Music Sector Workers Will Lose Nearly a Quarter of Their Income to AI in 4 Years, Study Suggests (theguardian.com) 204
The Guardian reports:
People working in the music sector will lose almost a quarter of their income to artificial intelligence within the next four years, according to the first global economic study examining the impact of the emerging technology on human creativity. Those working in the audiovisual sector will also see their income shrink by more than 20% as the market for generative AI grows from €3bn (A$4.9bn) annually to a predicted €64bn by 2028.
The findings were released in Paris on Wednesday by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC), representing more than 5 million creators worldwide. The report concluded that while the AI boom will substantially enrich giant tech companies, creators' rights and income streams will be drastically reduced unless policymakers step in...
The study concluded that under current regulatory frameworks in most countries, creators stand to lose on two fronts. Unauthorised use of their works by generative AI models will eat into remuneration earned through copyright, while at the same time work opportunities will shrink as AI-generated outputs become more competitive against human-made works. The report predicted that by 2028, exponential growth in generative AI music would account for about 20% of traditional music streaming platforms' revenues, and about 60% of music libraries' revenues.
The report warned of revenue "derived directly from the unlicensed reproduction of creators' works, representing a transfer of economic value from creators to AI companies," according to the article.
On a hopeful note, it adds that the CISAC's president also applauded Australia and New Zealand for their thoughtful response to the issue. "By setting a gold standard in AI policy, one that protects creators' rights while fostering responsible and innovative technological development, Australia and New Zealand can ensure that AI serves as a tool to enhance human creativity rather than replace it."
Thanks to Slashdodt reader Bruce66423 for sharing the news.
The findings were released in Paris on Wednesday by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC), representing more than 5 million creators worldwide. The report concluded that while the AI boom will substantially enrich giant tech companies, creators' rights and income streams will be drastically reduced unless policymakers step in...
The study concluded that under current regulatory frameworks in most countries, creators stand to lose on two fronts. Unauthorised use of their works by generative AI models will eat into remuneration earned through copyright, while at the same time work opportunities will shrink as AI-generated outputs become more competitive against human-made works. The report predicted that by 2028, exponential growth in generative AI music would account for about 20% of traditional music streaming platforms' revenues, and about 60% of music libraries' revenues.
The report warned of revenue "derived directly from the unlicensed reproduction of creators' works, representing a transfer of economic value from creators to AI companies," according to the article.
On a hopeful note, it adds that the CISAC's president also applauded Australia and New Zealand for their thoughtful response to the issue. "By setting a gold standard in AI policy, one that protects creators' rights while fostering responsible and innovative technological development, Australia and New Zealand can ensure that AI serves as a tool to enhance human creativity rather than replace it."
Thanks to Slashdodt reader Bruce66423 for sharing the news.
Elevator music (Score:5, Insightful)
If you derive your income from producing "elevator music" you might indeed be in danger of losing that income to AI. Also, bumper music--music used to fill otherwise silent gaps between segments of a podcast or radio show--might be a candidate for AI takeover.
But if you produce real music--music with depth and emotion--your job isn't going anywhere.
How can I be so sure? I've seen the kind of code AI writes. I've seen the kind of prose AI writes. Both are amazing, for something computer-generated. But neither would be mistaken for the work of someone skilled or proficient in the art. Music won't be any different.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Elevator music (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're overestimating how easy it is to tune these things.
Because "feedback" is both subjective, and low-quality. It's the classic "Why don't we let patients rate doctors?" problem, where the reason is "Because patients are going to rate doctors on how hard it was to validate their parking, and not which ones actually save lives" and the noise swallows the feedback you wanted.
Good, serious improvement can't be build on a foundation of sand.
I do agree it'll get better, but not because of feedback loops, but because of diligent hard work on improving training methods, tuning algorithms for specific purposes, improvements in the broader field gradually being incorporated as the state of the literature advances.
Re: (Score:2)
the problem is two fold and it's not AI, it's us, greedy, selfish irresponsible rich people will use AI to increase economic inequality to the point where our economies will collapse
second, AI can't be easily constrained and stupid, greedy and ambitious people will push it too far and too fast
Re:Elevator music (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you're overestimating how easy it is to tune these things.
Because "feedback" is both subjective, and low-quality. It's the classic "Why don't we let patients rate doctors?" problem, where the reason is "Because patients are going to rate doctors on how hard it was to validate their parking, and not which ones actually save lives" and the noise swallows the feedback you wanted.
Good, serious improvement can't be build on a foundation of sand.
I do agree it'll get better, but not because of feedback loops, but because of diligent hard work on improving training methods, tuning algorithms for specific purposes, improvements in the broader field gradually being incorporated as the state of the literature advances.
Hmmm. I think AI can complement, not compete with, creative work when framed as a tool rather than a replacement. Think collaboration, not competition. While I disagree with GP's dismissal of AI's potential impact on creative industries, I do agree with you (up to a point) that tuning AI requires serious effort and refinement, but I think this process mirrors how artists refine their craft through practice and feedback, making the "tuning" of AI not fundamentally different from the iterative development artists undergo. By collaborating with AI, creators can enhance their work, leveraging the strengths of both human emotion and machine precision to push the boundaries of creativity.
Re: (Score:2)
well, i might have very particular tastes, but i wouldn't say most of music currently produced conveys noteworthy "depth and emotion". there is more music produced than ever in history, but little of it is really original.
there's another aspect, though. ai might enable a talented musician to produce pieces (with depth and emotion, if you wish) for a fraction of the cost and on his/her/its own, reducing the value or even need for other musicians or technicians.
actually, 25% loss might be an optimistic projec
Re: (Score:2)
well, i might have very particular tastes, but i wouldn't say most of music currently produced conveys noteworthy "depth and emotion". there is more music produced than ever in history, but little of it is really original.
We're living in more conservative times where talent scouts, producers, & the industry in general is more dogmatic & risk-averse. Believe me, there is a lot of very original, high quality music out there to be discovered but if the industry doesn't invest the time, money, & effort to challenge audience's tastes & listening habits, things get stale, like they are right now. "I know what I like." typically, reliably translates into, "I like what I know."
Re:Elevator music (Score:5, Informative)
This is something I definitely agree with. There was an inflection point around 2000, where any band, unless it was a band created by record labels and staffed with people who could sing and look cool on stage would not be signed. Rock especially, on many radio stations has entered a time warp where time only exists in the 60s-80s, maybe even a few 90s tunes, but most of those stations can be replaced by an iPod Shuffle with 32-64 songs on it.
Over time, bands have gotten hit hard. It used to be possible to make okay money from $20/pop CDs. Then came the sales by single tracks. Then came streaming, which, for the most part is worse than piracy because the band usually gets paid nothing, but people don't feel like they should purchase the tracks since they are listening to them "legally". Thank $DEITY for Bandcamp.
Gigs are harder to come by. Rents have shot up, making all but the highest grossing businesses have to shutter their doors, so that venue that could have space for a nightclub or other spot? That's now an apartment building... or just a vacant property. Often, bands don't have the luxury of having a steady gig base, and with ticket sales often owned by monopolies, even that revenue is denied them, so at best their income is merch.
I will say that there are a lot of good musicians out there, but no company wants to pay or give them a channel. Radio is dead, so people really don't have a community place to listen to cool bands, other than YouTube or Pandora.
Maybe it would be possible to have a resurgence in something like FM radio where it is a common place for people to listen to, but not sure how that would succeed in lieu of AI generated mixes on a streaming channel.
Re: (Score:2)
Software engineers have been increasing productivity for decades. Merging changes from two developers used to be painful and laborious, nowadays with git, it's a snap. It used to be normal to deploy software manually, nowadays it's standard practice to automate. We automate all kinds of things. And yet we still have more programming jobs than programmers.
AI is a tool that increases productivity, yes. I don't see any evidence that it will be a job-killer.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen the kind of code AI writes. I've seen the kind of prose AI writes. Both are amazing, for something computer-generated. But neither would be mistaken for the work of someone skilled or proficient in the art. Music won't be any different.
The kind of music AI generates is already here, and has been for at least a year, in a meaningful way.
Most of it is trash, but some of it is actually pretty good.
The most impacting point of Ai-generated music is being able to experiment in ways that would take weeks, months or even years if you use the "standard" method (actual musicians). For example, I was able to generate a song and then remix it in 30-something different styles, while keeping its core recognizable. That took me a couple hours and a coup
Re: (Score:2)
Your experience illustrates the point. You used AI as a tool, and you got good results. But left alone, 99% of the time it will produce junk. Humans are required to judge the quality of what it produces.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you mean by "left alone". It's always been a tool.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes indeed, a tool used by humans. Such tools may improve productivity, but they have yet to cause a net loss of jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
the sort of music that many intelligent people swear is "music with depth and emotion" is some of most simple music around
Re: (Score:2)
And AI can't tell the difference between music that is simple and has depth or is catchy, and music that is just simple.
Re: (Score:3)
How can I be so sure? I've seen the kind of code AI writes.
What counts as "real music" to you? I challenge you to find "real music" in the top 40 charts. Most of it is a consistent algorithmic beat in the background of someone who can't sing, doing a voice over. What's left is someone who can't sing having a computer tone correct what they are attempting to sing - read from a script that they didn't write, and produced by someone who again puts generic rubbish over the back of it.
The music industry derives a large portion of its income from rubbish. Elevator music
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what "real music" is to me. What is it exactly, that makes music hit the top 40 charts? If that quality could be quantified, then musicians could just follow the formula and count on a top 40 hit. The reality is that the "formula" for success in music is not straightforward, and not something that can be captured by AI.
MY idea of good music is different from YOUR idea of good music. And so it always will be. But AI isn't "smart enough" to figure out what will actually appeal to people.
Re: (Score:2)
If that quality could be quantified, then musicians could just follow the formula and count on a top 40 hit.
Errr it has been. There's a reason why the overwhelming majority of the music in the top 40 suffers from one of the following traits:
- Produced by one of only a couple of companies
- Ghost written by a few key people
- Sung by people who put far more efforts into their looks and have no classical musical training
- Propelled to the top of the charts by investments and marketing.
Of course that's not every hit. A few decent songs certainly creep in. But the reality is there is virtually limitless new music relea
Re: Elevator music (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>But if you produce real music--music with depth and emotion--your job isn't going anywhere.
That's already gone, and AI does a better job than overwhelming majority of artists.
Funniest part in this cope is that it's the AI that sings the best about the fate of those that pretend that it's not going to replace them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's already gone, and AI does a better job than overwhelming majority of artists.
Then why isn't everybody listening to AI-generated music?
Re: (Score:2)
This is, mostly true.
Generative AI has thus far been very Garbage-In-Garbage-Out.
For Music and Audio
- AI can not sing. Period (except maybe rap or choir.) Someone else has to provide the singing and the AI merely transforms that voice into another voice.
- AI can not generate music whole-cloth. It literately does not know what sounds good.
- AI can not generate lyrics, ever. Much like how ChatGPT generates word-soup that sounds correct but is overtly wordy and wrong, AI can't generate lyrics that make sense a
Re: (Score:2)
AI generated music will be big and very popular because it will exploit our synapses in the same way that sugar, fat and salt exploit our taste buds.
It will, no doubt, make some technologists very rich.
Human generated music will never go away, but it will become a cottage industry. The majority of people will happily consume the pre-packaged AI generated stuff because it presses all the right emotional buttons and is good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
If the current state of AI is any guide, it's a *long* way from being able to understand what kinds of attributes will "exploit our synapses." What AI actually does, is imitate patterns that it has been trained on. In order for it to "exploit our synapses," it would have to be *trained* with input that correlates patterns of music, with patterns that a human has identified as "exploiting our synapses." The idea that AI can somehow read our minds and "exploit" them is essentially science fiction.
The majority of people will happily consume the pre-packaged AI generated stuff because it presses all the right emotional buttons and is good enough.
This is no d
Re: Elevator music (Score:2)
"[n]o one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public!"
Arthur Mayer, paraphrasing H. L. Menken
Re: (Score:2)
This is not really different from AI taking over other professions. At some point driverless cars will become really good and professional drivers will lose their jobs. Some people would drive their own cars for fun etc, but nobody will pay a taxi driver if rending a driverless car would be cheaper.
Maybe the business model will change. Maybe the musician will get paid for performance or for a song etc, similar to other professions - do some work, get paid once, now do some other work. I guess similar to how
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. Worse.
"AI covers" will dilute the market to the point that even the original will be confused with another AI work. People already make these shitty covers because they want to see what Enimem sounds like singing the Sponge Bob theme. You know, stuff that the artist wouldn't be caught dead singing, and the company who owns the music wouldn't want to be associated with.
But these are very low-effort vocal-morphing "AI covers". There are no AI's that actually sing, and we're still back to how Vocaloi
Re: (Score:2)
Music has never, for most people, generated a lot of income. There's a reason we have a saying that something could be bought "for a song" meaning that it's very cheap. Most music is played for free. It's not easy, and never was easy, to truly make a living playing or writing or singing music.
Re: (Score:2)
Very few artists over the last millennia were able to live from their art. I don't expect that to change with AI; the mega-stars will still be ok, and the average musician won't. Supply and demand. If AI can produce music that's about as good as non-AI produced music, why would the average human musician be worth all that money? Buggy whip makers don't get to exist if their products are no longer required, why are musicians different? And if the arg
Re: Elevator music (Score:2)
"why do they deserve to be paid still?"
Well, why do you keep listening to their song 30 years later?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it their pensions, most workers work get paid and save for their retirement. Why do you think musicians should get paid any differently?
Also let me be clear I think most of these people get under paid, and should be paid more at the time or close to the time they create there works. But I think that is the injustice that is done against them. They are lured with the promise of mega wealth in the future so the vast majority work for peanuts in the present. Kind of like the lottery. The only people rea
Tough to make a living in any of the arts (Score:5, Insightful)
It's already tough to support yourself with a career in any of the arts. The things our society values right now tends lean towards materialism and consumerism. It's not like people haven't always viewed wealth and possessions as a status symbol. But the priorities have slowly shifted over time on enriching our lives with art and experiences and instead aiming for enriching it by focusing on a higher salary and a nice car.
TV music sound royalties down (Score:2)
Here's a thread of people in the TV sound industry comparing how much their royalties are down.
https://musiclibraryreport.com... [musiclibraryreport.com]
A guess is that hours spent streaming content mean a lot less viewers of cable and broadcast TV.
Re:TV music sound royalties down (Score:4, Informative)
Or perhaps royalties aren’t down as headlines hint, but more shifting as you suggest. A comment your link:
”I have seen a drop in Cable/Network but an increase in Internet Audio, Internet Visual as well as International Royalties have steadily increased the past year or so, so its helped to balance out.”
Re: (Score:2)
The likes of Spotify will only deal with a "record label" and not an individual artist. As a result, $small_artist wanting to get some plays on Spotify must go through a label to do so - and that label will take a cut of whatever measly payout Spotify might make.
Maybe this is already happening, but if the smaller musicians banded together (see what I did there?) and made a sort of record label co-op, they could probably see a lot more of the Spotify money. Probably true of a lot of other streamers too - and
Re: (Score:2)
It's the people who work in the arts for the money, without talent, who recreate music invented by people much more creative, but then bankroll with a bland version, that will now turn to AI to produce for them. Think of the Meghan thee Stallions, Lizzo's or mumble rappers. So the artists don't have to put up with their crap taste anymore, and can actually get some income, as the AI is trained on their music.
Re: (Score:2)
The higher salary, is now necessary to pay for all the shit that consumed the money anyone might have had to spend on the arts. When food and insurance costs double in five years, more than one thing is gonna suffer.. I’m shocked the arts aren’t on life support.
And that’s not a nicer car they want. It’s just a functional one, still nicely overpriced. Now necessary to put a few hundred million tailpipes back on congested roadways in order to pollute our way out of WFH and back into
Re: (Score:2)
the truth is it's difficult to be self-sufficient in a classist and exploitative economy run by greedy, selfish and unethical people
Re: (Score:3)
It has always been hard to do a "career in arts". Starving artist is a stereotype for a reason.
Reminder: stereotype accuracy is the most accurate and validated concept in social sciences.
Did this "Study" actually use AI at all? (Score:2)
Re:Did this "Study" actually use AI at all? (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree. You can already make minutes-long songs, generate personas and reuse them in more songs, make covers, cut unneeded parts, extend songs, replace sections, split voices from music and much more.
Most of these features were released during the last 6 months or so.
Your view of this is too dismissive, and there's a danger right there. We've witnessed this throughout history, with entire industries choosing to ignore the writing on the wall until it was too late.
Note: At this time, I strongly prefer human-made music (not all of it, obviously), simply because its creativity is unparalleled. AI-generated music is not there... yet.
In 10 years? Who knows? I personally wouldn't bet against it.
Re: (Score:2)
At this time, I strongly prefer human-made music, simply because its creativity is unparalleled
People hate stories they think were written by AI. Even if people wrote them. [ufl.edu]. AI is a useful tool but few people want the creative parts of entertainment do be made by AI. While for sure there is a place for AI productivity tools in all forms of entertainment (including pictures, music, games, books), at the end of the day it seems that people want stories in all forms by humans.
The actual technical work in music that people make money on has been automated for many years, it seems that AI will further an
Re: (Score:2)
Is that resistance objective or subjective? If you don't know beforehand whether something was AI-generated, would you think the same way? Would you be able to detect it? Sometimes, yes, sometimes, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the link I gave describes that people dislike texts that they believe are AI generated... whether or not they actually are written by humans. It seems like it's either prejudice, experience or something deeper that makes people prefer human generated stuff, regardless of actual quality.
Re: (Score:2)
That means they dislike "badly written" texts, with they associate with AI.
Re: (Score:2)
People hate stories they think were written by AI. Even if people wrote them.
That's going to change, though. People will inevitably get used to it. Also most people don't read.
Re: (Score:2)
Cause the only use for generative AI in music right now is to make funny meme crap.
Weird Al must be spinning in his grave.
Wait, he's not dead?!
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it will be the same in four years?
In the last year alone AI images grew from something that really needed work to look good (and had rather low resolution) to really astonishing images.
Video AI was merely non-existent a few years ago and is now used in TV ads.
It is likely that in four years AI music will also be much better.
AI generated music will come... (Score:2)
...and go. It will be a short-lived silly fad
Music is made by musicians
AI has other uses that don't suck
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of DJ silly suck, have you heard the music made by musicians?
You wish you could blame dubstep on AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of DJ silly suck, have you heard the music made by musicians?
You wish you could blame dubstep on AI.
Yes, but what does that have to do with music? *ducks*
Re: (Score:2)
You probably made that comment as a joke, but if I had mod points I would certainly not mod this as 'Funny', but as 'Insightful'.
Yeah, well, I belong to the Jed Bartlet school of music theory — that no good music was written after 1860, so no disagreement. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Dubstep has as much to do with musicians as that weird uncle you have that can press the demo button on his Casio keyboard to impress the family.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you actually investigated AI-generated music?
I have, at length. As I already commented, I would not bet against it. IMHO, AI generated music already beats more than half of today's human-made music.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you actually investigated AI-generated music? I have, at length. As I already commented, I would not bet against it. IMHO, AI generated music already beats more than half of today's human-made music.
As music became cheaper to produce, we got a lot more crap-tier musicians producing music. I've heard some passable AI produced music that stands up against the crap-tier human made music. It doesn't hold a candle to music actually created by people who have dedicated their lives to making good music. Djent Rats (AI) up against Periphery (Humans, though machine like at times)? Piss off. Djent Rats up against 90% of hobbyist musicians? Sure. They'll hold their own. And the vast majority of people will gobble
Songsmiht has already improved music. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is not remixing existing songs, but creating new ones.
Re: (Score:2)
I had Suno do a cover of a Justin Bieber song awhile back. There was actually a method to my madness, because:
#1 It's actually a song originally written by Ed Sheeran that Bieber butchered to make radio-friendly.
#2 I don't find Bieber to be a particularly talented vocalist, but it's otherwise (IMHO) a pretty decent pop song.
It used to be on my YouTube channel, but UMG's lawyer bots did their thing and now it's gone. It's here [mediafire.com] now. If you ask me, the AI generated cover is genuinely an improvement, but tha
Creative? (Score:3)
Until they have an AI that can learn on its own, it can only produce stuff based on its training data. That is mere mimicry, not creativity. Mind you, many songs these days seem at best derivative and AI can certainly produce that.
I will say, if a particular AI will let you specify that you want something in the style of a named performer or songwriter, that person or group should receive royalties. That is obvious I think. And that should fix the problem right there.
Classical music and performers destroy that idea (Score:2)
AI generated music that sounds like Mozart or Beethoven doesn't pay royalties.
Music generated by AI doesn't pay out to actual performers.
And remember that Spotify et al's royalty rates are relatively low.
We've had perhaps 100 years where record sales, film production and concerts were able to support a significant number of musicians. Now, perhaps, however that profession is going the way of the coppersmith, stable hand and wheelwright to support a much reduced number of people.
Re:Creative? (Score:4, Insightful)
Until they have an AI that can learn on its own, it can only produce stuff based on its training data. That is mere mimicry, not creativity.
I hate to be pedantic, but musicians learn using "training data". They input information and output songs.
Furthermore, most mainstream music sounds like mimicry to me, especially during the last 5-10 years, which saw an explosion of "remakes".
Re: (Score:2)
Musicians also learn by trying things, which current AI does not. The rest of your post agrees with what I already said.
Re: (Score:2)
AI is also "trying" things, it can generate 1000 songs based on the same prompt, it can iterate (take the previous song and remix it based on a prompt), it can extend a song, replace a section of the song, change an instrument, change vocals...
Agreed with the statement that it currently can't quickly learn from mistakes, but it's getting there.
Re: (Score:2)
And how long does it remember what it did? Only for the session, so it doesn't actually learn from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Um... no?
I can take a song which I generated months ago and iterate on it, or change it in any of the above-mentioned ways.
Re: (Score:2)
In a sense it can learn from mistakes ... that's surely what training models and adjusting weights is about really. Of course in the case of music the question of what counts as a "mistake" is moot... but you could try using the number of spotify downloads as a target; which probably quite a good thing is you're just concerned with commerciality.
Re: (Score:2)
Music is more than just playing the notes. AI music today has incorrect pacing, phrasing, and dynamics, similar to how AI generated video of people speaking usually has incorrect intonation, pacing, hand gestures, and facial expressions to convey the subtext of what it is saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Not according to my experience. Well, at least not consistently.
Yes, AI-generated songs sometimes have quirks. Some words, or sounds, or pacing are sometimes hallucinated. But it has become more and more an exception, rather than a rule.
And it has consistently gotten better, with more features, finer control, arguably better quality (that is still a problem in many cases).
Re: (Score:2)
Until they have an AI that can learn on its own, it can only produce stuff based on its training data.
Wait are you criticising AI or the music industry here? I can't tell from that sentence which you think is the one devoid of creativity. Forget the threat of AI, I just want to be able to listen to something that contains music that I didn't already hear in the 70s or 80s just with some pretty face being autotuned over the top while some kid raps some nonsense after the second chorus.
AI is far more creative than much of the popular music these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Until they have an AI that can learn on its own, it can only produce stuff based on its training data. That is mere mimicry, not creativity. Mind you, many songs these days seem at best derivative and AI can certainly produce that.
I will say, if a particular AI will let you specify that you want something in the style of a named performer or songwriter, that person or group should receive royalties. That is obvious I think. And that should fix the problem right there.
Oh my poor innocent summer child. You think creativity matters this day and age.
Compared to just 20 years ago (that's 2004 for those playing along at home) music today is both more repetitive and has less variation (I.E. fewer different notes used)... and that's 20 years ago, let alone 40 or 50 years ago... Keep in mind that Nirvana with their 3-4 chord songs was over 30 years ago (nothing against Nirvana mind you, their songs are simple yet brilliant and enjoyable, complexity does not necessarily add va
Re: (Score:2)
Until they have an AI that can learn on its own, it can only produce stuff based on its training data. That is mere mimicry, not creativity. Mind you, many songs these days seem at best derivative and AI can certainly produce that.
AI has no problem with creativity. With for example diffusion models random noise is run through the model and turned into mostly coherent imagery or sound by pulling context from the prompt and training set. While output exploits features and concepts learned from training it is new and different and may contain interesting new features as a consequence of random starting conditions.
Algorithms to create music have been around for decades using a variety of algorithmic methods and transformer based varian
the joy of making music (Score:5, Insightful)
AI will never take away the joy that comes with writing and playing music. Be it live, on rehearsal or in ones bedroom, there is so much fun in that process: the endless learning and discoveries (regardless of ones skill and experience), the expression, the interaction with band members and the audience.
So no, musicians aren't going anywhere soon. And, anecdotically, never before have so many people taken an instrument and decided they are going to learn how to play it.
And audiences still love a night out and seeing a good show by a real band and having a chat and drink with fellow fans.
The fact that some zero-skill newb can now ask an AI to crunch out tunes ad infinitum doesn't do away with any of that.
Only a marginal fraction of musicians are making money from their music. Every one else does it just because they love doing it.
Re:the joy of making music (Score:4, Interesting)
The assertion isn't that music made by humans will be reduced - it's that the total some of income being earned by musicians will be reduced.
"Only a marginal fraction of musicians are making money from their music." Uh sure, for one definition of musician. The inference within the context of the prediction is that "musician" here means "person who earns income from composing, performing, arranging, etc music"
Your post feels very much like an emotional reaction (which is understandable - it's fucking music) rather than a well thought out rebuttal of the prediction.
Re: (Score:2)
*sum
Re: (Score:2)
AI will never take away the joy that comes with writing and playing music. Be it live, on rehearsal or in ones bedroom, there is so much fun in that process: the endless learning and discoveries (regardless of ones skill and experience), the expression, the interaction with band members and the audience.
This is absolutely true. Hundreds of milliions - indeed, probably billions of people play music, or sing, or whatever. Almost none of them are professional, almost none of them want to be professional. Some may give performances for beer money, others just because they enjoy it. Music is for amateurs. Professional performers are an oddity.
Which is a long-winded way of saying: We shouldn't particularly care if it becomes even more difficult to be a professional musician. And no, producing music "in the styl
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmm. I agree that the joy of making music will always remain, but your assessment overlooks how profoundly technology reshapes creative industries—and the livelihoods tied to them.
AI will never take away the joy that comes with writing and playing music. Be it live, on rehearsal or in ones bedroom, there is so much fun in that process: the endless learning and discoveries (regardless of ones skill and experience), the expression, the interaction with band members and the audience.
True, the intrinsic joy of music-making is timeless. However, this argument sidesteps the economic realities for musicians who depend on their craft. While AI won’t replace the emotional fulfillment of playing music, it could disrupt how musicians sustain themselves financially, particularly in fields like compositi
Re: (Score:3)
AI will never kill any of the arts.
Correct. It will kill the ability to make a living out of practicing the arts.
Exactly like photography killed the portraiture business, and digital cameras killed the photography business after that: portraits are still a thing, but they're called "selfies" and you do them yourself for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Some say art without money is better.
If selfies are anything to judge with, I'd say paying for portraits was much better.
Not so fast (Score:2)
I haven't heard a good AI tune yet. While it makes a few interesting portions, it's randomly in between yawner material.
Someday it will probably get there, but seems it has a ways to go still.
It's perhaps useful as an idea generator to be manually built upon, but such tools have been around for centuries. Western music has certain patterns that are relatively easy to put into generator algorithms, and existing software products had them even in the 90's. Composers typically use them for ideas but don't tell
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't heard a good AI tune yet. While it makes a few interesting portions, it's randomly in between yawner material.
I have, quite a few, actually. YMMV, though, depending what kind of music you like.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a question of the music being good. It's about it being "good enough".
You mention elevator music, but it also includes background scores for lower budget productions and advertising. Basically anything where the music is an accessory.
To become a great composer, you have to first be a good one. Before that you have to be a shitty one. And you need to be able to make a meager living climbing the hill. That's what is going away.
The great film scores are being written by folks with very grey hair. We w
Austrain Painter AI (Score:2)
I do not know about you but some of the AI shit on youtube is the funniest thing I have ever seen in a very long time. Sponge Bob singing Korn is hysterical. My ultimate favorite of all time is a certain Austrain Painter singing the Soviet National Anthem brings me to the floor laughing every time [youtube.com]!
Haha
Re: (Score:3)
My ultimate favorite of all time is a certain Austrain Painter singing the Soviet National Anthem brings me to the floor laughing every time!
Why do you have to post these things when I'm in work?
Pink Beetles in a Purple Zeppelin (Score:3, Interesting)
The entire music industry is devoid of creativity as it is. Singers don't need to sing, they just need to look pretty. Heck whole genres are about not singing but rather just talking about how you've been marginalised and how good your bitchez and bling are while a generic beat hums away in the background. Much of the musicality is simply taking the existing riffs from famous songs of the past. If there's one thing that I think AI can't make any worse, it's popular music.
Subject: In case someone wants to see a satirical take Arjen Anthony Lucassen wrote the song Pink Beetles in a Purple Zeppelin anticipating a future where all music had already been written and all music is simply a blend of what already exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And if you don't know the 4 bands he's referencing in the title then GTFO :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link. Excellent example what is possible. He should remake / extend it with state off the art tools.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL someone with a mod point didn't know the 4 bands and got offended. hahahaah.
Buggy whipped (Score:2)
I wonder how long America can hold on to it's old fashioned "you can't eat unless you work" AND keep obsoleting people left and right out of their jobs before we have mass violence and chaos? Something has to give.
Also Trump and Project 2025 wants to demolish the already craptacular saftey net, so there won't even be that to fall back on.
"Here ye be violence!"
Re: (Score:2)
All we need to do is figure out a way for wall street to still get 15% of everything produced, and there will be no problem letting people eat without working. Right now, the problem isn't that workers don't have jobs. The problem is that robots don't pay rent or have mortgages.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, same here. This is approaching an unsustainable state.
Free? (Score:2, Insightful)
So why would they care that music is all going to be generated by AI? They don't believe artists should be compensated anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. According to the Slashdot user base content "wants to be free," copyright is bullsh1t and every piece of music an artist creates, every eBook an author writes, any movie or TV show created, anything that can be turned into bits can and should be pirated freely with no consequence.
So why would they care that music is all going to be generated by AI? They don't believe artists should be compensated anyway.
Good thing you got compensated for writing this post, you fucking shill.
I don't think so (Score:2)
Generating musing for a specific purpose still takes an expert, "AI" or not. That will not change anytime soon.
Data point (Score:4, Insightful)
Music performers make a shockingly small pittance from their music being played. The lion's share of that money is hoovered up by record companies. Performers make money at their live shows, which will take longer for AI to replace.
Please don't think I'm blind to the plight of the poor beleaguered predatory and abusive record companies, but I must confess that they are pulling from a significantly smaller pool of "giveable shits" vs. how much I care about actual artists.
False (Score:2)
AI: Evolution, Not Replacement (Score:2)
AI isn’t replacing creativity—it’s evolving it. Like artists refining their craft through iteration and feedback, tuning AI models follows a similar process. Early outputs may lack depth, but with refinement, AI becomes a powerful tool to enhance, not replace, human expression. History shows this pattern: photography pushed painting into new realms, and recording technology broadened the impact of live performance. McLuhan’s dictum, "the medium is the message," reminds us that AI wil
Relax, it's not _real_ music (Score:2)
I was always amused by the thought of the The Princess Ineffabelle [blogspot.com] humming a simulated song.
Here we are now. Entertain us! (Score:2)
If all you want is endless rehashes of your favourite music of days gone by, AI is the answer.
If you want something new, AI is not the answer. You could train an AI model on classic rock (say, late '60s to mid '70s) and get all the "new" Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Steely Dan tunes you want. Such a model would never create Gary Numan. Or Daft Punk. Or Nirvana.
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
where a global distribution network that is about years old, that visibly got dodgy white people in suits rich on the back of black musicians, that already dictates who and who does not get to be one of the famous musician
Right? Since when have the creators ever gotten more than .0001c/unit out of this?
This industry is long overdue some upheaval where scum-scuking the MBA's and marketing drones are burned at the stake.
Re: (Score:2)
Since she makes up that 25% of the revenue of the music sector that generates music that can easily be generated with AI.
Unless an AI-powered sexbot is sitting in a closet feeling lonely and rejected because some plug-in came along and replaced it/her, I seriously doubt that.
Hey, those lyrics don’t write themselves you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, those lyrics don’t write themselves you know.
Actually, that part AI is pretty good at. What it can't do is get up on stage and shake its money maker for the crowd. I wouldn't be surprised if some of today's pop artists already are using ChatGPT for a bit of lyrical inspiration and then making a few of their own revisions before singing it.