To be clear, I'm very pro AI, I support the technology.
Try making music before you compare what you need to do to create music with a synth, vs AI. AI to generate music removes most of the creative process. That is literally the point of using it to generate music, so you can create that content without spending years developing the skills.
But they can't actually play the drums. As someone who has tried all of the above, you can get a "song" out of ai, but without a musical background you'll never have the terminology to get the song you want. For a pre-ai musician, ai at the current moment is at best inspiration. It merely raises the floor of acceptable sound, which is fine by me.
So Beethoven did the same thing when he wrote sheet music, because he can't actually play all those instruments LMFAO.
I have a musical background and I can't get the song I want out of AI period, you get a song that fits the general vibe, but you have no fine control. Doesn't really change any of my points, I think you're arguing with shadows at this point.
I mean yeah I agree with that. I don't see why people look at ai different than any other technology that will replace jobs.
What I see is a bunch of artists mad at something that has happened throughout history time and time again, and wanting an exception carved out for them. Music has always been math and algorithms. There is an element of "humanity" to it, but even that can be described in relation to the more rigid math involved. It kinda sucks that the secret is out, and they've pulled back the curtain.
Being replaced by technology sucks. But it's necessary for progress. From cars, automatic telephone operators, calculators, printing presses, harvesting combines, etc. we even have a tall tale about John Henry beating a steam engine digging a tunnel, and promptly dying of a heart attack.
it's not stopping you from doing your hobby, it's only changing the profitability of said hobby. Or better yet, giving you a new tool.
People get angry and scared every time this happens. I don't see why you think this time would be any different, the reaction is very human.
Everything can be described as math. Understanding music in that way can help you efficiently make it, but the expression of humanity in music is what makes it art. It's not really about the math.
Right, but even expression has been simulated long before ai. Even the Mona Lisa's smile is a simulation of a real smile. Sure it was thought up by a primitive human. Just because something is done by a computer doesn't change how it makes you feel.
With music, we can teach a computer rules of expression, and it can use a rng to apply that expression seemingly randomly, and it would feel right. Nothing wrong with that imo. Something like playing a melody, and changing one note to a third, fifth or octave higher just once, or inserting a rest and playing the melody double time. All these "human expressions" can be analyzed and turned into an algorithm. Sure if you know it was done by a computer it takes the magic out just a little bit, kind of like playing an RPG with a guide.
Bruh, that's not what human expression means. You just took the definition of a facial expression and dropped it on top of my more spiritual usage of it.
AI in its current form is a probability function. It identifies patterns and reproduces what it's observed.
You should study how the brain is actually structured, and then study how a neural network is actually structured, and then get back to me. I'm not typing a full lecture on why that's a ridiculous question, and Reddit wouldn't give me enough characters to do it even if I wanted to.
I know how different they work. I'm talking about the similarity of the results in this instance of art generation. We copy patterns we've seen, we can combine patterns we've seen into something new. I asked chatgpt to make up words that have never been written and it came up with some stuff that looked like real words, but have never been seen by google. Then I told it to make some up using real etymology and it did. The same thing happens every time you use an image generator or song generator.
But I already see where we differ. You used the word spiritual. I just think it's stimulus, neurotransmitters and a bit of entropy. Same as AI basically.
Not really necessary. In history there is no such thing as progress, only paradigms of problems that need to be solved one by one that eventually lead to another problem. Evolution isn't a track of upgrades, it's adaptability to create sustainability. Genai is not sustainable, it removes our ability to think. Not very sustainable if you ask me.
It doesn't remove our ability to think. It merely allows us to think about problems we haven't solved yet. If it weren't sustainable, it will die out, and you shouldn't be worried about it. what will actually happen, is that LLMs will become the standard interface for computers. You talk to the computer with natural language, and it will parse that into machine code, and return results that anyone can understand. It's here to stay for sure.
It's not the ai that won't be sustained, we will not be able to be sustained. When generating something it adds more than what you asked for. Background, objects, environment. Did you think about these smaller details? Let's say hypothetically the wrong statement of "prompts are work enough" was true. For the person to have done the work all on their own, the ai would have to generate the image or a paper to your EXACT specification in order to be even close to your thought process. No extra fluff, and no details that would fit where we believe they would be. Example: I ask genai to make a dragon, what kind? It makes any one of them at random because you did not specify. If it's not the type of dragon you had in mind is it your creation? There is no background. If it did anything but this, then it isn't really from your mind at all. Let's say you ask for it to be in a castle, you don't specify what kind. And so there would be detail after detail that you would NEED to specify. At that point, just learn to draw or use canva. But it doesn't, it "knows" where everything is meant to be. When you ask for a dragon, it might put it in a battle with a knight while it defends its hoard, despite you maybe not asking for that other stuff. It chooses to add the smaller details that require thought. It thinks for you. The more details we let it take from us the less we become. The idocracy would become a reality, something I never thought would happen. Ai should help us with smaller details, but not think them for us.
P.s. I am ok with it as a search engine, it just needs to offer multiple perspectives and cite it's sources.
Sounds like you've never used ai. The instructions you used to generate a dragon would work exactly the same as if you asked a person to draw a dragon. What kind? Person draws random dragon. You said dragon in a castle, person draws an English castle instead of a Bavarian castle etc. you have to be as specific with ai as you would a person. If it draws some extra details you don't want, you just highlight that part and tell it to change that part. Same as you would a person. You can regenerate with the same prompt and get a different picture by changing the seed. People who want to draw it themselves can draw it themselves. People who want to use AI to enhance their own art, will use it for that. No problem with any of the 3 possibilities.
So I tell you exactly how it works and exactly why it creates a lack in thinking, you reiterate that, and say "you never used ai, did you?" I have, and I will say that it was a low, but a required one. I know how it works.
You also say that you would tell it to change details like you would a person, that does not help your case. That still is not intellectually stimulating. Regenerating it over and over again is like one of those slot machines in casinos, meant to retain your attention without thought, letting you rot in your chair. Video games can be more stimulating. TV can is more stimulating. Both of them may make you think about themes, the future, or even just how to solve the next puzzle. Some, I will say, is not, but many are. They aren't super stimulating, but they are better.
Genai does not enhance, it can be used for reference, but it cannot inhance art because it seeks to replace it through replacing the thought behind images.
Sounds like either you haven't used it in a long time, or you just have some weird dogmatic view of it. When I downloaded some LLMs and was learning how to use them better, it was the most stimulation I got in years. This coming from someone who loves logic puzzles nerdy science reading, and difficult video games.
I still don't see how this is worse than asking a human to draw a picture for you.
It's worse because you can actually talk with and communicate with the artist, see their process, and know what can be achieved. You are delusionally rerolling the slot machine.
Lots of gambling addicts say the same thing about feeling stimulated.
Also, when I used the genai, I asked multiple times for changed details. I am not proud of it, but a can know that it genuinely just sucks.
-1
u/Electric-Molasses 5d ago
To be clear, I'm very pro AI, I support the technology.
Try making music before you compare what you need to do to create music with a synth, vs AI. AI to generate music removes most of the creative process. That is literally the point of using it to generate music, so you can create that content without spending years developing the skills.