Top Musicians Among Hundreds Warning Against Replacing Human Artists With AI (axios.com) 162
More than 200 musical artists -- including Billie Eilish, Katy Perry and Smokey Robinson -- have penned an open letter to AI developers, tech firms and digital platforms to "cease the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to infringe upon and devalue the rights of human artists." From a report: Unlike other advocacy efforts from creators around AI, this letter specifically addresses tech firms about the concerns of musical artists, such as replicating artist's voices, using their work to train AI models without compensation and diluting royalty pools that are paid out to artists. Jen Jacobsen, executive director at The Artist Rights Alliance (ARA), the trade group representing the artists signing the letter, told Axios, "We're not thinking about legislation here."
"We're kind of calling on our technology and digital partners to work with us to make this a responsible marketplace, and to keep the quality of the music sound, and not to replace human artists." The letter, penned by dozens of well-known musicians within ARA, specifically calls on tech firms and AI developers to stop the "predatory use of AI to steal professional artists' voices and likenesses, violate creators' rights, and destroy the music ecosystem." Signatories include Elvis Costello, Norah Jones, Nicki Minaj, Camila Cabello, Kacey Musgraves, Jon Batiste, Ja Rule, Jason Isbell, Pearl Jam, Sam Smith and dozens more spanning every musical genre.
"We're kind of calling on our technology and digital partners to work with us to make this a responsible marketplace, and to keep the quality of the music sound, and not to replace human artists." The letter, penned by dozens of well-known musicians within ARA, specifically calls on tech firms and AI developers to stop the "predatory use of AI to steal professional artists' voices and likenesses, violate creators' rights, and destroy the music ecosystem." Signatories include Elvis Costello, Norah Jones, Nicki Minaj, Camila Cabello, Kacey Musgraves, Jon Batiste, Ja Rule, Jason Isbell, Pearl Jam, Sam Smith and dozens more spanning every musical genre.
Gone with the wind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gone with the wind (Score:5, Interesting)
Itâ(TM)s already too late. In my opinion, artificial intelligence will significantly replace not only graphic designers, composers, and voice actors for computer games, but eventually even the actors in big movies. The art of acting as we know it will be reserved either for art films or for very high-budget films. At the end of the day, whatâ(TM)s cheaper will prevail. AI-generated actors can be more beautiful, wonâ(TM)t age, wonâ(TM)t have unions, wonâ(TM)t have problems shooting sequels, will always be available, no need to coordinate their schedules with other films, and will happily lend their faces to marketing campaigns or video games. The possibilities are significantly broader. Just as buying newspapers is history today, live actors will also become a thing of the past.
I look for it to be a further fracturing of "manufactured art" vs. "indie art." Hollywood, big book publishers, big label music production, it's all running on the same essential premise now. Someone creates something, they run it through committee to make sure it's on message, make sure it's not offensive to the wrong people, make sure it promotes the right agenda, make sure it fits the current mold for known sellers, essentially distilling out any creativity whatsoever, and *THEN* it's put out there. AI will make all that far, FAR easier. No human creator to push-back against shit ideas just because a committee likes it. And no whining, sniveling humans thinking they deserve some credit for their creation.
Meanwhile, we'll watch the rest of the creative world start to resemble what happened with the music world with the internet. Where you get plenty of churned out pop meeting the committee requirements, and literally thousands of indie creatives just putting their work out there and seeing what sticks. I'm not even sure it's that bad of a thing. Lots of people are perfectly fine taking the regurgitated reanimate corpses of whatever dead the industry is currently obsessed with flogging repeatedly, while those interested in something different, or new, or actually creative will have other avenues to look at. Unless the corporate masters somehow shut down all distribution online to the point where you have top pay them fealty first. And even now I don't think they have that power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Signal to Noise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Gone with the wind (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It sucks to find out live that a band is only good in studio and a singer doesn't actually have the chops.
Why would that suck? It's perfectly normal for people to perform better in some circumstances than others - for example, if a great runner can't swim so well this doesn't make him any less of a runner.
If I like the band's studio albums but find out they're not so good live, I'll just stick to the albums and still like the band.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sucks to find out live that a band is only good in studio and a singer doesn't actually have the chops.
Why would that suck?
Because it shows that they aren't musicians at all. Live performances are the pinnacle of performance art, the albums support that objective. As a musician I have been the lead vocalist in front of the crowd, I know what it is like and the amount of preparation that it takes to deliver an outstanding performance both live and in the studio - the two are completely different. I see an album as a contract between the band and their fans that this is what they can do live night after night.
That's because
Re: Gone with the wind (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You answered your own question. If they are crap on stage they don't have the chops for being on stage which is what they're selling and you're paying to consume when you go to a live show. Having the chops for other things is other things not this thing. I didn't say they can't create great music in the studio. Yeah a lot of people aren't good performers and most people rightfully expect performers they paid to see will be good performers. That's why you're paying money, they a
Re: Gone with the wind (Score:2)
There's nothing new about that. Plenty of artists are studio good and terrible live. Always have been since the introduction of golden era mixing/editing equipment.
GET OFF MY LAWN!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In my opinion, artificial intelligence will significantly replace not only graphic designers, composers, and voice actors for computer games, but eventually even the actors in big movies.
It's happening in the game industry purely for practical cost reasons.
Game engines can generate character bodies using hundreds of adjustable inputs, identical to the player character generator and its sliders/settings, but mostly random values supplied for NPCs.
Assign some clothing out of a lookup table to their inventory and boom, instant free "throwaway" NPC character.
No actors need apply (or take royalties)
Traditionally voice acting is expensive, exponentially so for open-world games with dozens of alte
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe but I have yet to see AI produce "art" that is comparable to what real human artists are capable of and people are also getting a "smell" for this AI stuff quicker than it's proponents were expecting, and also the fact that the AI proponents are the technologies worst enemy and have really done the job of telling the public "AI art is shit and you should be against it" and for the most part most AI art is in fact "shit". It looks the part but it's garbage under the surface and is currently exploited
Re: (Score:2)
The answer to your questions is "yes"
Re: (Score:2)
Can you post me something?
I've seen AI stuff that is impressive, especially in the still images department and some of the motion video stuff is pretty cool but I haven't seen like, a good song with a catchy hook and lyrics or a scripted scene from a movie or TV show generated via AI. Even with the images though they still have that AI "sheen" and the compositions are lacking at best.
The best stuff I have seen is all actually artists just using AI as a tool in service of their art (like that scifi painting
Re: (Score:3)
for the most part most AI art is in fact "shit". It looks the part but it's garbage under the surface
Not sure how this works - if something looks like art to you, it is art. In the vast majority of cases there is no "under surface" content. I'd even say that most of the "under surface" stuff I've seen is in fact marketing, trying to add value to otherwise bad or indifferent works (for example, outrageous or tear-jerking artist biographies).
it doesnt actually have the concepts and context behind it and that's what art is in fact all about.
First, I believe you're contradicting yourself: if art can be created by checking "concept" and "context" rules, then machines should be able to do it - they're better a
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think its like self driving cars at all, because self driving cars have jump straight to being better than humans, or even better than that because I don't think psychologically we are willing to accept a random death from a self driving car over one inflicted by our own stupidity.
But in art the consequences are much less, so what if you have an extra finger, something doesn't quite make sense so it can become better over time.
Would I let AI write a life support system software, hell no. Would I let
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SAG-AFTRA went on strike over those very issues. At least in Hollywood, that has been curtailed. For now.
Re: (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s already too late. In my opinion, artificial intelligence will significantly replace not only graphic designers, composers, and voice actors for computer games, but eventually even the actors in big movies. The art of acting as we know it will be reserved either for art films or for very high-budget films. At the end of the day, whatâ(TM)s cheaper will prevail. AI-generated actors can be more beautiful, wonâ(TM)t age, wonâ(TM)t have unions, wonâ(TM)t have problems shooting sequels, will always be available, no need to coordinate their schedules with other films, and will happily lend their faces to marketing campaigns or video games. The possibilities are significantly broader. Just as buying newspapers is history today, live actors will also become a thing of the past.
I think graphic designers and computer game voice actors are probably in trouble. And AI replacing extras in crowds is an inevitability, but I think you're seriously misjudging the appeal of AI actors.
We already have cheap replacements for movie stars, they're called struggling actors. Give em a ham sandwich and they'll happily do whatever you want and they'll throw in some full frontal nudity if you ask.
The reason studios still pay millions for temperamental hard to work with movie stars is partially the t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's unfortunate, but nobody is entitled to make a living the way they want it - you are and always will be at the whims of those that pay you, unless you manage to provide all your own necessities as a subsistence farmer or hunter/gatherer.
There will always be a market for live performers and human artists. But as the post above said, that market is going to be eroded by the "industrial" production of entertainment.
So long as the AI stuff isn't breaking copyright, these artists will just be SOL if they do
Re: (Score:2)
a) The LLCs *are* breaking copyright. Trained with a pirated data dump.
b) You know *zip* about publishing. You're clearly under the delusion that there are only a few hundred writers in the world, published by
trad publisher, who sell zillions of books. (Clue: I'm published by a small press, like a *lot* of people I know. No way I'll self-publish.)
c) You clearly don't read much. Look at the people who have to read the chatbot crap - I personally know N
Re: (Score:3)
So, you're fine with AI taking over your personal job, and you being out of work, and (soon enough) homeless, right?
It doesn't matter how good your products are. Makes no difference how talented you are or how much effort you put into baking top of the line DSPs for dialup modems. Ones personal feelings and opinions about work are meaningless. The market decides and if you don't like that it sucks to be you.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the countless industries and jobs that have gone extinct and how silly people making your argument back then look now. Do you think we should have banned printing presses to save jobs? How about photography? Should that have been banned because of all the portrait artists it put out of work?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While it would be nice if artist stop needing middle men to create, I highly doubt it will happen that way. The rich will put in place systems that will make it very hard to produce this without them.
I thought this when I first saw the internet, writers would be able to publish their books without publishers, singers would be able to do so with songs, or movies.
We have that but middle men still taking the lions share or the profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is an example. Someone has a great idea for a short video about an alien, robot, monster whate
Who is going to be in favor? (Score:3)
Who is going to be in favour or having their jobs replaced by AI?
The bots can HAVE my fucking job! (Score:2)
Me me me! As long as I get a living wage stipend. One of these days it will have to happen, as too many humans are not the valuable, I must say. Their main skill is dealing with OTHER stupid humans, not fixing them. It's why Kirk was captain and not Spock: Kirk understood irrational aliens better.
Most of what I do is working around stupid decisions by clueless inexperienced bosses and tech fads that keep mis-inventing the wheel. Internal busin
Re: (Score:2)
NOW they want "quality" music (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If it weren't for "McDonald's" hamburgers, we'd only have quality food. All that "McDonald's" drivel pandering to the lowest common denominator has ruined food.
There's plenty of good music out there. You just can't sit by and expect it to find you.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly how it worked when I grew up.....sad that's not the case anymore IMHO.
I'm an adult with a job and responsibilities...I don't have time to go out and sift through all the cruft to find the odd gem of a song you might find from time to time.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's go back to the 1950's and replace "pop" with "rock n' roll" and the message is exactly the same, in that it's all bullshit.
Pop music is just a genre and like all genres some of it is good and some of it was bad. Pretty sure Strauss at his time was considered "pop" and "shallow" amongst his peers. The Beatles, The Beach Boys, all of disco, all of 80's New Wave these things could be considered "shallow pop music" in their times but music especially cannot escape Sturgeon's Law.
Give me any genre of mu
Re: NOW they want "quality" music (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I can tell you what is is not....rap.
The words "rap" and "music" are mutually exclusive terms....
The public has already spoken (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how AI is going to make much of a difference.
Re:The public has already spoken (Score:5, Informative)
Let's time travel back to 1974 and see what the top songs were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Oh dear...
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for this. It helps people keep things in perspective. It also helps to burst the sentimentality bubble that tends to dismiss all new music and revere as sacred all music before 1990.
Re: (Score:3)
I still listen to most of those on Spotify.
Music then was not anywhere as disposable as it is today...
Lots of great songs on that list, and I'd guarantee that most anyone my age would be very familiar with all 55 song I quickly identified. And likely many more that if I heard them I'd recognize as that maybe I didn't recognize the title.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
55 "Never, Never Gonna Give You Up" Barry White
Oh my god! You Rick-Rolled us!
Re: (Score:2)
You won't have to autotune anymore. Also, you won't have to worry about the artist marrying 15 year olds, starting a sex cult, going on a talk show and calling themselves a Nazi, or just getting cranky after the fourteenth take.
On the other hand, you won't get the PR and fan engagement of slightly less controversial hijinks.
Re: (Score:2)
You won't have to autotune anymore. Also, you won't have to worry about the artist marrying 15 year olds, starting a sex cult, going on a talk show and calling themselves a Nazi, or just getting cranky after the fourteenth take.
On the other hand, you won't get the PR and fan engagement of slightly less controversial hijinks.
Bullshit. Half the controversies now are completely manufactured. Guarantee you the first time the number 1 AI "artist" has lagging sales, it'll be caught generating underage pronz on the side. They aren't gonna disengage from bullshit danger narratives. That's been a part of pop culture for as long as pop culture has existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I doubt R Kelly going to jail is manufactured. Controversy that loses sponsors is bad.
You'll be able to make up some adventures for AI artists, but they're not going to be pulling fans onstage with them or boning groupies backstage. For the vast majority of music and film, that's going to be just fine. The superstars will probably persist. Humans like humans, but we only have the capacity to care personally about a hundred or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I doubt R Kelly going to jail is manufactured. Controversy that loses sponsors is bad.
You'll be able to make up some adventures for AI artists, but they're not going to be pulling fans onstage with them or boning groupies backstage. For the vast majority of music and film, that's going to be just fine. The superstars will probably persist. Humans like humans, but we only have the capacity to care personally about a hundred or so.
Yeah, there were always the weird outliers, but the vast majority of "Rock and Roll" controversy now is manufactured. Like the constant meltdowns in the supergroups leading to will-they/won't-they/OMG THEY RETIRED/REUNION TOUR! is absolutely manufactured bullshit. Especially funny now that Slayer is going through it. Years of "I'll never work with that son of a bitch again" followed by a reunion tour.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, honestly, fuck these people. Sure, they have some talent, but that is massively overvalued to begin with. Taylor Swift is a fucking billionaire. Eat that, doctors, nurses, sanitation workers, etc. You should have learned to kinda sing, be pretty and be lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, just like all the "elite" developers we have on this site who claim their exorbitant salary is justified. Can't wait for them to get fucked by AI as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Autotune, songs written by committee, image over talent, artist input ignored in lieu of label input, etc etc etc. I fail to see how AI is going to make much of a difference.
That's a pretty good point. Modern pop music has very little to do with actual music. Does she have a nice ass? Extra bucks for those smelly Brazilian Butt lifts,and twerking is soooo hot. And thank heavens for for Max Martin https://www.celebritynetworth.... [celebritynetworth.com] the writer of most all modern pop music.
Point is, if your couple humans left in the loop pop music can be replaced by just one more tweak, to have AI generation, it deserves to be replaced.
Meanwhile, here's a little real music played by a real per
Re: The public has already spoken (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't modern pop have anything to do with music? You seem to overrate your preferred music style.
Oh, you inferred my favorite style from my link to Liene Andreta Kalnciema. I actually have a rather eclectic taste in music, from Bach to Enya, to Men without Hats to Jonathan Coulton to Beatles to Led Zeppelin, to Joni Mitchell and several different genres.
That not liking current pop music mostly means that in my estimation, the so called music is merely an accessory to the Twerking.
But hey - some people really like twerking. Iven if to me it is more reminiscent of the bands playing at strip clubs.
Re: (Score:2)
All of these artists use tech to get rid of humans (Score:5, Interesting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Spoiler alert: the musicians' union "won" but actually lost. These latter-day artists employ all that technology to eliminate just about everyone and make music in their bedrooms. Sample packs, Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs), synthesizers, and other human replacement technologies put Real Musicians out of work. Technology means no musicians are required to perform it in public.
So they should really be understood as wanting to protect their current business models, not other artists. Disclaimer: I am a musician with indie label releases who is also a live sound engineer & event promoter. My day jobs over the years have included senior positions in trailblazing internet media startups. I have a dog in this fight and have looked at it from a number of angles.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, if the product needs human voices then pay for those humans to supply the training input. Don't just scrape it without permission and then offer that up as a creative tool for production when it's full of unpaid real peoples voices.
AI tools are completely useless without being trained first. It's the training set that has value.
Re: (Score:2)
These latter-day artists employ all that technology to eliminate just about everyone and make music in their bedrooms. Sample packs, Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs), synthesizers, and other human replacement technologies put Real Musicians out of work. Technology means no musicians are required to perform it in public. [...] So they should really be understood as wanting to protect their current business models, not other artists.
In any industry, the incumbent will do whatever is required to protect their advantage against any new players in the field, especially from those who know how to make truly powerful new tools do their bidding. These kinds of petition attempts are akin to children pointlessly clamoring for the rising oceanic tides to stop destroying the beautiful sandcastles they've spent hours building on the beach.
In our rapidly-changing modern world fraught with uncertainty and disruptive innovation, it all seems very
Need to strike and get the labels to put that into (Score:2)
Need to strike and get the labels to put that into the next deal.
Also, please no more "corrected" performances (Score:3)
Everything the artists are saying about not diluting the experience of listening to actual musicians applies 100% to the current trend of "correcting" vocal performances with auto-tuning, pitch correction, and especially not with playing back a recorded vocal, and having the singer mime singing it "live". That hardly qualifies as live!
Re: (Score:2)
Everything the artists are saying about not diluting the experience of listening to actual musicians applies 100% to the current trend of "correcting" vocal performances with auto-tuning, pitch correction,
I will argue that there's a difference: those things are examples of humans and technology working together. This discussion, however, is about humans being replaced by AI.
and especially not with playing back a recorded vocal, and having the singer mime singing it "live". That hardly qualifies as live!
No, lip-synching to a recording is not "live".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For an example...go on YouTube and look for video demos where people auto tune the classic rock band, and "fix" their timing, etc.
It absolutely sucks the life out of all the classic songs.
Zeppelin, Journey, Van Halen, etc...they all sound worse when run through all the pro logic filters of today.
Better music still has the humanity in it.
Of course that presumes you start with highly talented performers, which would knock
Re: (Score:2)
The death of paid growth (Score:5, Insightful)
AI can't replace great work. Not yet, and probably not soon. But the vast majority of paid work in composition does not require "great" work. It requires "good enough". Think of the background music in advertising. AI is often "good enough". That means it can generate something acceptable in moments, for next to nothing.
The problem is that to become a great composer, one must first be a good one... and before that, a mediocre one... and before that, a shitty one. But in order to traverse that landscape, one has to also earn a living. As the paid work stops being available at the lower tiers, the path to being "great" becomes restricted to those who have the wealth outside of the occupation.
The noisy few who break out are the exceptions. The grunt work is done by the silent majority, and that's the work that is under duress. We are going to be starved for top tier composers at some point in the future. The grey haired old guard will be increasingly valuable.. and then they'll be gone.
Some young folks will persevere. We won't be entirely without talent. But the diversity of the ecosystem will be severely depleted.
I don't know that there's an upside to this trend, outside of the immediacy of decreased operational costs.
Re: (Score:2)
But in order to traverse that landscape, one has to also earn a living.
Yes, but to earn a living you need to make more than you spend and if AI makes it much, much cheaper and easier to create content, it will make it much easier for creators to make a living and probably without needing to persuade a large media company to invest millions. The result will be far more independent creators, some creating crap but others producing great content. Far from depleting the diversity of content this will massively increase it since all content today has to be targetted at mass audien
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to say it but it might mean the end of composition as a distinct discipline.
I don't see AI impacting performers (even ones who write their own stuff, with or without AI) because audiences will always reward authenticity.
But outside of famous classical composers audiences generally don't care about the writer.
Of course, if I want an Ad jingle in 10 years I'm still not writing a prompt into 'ComposerGPT', I'm hiring a composer whom I assume will use ComposerGPT with the knowledge and expertise to get a
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you said makes sense. But, it is a prediction, and second guessing the future often has surprise endings.
I do not know enough about the music industry or AI to have an answer to this, but I can foresee an alternate scenario.
AI is trained on large data models, and, as someone here on Slashdot posted in the past few days, it is just an giant interpolation engine. So, it can "create" within the domain that it "knows", but it cannot necessarily extrapolate to unknown relationships or patterns outsi
Re: (Score:2)
There are some terrific musicians and composers on that list. Do you have a point, other than to be unreasonably disdainful?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, whatever. But I think you're being too dismissive of some really great artists. I don't know why you feel it necessary to compare everything to a handful of reference points. Elitism isn't generally worthwhile.
I'm coming at it from 40 years as a musician, but only two years (a long time ago) when I was paid to do it. But if you think there aren't great names on the list, I don't know what to tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
No More Cartoons? (Score:2)
I get the concern, but .... (Score:3, Insightful)
All the AI stuff is over-hyped right now.
Artists are reacting to everything they see and hear in the news, including a lot of "predictions" of what AI will do in the future.
In reality? All of the "arts" have always been about humans translating emotion and feelings into a concrete form that others can appreciate and get something out of. As soon as you substitute computers simulating it -- even if it seems convincing on the surface? You strip away the purpose of it.
New art, whether it's music or a painting or a sculpture, has to come from a human who was compelled to create it for personal reasons. A computer has no emotions or "soul". It just analyzes existing works and tries to make authentic-looking mash-ups from the database of that content it has access to work with.
I'm not one to put a LOT of faith in humanity to make sensible choices... but I think people will see through AI music, or any other art, and largely reject it in favor of new creations from other people.
Re:I get the concern, but .... (Score:4, Informative)
That is a rather idealistic version of art. Art for artists. To the vast majority of people, it is was looks, sounds, or feels nice to them.
For the majority, the source doesn't matter at all.
Without AGI, it still takes an artist (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone has to make a logical composition and clean up the AI bullshit. There isn't enough training data in the world to fill all the "corner" cases for AI to hallucinate bullshit into. It's "just" a productivity enhancer.
Once AGI is here, we'll have different things to worry about.
Re: (Score:3)
AGI is an imaginary concept without any kind of real definition. The devil is always in the details.
Re: (Score:2)
I want AI that can ... (Score:2)
...solve really hard problems like finding tricky bugs in complex software, analyzing every physics experiment ever done and finding patterns that physicists missed, developing effective drugs with no side effects, predicting the real world effects of proposed laws before they are passed and helping us solve many other previously intractable problems
Unfortunately, all the AI companies have released so far are amusing crap generators
Re: (Score:2)
> Unfortunately, all the AI companies have released so far are amusing crap generators ....Just like most record companies these days.
Given the quality of today's music (Score:2)
one should have assumed the replacement by generative scripts already happened a long, long time ago.
We don't own our likeness (Score:2)
Art is in the eye of the beholder. (Score:3)
Either way I think AI is currently at best a mimic and at worst a dangerous disaster simply because too many people are blindly trusting the output.
EVERYBODY needs to lose their job (Score:3)
People can't even imagine post-scarcity life beyond capitalism until that system kicks them to the curb, but by then it is too late to vote for change.
Musicians, you can still make music in post-scarcity society, just nobody will pay you for it.
Good luck stopping AI (Score:2)
If the record labels don't allow AI, somebody will create a new record label specifically founded on AI. Same for movies and every other art form. You can maybe slow it down, but you can't stop it, there's too much money at stake.
Who will AI really replace? (Score:2)
They would wouldn't they? (Score:2)
reading though that list (Score:2)
It's all about the money (Score:2)
For most of these artists, it's all about the money, and nothing else.
For music consumers it makes little difference as long as they enjoy the music and I think that's why artists are scared.
Then compete with it (Score:2)
Who claims that the quality of sound is worse, shouldn't fear the AI, should they?
Also there is no need to steal voice. Future AI voices will be exactly what the musicians want them to sound like. Singers should be glad if someone needs their voice, because it cannot be finetuned and adapted for each song.
Re: (Score:2)
RnB? Try EDM.
Nobody can tell me that this crap isn't generated by some sort of algorithm already.
PLEASE YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine: All the idiots that now engage in cargo-cult programming by copy/pasting from Stackexchange and similar pages being replaced by AI. In other words, even worse, even more insecure code, being cranked out at a lightning pace, and even easier and lower hanging fruits to look good without having to do fuck all and then charging lots of hours for lots of money!
--signed
Your Pentesters
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)