Great food for thought. It makes me think about all the things happening inside the human body every second that are completely automated. We never had to learn how to make our heart beat, it just does it as an automatic process. We learned how to move limbs and walk as babies, but those neural pathways build up gradually and after a while, we just do it without thinking about it. Our brains are essentially a giant AI network. We have to feed it input and teach it things, but after a while it learns and takes over an helps us do things faster (similar process to learning an instrument). I'm sure most of this AI implementation is just mimicking our understanding of how brains work. I'm thankful that my brain takes over so many basic functions, because it allows me to focus on things like creativity. I'm not surprised so many people are freaking out about this, because we've designed AI to adapt and operate just like the human brain. We steal creative ideas from each other all the time, so we assume that's all that AI is going to do. You still have to have a person utilizing it and pressing those buttons, so it all comes down to intent. Like you said in the video Michael, what's the difference between inspiration and stealing? Is it wrong to walk into an art gallery and make something based off of all the inspiration you had? If you're a hammer, you see everything as a nail. You can't stop people from making something into a weapon, just because it can be used nefariously doesn't make it bad...
A hypothetical question. If Shakespeare had contemplated that, in 300 years, his work would seed the creativity of a Faulkner, would it bother him? I'm just guessing it would thrill and inspire him orgiastically. If Shakespeare contemplated that in 400 years, a neural processing uinit would reduce his work to an algorithm in order to spawn endless replicants, how would that affect him? Maybe there have been futurists in the past 1000 years who have contemplated exactly that, so we don't have to guess how they would feel about it. But I'm pretty sure many would find it existentially depressing, because many find it depressing right now. We can't stop the developers from coding but we can change the copyright laws. Shakespeare should not be used to train AI. It's like digging up his grave and cloning him, like in Pet Sematary.
@@bassmaiasa1312 We read, reenact, reinterpret, and enjoy the works of Shakespeare around the world daily. He is already immortal in our hearts and minds, likewise other artists and people we've known. Sure, it's a twist, just as humans taking flight in machines was a twist, but resurrecting humans digitally via AI will become a common thing one day. You can count on it. Eventually, all the way to supple robotic androids nearly indistinguishable from the original. An inevitability that not everyone will like or agree with, but an inevitability nonetheless.
A famous writer - Stanislaw Lem - dealt with the problem of AI in a very interesting philosophical way in his book Summa technologiae in 1964. I can only recommend everyone to read this book. 🤓 Otherwise, AIs such as Udio or AIVA are very ingenious tools (similar to a large loop/sound collection for me), but without human creativity they can currently only achieve "modest" results themselves. But it is fun to work with these AIs. 🙂
I agree. It is kind of interesting that people can’t see the tool that requires human creativity to utilize AI in its fullest. There is this strange idea that writing a prompt is all you do.
@ 5:40 - The cost of even the highest education in the future will be merely the cost of your VERY low subscription to your multi-modal AI model of choice... essentially FREE when compared to higher educational costs in the U.S.
The issue with those who separate spiritual from non spiritual is that, eventually, they will confere spirit to certain AIs. I'm not implying that they will be irrevocably wrong in doing that (who knows), but rather that they most certainly will be a new kind of religious followers.
Let me start by saying the AI programmers are the real AI artists. Some may consider that sacrilege, but I'm both a coder and a creative. I don't feel a qualitative difference between writing code and writing a novel. Problem solving, discovery, entering the 'zone' (sustained focus, adrenaline high, time warp), it's the same experience for me. Whether AI music is any good or not will be a matter of opinion. To me, EDM sounds empty and automatic, but humans do create EDM and millions of humans like EDM as much as I like my favorite musicians. What are the psychological effects on creatives, especially de-motivational effects? What motivates us to create, to aspire to 10,000 hours to master a craft? There is certainly a selfless desire to create beauty for others. But is the egotistical pursuit of elite achievement not also a big part of our motivation? When we shoot for 10,000 hours, are we trying to prove something to ourselves? Will AI deflate our egos and our motivational balloon? I do think the copyright laws need to be changed. AI developers should be banned from using public domain artworks to train AI. The idea behind public domain is that the artist has 70 years remuneration, enough to incentivize creation. If you seek immortality through art, you don't need royalties in perpetuity in your estate to achieve immortality. But the knowledge that your art will be eaten, digested, and crapped out by a neural processing unit after your lifetime, that's not immortality, that's spiritual rape. I think there is a real danger of a mental health crisis for artists.
Interesting points. I taught a class on the theory of programming languages once. it’s effectively an introduction to linguistics. Re copyright law, that ship has already sailed, I’m afraid.
Hello Michael, I see you still have the misconception that it matters how the magic trick is done. You are obfuscating to avoid the reality that however AI sudo music is created it remains detrimental to our civilisation. It seems I was right about Spotify, who are using this sudo music on an industrial scale to avoid paying royalties to human musicians and composers. The only reason AI generated sudo music exists is to line the pockets of the billionaires, it has no other value to the human race. It is difficult to understand how and why real music is made without studying it, so maybe try to engage with Adam Neely's video again, and perhaps listen to other jazz musicians if you still don't understand why we are so horrified by your assertion that this filthy noise is music.
Most of what Adam Neely was saying is not contradicting any of my points. His focus was on the musical Turing test. I have two issues with his analysis though. First, he assumes generative systems are capable of real time interaction, which they are not. The musical Turing test question the way he framed it is therefore not relevant within the conext if generative AI music. Second, his take is philosophically anti-accelerationist. That is ok in theory, but naive in practice because it assumes that humankind is in control of the acceleration with which technology is being developed. And that is simply not the case. I might do a response video at some point.
@michaelgwagner The main point Adam is trying to demonstrate is that the output is not music. That is in direct contradiction to your assertion that it is. He does not assume systems are capable of real time interaction, it is the very fact that they can't do this that he offers as evidence that AI output is not music. Perhaps that is difficult for you to understand if you have not created music in a room with jazz musicians. Of course as jazz musicians we are being influenced by those that came before us and following the guidelines set to allow us to play together, but we are also doing that with our own unique voices and for the purpose of communicating with other humans. It is relevant that AI can't achieve that. The lack of these elements in the creation of AI sudo music is precisely why it is a pollutant. Which leads me to your second point. Why are you ignoring the role of capitalism in shaping what technology is developed and how it is used? That is the relevant point with AI sudo music. We as humankind can and do decide how technology is used and how it impacts our society, mostly we have chosen to let capitalism decide. The sudo music is cheaper and more profitable, so we will use it regardless of any other impact it might have on society. I am sure you will continue to obfuscate with irrelevant technical arguments and ignore the evidence of how we are choosing to use this technology. Back in the real world, Adam understands something about music that you are failing to grasp and humans at well known streaming sites choose to let them be flooded with AI content to increase profits.
@NipperLewis Actually, that is not what he is saying. He specifically points out that he has no doubt that it will eventually pass a music Turing output test. When he talks about music later on in the video he is primarily referring to live music. And I don’t think anybody argues with that for the moment being. But this is where his argument runs into issues because current AI systems are completely incapable of achieving the low latency required to even attempt that.
@@NipperLewis I had the pleasure of studying music philosophy, music psychology and music sociology at my university. The question of what actually is music came up again and again. I would like to refer provocatively to Adorno here and give an example, the piano piece 4'33˝ (premiere: August 29, 1952, Maverick Concert Hall). So what is music?
@@michaelgwagner I knew you would obfuscate with irrelevant technical arguments, while continuing to demonstrate your total lack of understanding for what Adam is saying. Nice.
