that when we have better cheaper ways?
In developed countries, yes., in others not necessarily.
Secondly, the reason we would go back to that is that if we come up with a technology to automate away valuable intellectual labor, you'll get more bang for the buck by investing in that, than investing automating manual labor. Trying to refute the idea with the current economics of mining makes no sense.
There is money/utility in automating all labor, they can't do it in the middle of the congo because they don't have the capacity, infrastructure, expertise, and the situation is too volatile for western mining companies to set up in the worst parts. It isn't a value prop. A single mining wheel can mine more in 240,000 tons of material a day, with the largest mines extracting about a million tons a day. The "big hole" the largest hand dug open pit mine took some 30k miners and 30k support townspeople 43 years to excavate 22 million tons of rock by whatever semi manual means were available to them at the time.
So an almost fully automated mine can do in 22 days what it took 30-60 thousand people 43 years to do in the past. I bet no one even died in those 22 days, or even in 2 years, most open pit mines are pretty safe these days!
"Between 1897 and 1899, a total of 7,853 patients were admitted into Kimberley Hospital. 5,368 of these patients were black and admitted into special designated wards, i.e. a "Native surgical ward" for black miners and a special ward for black women and children. Of these black patients, 1,144 died."
Everything will mechanised and automated. It just makes too much sense, which is why everyone who can manage to do so, does it. Humans aren't the new cogs, they are going to be completely irrelevant.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"not how it works" applies to your claims that mining will consist of "handing someone a pickaxe, and feeding them insects".
You haven't heard of "artisenal mining"? Or are you objecting to the "feeding the bugs" part?
I'm saying that there's a reason artisanal mining is limited to the worst places in the world, and it's not because the Congolese have a comparative advantage in digging holes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I took it as a metaphor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link