I had a conversation with my son about this recently (i.e. AI and art). I remember when Deep Blue beat Kasparov in the mid-90s. People made it out like it was a crossing of the Rubicon. That people would stop playing chess. That chess had been "solved." Instead, players learned to use chess engines to help them prepare lines and find deeper positions that might not have been found otherwise. That said, even the best engines are still unable to "intuit" positions like the best grandmasters, instead relying on brute force calculation.
I also remembered with the development of early digital cameras and how everyone was worried about how many megapixels their digital camera had. Now, no one cares and the average smartphone camera is light years better than the dedicated digital cameras of the early 2000s.
In a similar way, I think we are only seeing the beginning of AI. Much of what it produces now could be described as garbage like in this video. But is it just in its infancy? Will it evolve to improve with each iteration such that 20 years from now, what it produces is beautiful, soulful and no one thinks twice about it a la the digital camera? Will we train our own AIs so they generate power practice routines that expand our chops in the most efficient way possible? Or will it train on itself and other AI output in a sort of echo chamber to create poorer and poorer copies, dumbing itself down like the old Michael Keaton film 'Multiplicity?'
As with any tech, I think as a tool it is up to us on how we use it and where it takes us.
I can see AI developing to learn the micro timing and the language of Django's melodies and harmonies and incorporate them into creating music. My issue is every time I type in gypsy jazz into the search of youtube, I have to scroll past a ton of AI before I can find anything knew. I wish I could some how block it. Although it will never reach the levels of the human soul, it will get pretty cool.
Jangle_JamieScottish HighlandsNewDe Rijk, some Gitanes and quite a few others
Posts: 342
I think he was very restrained with his comments.
My personal view is that it's all utterly dreadful, as are the people who make it and the people who think it's good.
As usual though with something awful, I'm perfectly capable of NOT watching/listening to it, and I'm perfectly capable of not interacting with those people.
Some is appearing on a Gypsy Jazz Facebook page that I follow which is how I first noticed it was around. I class it as spam, and I would prefer it not to appear there at all. It's up to the mods to take it down if they wish, but they don't appear to want to.
I don't think you can compare film and digital photography as a similar trend. Better to compare photography and AI generated photography, which is also very prevalent and totally uncalled for and unnecessary.
Jangle_JamieScottish HighlandsNewDe Rijk, some Gitanes and quite a few others
edited April 19Posts: 342
I will also add that I decided to call it out on Facebook. Plenty of people defended it and said they liked it. Even Martin Taylor came on and said he appreciated it. At that point, I closed my laptop, shook my head in disbelief and went for a walk. That'll teach me not to get involved again!!
The internet & online communications were once spoken of as potentially liberating but they've only hemmed us in with passwords, invisible bureaucracies, and mass surveillance. And as much as I like the good people of this forum, I'm not going to put my head in the sand when a few gigantic corporations—Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon—preside over the world as unprecedented monopoly lords. Whenever I hear the word "algorithm" in my world its accompanied with disappointment and dread, way more than a sense of discovery. These are the realities. The culture is simply more monolithic & tighter. I'm not saying I don't enjoy some software & apps here & there myself. But FFS -- I try not to lose perspective. I don't think there is much reason to be even humbly optimistic about AI. The track record with this stuff, at least culturally, generally seems pretty fucking bad. As a musician, its probably going to be evil over the long run. Way worse than autotune or quantizing. Its just a different beast. But hey. MAyBe i'M wRonG.
I saw the notification because I subscribe to his channel but didn't watch it. And I don't think I will. I avoid thinking how much AI music will advance in a decade. It's unsettling. Maybe everything will be able to coexist. As far as I know, chess engines are already so advanced that no human can hope to beat them. But that didn't diminish the chess game. Master players are using computers and AI to advance their own game. What humans can learn about the music from AI, I don't see any benefits but hopefully it doesn't mean doomsday for human musicians and composers.
Part of why I think Django is so good is that he played, in addition to shows, in places that needed live music, in total playing 7 days a week at 8 plus hours a day, in the early days. Literally the exact opposite of technology.
Buco, you perfectly encapsulated many of the same concerns I have. AI is already enabling non-musicians into referring to themselves as "musicians" because they used AI to "compose" music. And anyone can feel free to call me a pessimistic cynic for the following take but the main reason why I don't think everything will be able to coexist is simply due to our modern era predilection towards instant gratification, which AI will only enable all the further as the technology keeps improving; I mean, at some point in the near future, vast majority of the populace will no longer be able to distinguish between human-created vs. artificially created and societal apathy towards the latter will only result in substantially less drive from people to ever even consider pursuing the former.
Anyway, will talk more about all this later...there's some kids on my lawn I gotta go yell at
Comments
I had a conversation with my son about this recently (i.e. AI and art). I remember when Deep Blue beat Kasparov in the mid-90s. People made it out like it was a crossing of the Rubicon. That people would stop playing chess. That chess had been "solved." Instead, players learned to use chess engines to help them prepare lines and find deeper positions that might not have been found otherwise. That said, even the best engines are still unable to "intuit" positions like the best grandmasters, instead relying on brute force calculation.
I also remembered with the development of early digital cameras and how everyone was worried about how many megapixels their digital camera had. Now, no one cares and the average smartphone camera is light years better than the dedicated digital cameras of the early 2000s.
In a similar way, I think we are only seeing the beginning of AI. Much of what it produces now could be described as garbage like in this video. But is it just in its infancy? Will it evolve to improve with each iteration such that 20 years from now, what it produces is beautiful, soulful and no one thinks twice about it a la the digital camera? Will we train our own AIs so they generate power practice routines that expand our chops in the most efficient way possible? Or will it train on itself and other AI output in a sort of echo chamber to create poorer and poorer copies, dumbing itself down like the old Michael Keaton film 'Multiplicity?'
As with any tech, I think as a tool it is up to us on how we use it and where it takes us.
I can see AI developing to learn the micro timing and the language of Django's melodies and harmonies and incorporate them into creating music. My issue is every time I type in gypsy jazz into the search of youtube, I have to scroll past a ton of AI before I can find anything knew. I wish I could some how block it. Although it will never reach the levels of the human soul, it will get pretty cool.
I think he was very restrained with his comments.
My personal view is that it's all utterly dreadful, as are the people who make it and the people who think it's good.
As usual though with something awful, I'm perfectly capable of NOT watching/listening to it, and I'm perfectly capable of not interacting with those people.
Some is appearing on a Gypsy Jazz Facebook page that I follow which is how I first noticed it was around. I class it as spam, and I would prefer it not to appear there at all. It's up to the mods to take it down if they wish, but they don't appear to want to.
I don't think you can compare film and digital photography as a similar trend. Better to compare photography and AI generated photography, which is also very prevalent and totally uncalled for and unnecessary.
I will also add that I decided to call it out on Facebook. Plenty of people defended it and said they liked it. Even Martin Taylor came on and said he appreciated it. At that point, I closed my laptop, shook my head in disbelief and went for a walk. That'll teach me not to get involved again!!
The internet & online communications were once spoken of as potentially liberating but they've only hemmed us in with passwords, invisible bureaucracies, and mass surveillance. And as much as I like the good people of this forum, I'm not going to put my head in the sand when a few gigantic corporations—Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon—preside over the world as unprecedented monopoly lords. Whenever I hear the word "algorithm" in my world its accompanied with disappointment and dread, way more than a sense of discovery. These are the realities. The culture is simply more monolithic & tighter. I'm not saying I don't enjoy some software & apps here & there myself. But FFS -- I try not to lose perspective. I don't think there is much reason to be even humbly optimistic about AI. The track record with this stuff, at least culturally, generally seems pretty fucking bad. As a musician, its probably going to be evil over the long run. Way worse than autotune or quantizing. Its just a different beast. But hey. MAyBe i'M wRonG.
People like garbage. How many burgers have been sold by McDonald's?
I can see it being used as background music in a cafe. Gross.
I saw the notification because I subscribe to his channel but didn't watch it. And I don't think I will. I avoid thinking how much AI music will advance in a decade. It's unsettling. Maybe everything will be able to coexist. As far as I know, chess engines are already so advanced that no human can hope to beat them. But that didn't diminish the chess game. Master players are using computers and AI to advance their own game. What humans can learn about the music from AI, I don't see any benefits but hopefully it doesn't mean doomsday for human musicians and composers.
Part of why I think Django is so good is that he played, in addition to shows, in places that needed live music, in total playing 7 days a week at 8 plus hours a day, in the early days. Literally the exact opposite of technology.
Buco, you perfectly encapsulated many of the same concerns I have. AI is already enabling non-musicians into referring to themselves as "musicians" because they used AI to "compose" music. And anyone can feel free to call me a pessimistic cynic for the following take but the main reason why I don't think everything will be able to coexist is simply due to our modern era predilection towards instant gratification, which AI will only enable all the further as the technology keeps improving; I mean, at some point in the near future, vast majority of the populace will no longer be able to distinguish between human-created vs. artificially created and societal apathy towards the latter will only result in substantially less drive from people to ever even consider pursuing the former.
Anyway, will talk more about all this later...there's some kids on my lawn I gotta go yell at
Just as physical technology resulted in less need for physical activity, I think that AI will result in less need for mental activity.