Art will realign to put more value on live performances. Don't worry, people who push AI art don't understand that art is a form of communication between humans. They might learn when the bubble pops and they are left with a trillion shiny "art" objects that are worth nothing, because nobody wants to look at them.
100%. I compare it to the invention of cameras - before that you could make an honest living as a portrait painter, no inspiration needed. Afterwards, painters needed to lean into artistic qualities to stand out. But also, 'Photography' was born - what was seemingly just a press of a button turned out to be an artform.
Not totally true. Yes, there's value in live performances and human connection but most of the songs we listen don't stimulate that. Hell, often we don't even know what the musician looks like, who they are, how they sound live, etc. They're just items in our Spotify queue that are only there to give us a dopamine hit with their sequence of well-composed sounds.
There's a craving for a deeper connection but that's usually the smaller part of our everyday consumption.
> Not totally true. Yes, there's value in live performances and human connection but most of the songs we listen don't stimulate that. Hell, often we don't even know what the musician looks like, who they are, how they sound live, etc. They're just items in our Spotify queue that are only there to give us a dopamine hit with their sequence of well-composed sounds.
If you are a little bit of a critical listener you listen to those songs because you connect to them somehow, that's the power of music, it's a language for emotions that you don't need to know how the artists look like, or their backgrounds, to feel what they try to convey. Having the context/background might help to intellectualise a piece of music but the feeling comes from the art itself.
I mean theres a lot of like crap production music for film and Tv out there. I imagine like cheap reality tv shows will start using AI music. Maybe anime, which is always looking for ways to make its arduous production methods easier and cheaper because the industry is so volatile and not guarunteed to be profitable. But I think to make properly decent money as an artist you need to tour. This has been the model ever since streaming took hold. So yeah, its not going to be that profitable to be a faceless AI pumping out stuff into your spotify stream. I think the market will be in music for TV.
Sorry to disagree, we already crossed the line where the "Her" movie could turn into a real story. To say it more clearly: It won't take a long to see people even having affective relationships with AIs.
Sure, some desperate lonely people have very close relationships with ie pillows. What OP says will most probably be true though - when there is ocean of cheap/free perfect AI art, it will be worthless.
What will be worthy is imperfect human-created art. We already went through this decades ago with expensive hand made vs cheap machine made stuff, this is just another iteration.
I am not saying it will be great to be an artist, just like in the past few famous live in limelight and most will struggle to stay afloat.
Having pets improves your mood and health. In a measurable way. So people already have "effective" relationships wit their pets. What's the difference between an effective relationship and an affective one?
Oh I'm not saying that having a relationship with an AI is a bad thing per se. I actually enjoy the discussions with the LLM models, even the small ones that I run locally, in a way superior rate than the conversations that I often have with human beings, and pretty sure I'm not the only one. I didn't create yet an "entity" with some kind of persistent memory which will turn into my personal daily assistant (my personal Jarvis) but that's definitively in my to do list.
The experience of knowing there's a human behind the message is valuable. People hated corporate propaganda "art" before AI was a thing, for the same reason it is not human.
Depending on the AI tool in question, and the level of control it offers the human, there can definitely be a human behind the message, even if the final output is AI generated, the human had a creative vision and used the available tools to make it happen.
It's no different than using Photoshop.
Unless you only consider art done with oil and on a canvas to be the "real thing."
I know plenty of people, including me, who has no real knowledge about those humans.
And sometimes not knowing is better like the example with Rammstein and row zero were some manager woman was asking other woman if they want to meet their rockstars.
Btw. on a good electronic music set, knowing the arist is probably more a quality sign than a personal aspect. Knowing that i like what arist xy does, means i might like to keep an eye on future work because i like the style of it.
Nonetheless, i do also think that fandom and doing real tours will still be the unique things for bands. There should always be a market for human content.
If you can pay for a live performance and have to time to go there, yes.
A lot of people can't and a 5-10$ Spotify/Apple Music/... account is all they can afford (if at all).
AI music will disrupt this market.
Spotify for example will try to produce their own AI music (like they already do with regular music).
The Christmas playlist will then mainly contain their music.
That saves a lot of money for the.
I don't quite get why this is downvoted;
it may not be the absolute truth, but in my personal anecdotal experience, there is quite some truth to it.
I have had a lot of fun playing around with image generation and chat gpt.
But have also had the non-surprising "Hedonistic Fatigue"
that comes with excess access to something originally valued.
I have now been able to generate 4 and 5 digit numbers
of pictures of awesome colourful steam locomotives and epic dungeon vistas,
but now find myself fatigued by "what on earth am I going to use 5000 dungeon pictures for?",
coupled with the dread of being forced to CHOOSE from 5000 options.
And I learn the known principle,
that when you can choose from 4 options, you are happy you
picked the best of 4,
but when you can pick from 5000 options,
you are left feeling inadequate with "I almost certainly was
not able to pick the best of those 5000 options,
and trying to do so would exhaust me".
So suddenly, picking something from your menu of options,
feels dreadful and fatiguing..
(I get the same feeling sometimes, when trying to pick a movie to watch
out of 16.000 options).
So yeah, no doubt the AI sketch/refinement tool will be merged into our
creative process,
but for the time being, I feel a second generation of alienation-estrangement
with my "available options".
I'm going to assume that like me you're not an artist, or at least not the kind of artist who can generate 5000 dungeon pictures by hand.
I've been thinking about it the same as you but something that I think we're missing here is what can the person who can already make 5k pictures by hand do with this kind of tool?
It makes me think of the later albums that Frank Zappa produced with a Synclavier. That guy went hog-wild on that thing and banged out some unbelievable albums.
What would he have been able to do with AI generated music technology if it was the Synclavier of his time? What are the Frank Zappas of our time going to do with AI?
They made it illegal to produce exact replicas of Frozen at the push of a button; they could make AI illegal too. Except, the only reason it's illegal to copy Frozen is that it gives rich people less money. Generative AI gives rich people more money, so if anything, it'll be illegal not to use it.
It's not an apt analogy, unless you think that the production of generative images will be restricted to a few parties (because that is what copyright does, it restricts the right to copy to the originator).
And then if it was restricted to a few parties, they still have to compete with human artists, they can't just charge whatever.
"Art" already puts more value on live performances and scarcity. Popular music consumption is largely removed from that.
Yeah, the last two live mega tours (Taylor Swift and Beyoncé) have a tad more personality than the average artist, but the usual stuff that you would hear on the radio might as well be AI generated and live-performed by animatronics and a significant chunk of the audience wouldn't care or even notice.
I think the first place we will see large scale AI music replace 'real' music is in the 'lo-fi' background music that just about every bar, restaurant and shop has going in a loop. Instead of having various playlists, the restaurant owner can just choose between some styles, moods and tempos in an app and the AI will autogenerate an endless steam of background music that matches the vibe they are going for.
Yes, this is why the most popular songs on the radio atm are all mass produced, generic (for their genre) crap that doesn't really stray beyond the proven money making methods.
I mean people watch Love Island on TV for chrisssssakes. Humans can definitely be mindless consumers, where the sugar salt and fat in fast-food is the same as false drama, outrage, sex and violence in media. We all got buttons and they're so easy to push. Just look how popular TT is versus the type of content on there; mostly short-lived mindless stuff.
