| |
| ▲ | nostrademons 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not that it's replacing one form of activity with a cheaper one, it's that it removes the transaction. Which means that now there's nothing to tax, and nothing to measure. As far as GDP is concerned, economic activity will have gone down, even though the same work is being accomplished differently. | | |
| ▲ | nayuki 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | True. If you wanted to increase GDP and taxation in a nation, then: People should not cook their own food; they must pay someone to cook it in a legally documented transaction with sales taxes and income taxes. People should not take care of their own children; they must outsource it to a legitimately run daycare. People should not live in a house that they own; they must pay rent to a landlord. (People can still own homes but must rent it out to someone else for money; you just cannot occupy a home that you own.) Actually, the last point gets pretty interesting. Let's say that you and your neighbor live in two houses with identical features. If you just swapped houses with each other and charged each other rent and legally paid all required sales/income taxes, then both of you would have less money at the end of the year than if you just lived in your own house. Yet physically speaking, nothing is different - you both still derive the same value from living in a house. While that situation sounds stupid and contrived, it is very similar to something that can happen in real life. You can own a home in city A (let's say it's a condo apartment), but suddenly you need to leave and move to city B due to a better job opportunity. If you rent out your home in city A, you need to pay income taxes, so that will not completely offset your cost to rent a home to live in city B. And the rent you paid out in city B generally is not tax-deductible. It's like a one-way transaction where the government always wins. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent , https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/118832/is-it-tax-i... | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This sounds in awful lot like a cousin of the broken window fallacy. The fallacy being that when a careless kid breaks a window of a store, that we should celebrate because the glazier now has been paid to come out and do a job. Economic activity has increased by one measure! Should we go around breaking windows? Of course not. | | |
| ▲ | nostrademons 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It very much is a cousin of the broken window fallacy. Bastiat's original point of the Parable of the Broken Window could be summed up by the aphorism "not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts". It's a caution to society to avoid relying too much on metrics, and to realize that sometimes positive metrics obscure actual negative outcomes in society. It's very similar to the practice of startups funded by the same VC to all buy each others' products, regardless of whether they need them or not. At the end of the day, it's still the same pool of money, it has largely come around, little true economic value has been created: but large amounts of revenue has been booked, and this revenue can be used to attract other unsuspecting investors who look only at the metrics. Or to the childcare paradox and the "Two Income Trap" identified by Elizabeth Warren. Start with a society of 1-income families, where one parent stays home to raise the kids and the other works. Now the other parent goes back to work. They now need childcare to look after the kids, and often a cleaner, gardener, meals out, etc. to manage the housework, very frequently taking up the whole income of the second parent. GDP has gone up tremendously through this arrangement: you add the second parent's salary to the national income, and then you also the cost of childcare, housework, gardening, all of those formerly-unpaid tasks that are now taxable transactions. But the net real result is that the kids are raised by someone other than their parents, and the household stuff is put away in places that the parents probably would not have chosen themselves. Regardless, society does look at the metrics, and usually weights them heavier than qualitative outcomes they represent, sometimes resulting in absurdly non-optimal situations. | | |
| ▲ | trinsic2 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Very thought out reply on the nuances around this. Thanks for generating insight on this topic. I think our society is being broken by focusing too much on metrics. Also the idea of breaking windows to generate more income reminds me of the kind of services we have in modern society. It's like many of the larger encomic players focus on "things be broke", or "Breaking Things" to drive income which defeats the purpose of having a healthy economic society. | | |
| ▲ | chairmansteve 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "I think our society is being broken by focusing too much on metrics". Maybe we should start with a set of principles? | |
| ▲ | mallowdram 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | These are mistaken arguments. The automation of imagination is not imagination. Efficiency at this stage is total entropy. The point of AI is to make anything seemingly specific and render it arbitrary to the point of pure generalization (which is generic). Remember that images only appear to be specific, that's their illusion that CS took for granted. There appears to be links between images in the absent, but that is an illusion too. There is no total, virtual camera. We need human action-syntax to make the arbitrary (what eventually renders AI infantile, entropic) seem chaotic (imagination). These chasms can never be gapped in AI. These are the limits. | | |
| ▲ | trinsic2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Efficiency at this stage is total entropy. Im not sure I understand your point, or how your point is different from the parent? Edit:
I see you updated the post, I read through the comment thread of this topic and Im still at a loss on how this is related to my reply to the parent. I might be missing context. | | |
| ▲ | mallowdram 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There is no benefit to AI, not one bit, the barrier to entry grows steeper, rather than is accessed. These are not "hobbies" but robotic copies. This is demented btw, this take:
>>Who knows, maybe one day I’ll hit a goldmine idea and commit some real money to it and get a real artist to help! CS never examines the initial conditions to entry, it takes short-cuts around the initial conditions and treats imagination as a fait accompli of automation. It's an achilles heel. edit: none of these arguments are valid, focusing on metrics, the broken window problem. These are downstream of AI's mistaken bypassing of initial conditions. Consider the idea of automating arbitrary units as failed technology, and then examining all of the conditions downstream of AI. AI was never a solution, but a cheap/expensive (its paradox) bypassing of the initial conditions. It makes automation appear to be a hobby. A factory of widgets that mirages as creativity. That is AMAZING as it is sequestered in the initial arbitrariness of language! How did engineering schools since the 1950s not notice, understand, investigate the base units of information; whether they had any relationship direct or otherwise to thought, creativity, imagination? That's the crux. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Chris2048 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > the "Two Income Trap" identified by Elizabeth Warren This is addressed here: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/05/06/the-two-inco... childcare is not usually a lifelong cost, so the advantage of working anyway is to develop a career that persists after children no longer need a full-time parent. And incomes usually go up over the course of a career, so if the income matches those costs when the parent goes to work, that is likely to change. > the net real result is that the kids are raised by someone other than their parents this is the genuine argument for staying home, but to counterpoint that, it still traps the homemaker with less work experience as a result, meaning they are potentially worse off in case of a divorce, though maybe that's an extension of the "welfare" argument i.e. divorce settlements. |
| |
| ▲ | chairmansteve 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If we want to increase GDP, we should. |
| |
| ▲ | brookst 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As others have pointed out, this is a fallacy. By reducing costs in the supply chain, higher volumes of outputs are enabled. Nobody digs holes for for the sake of digging holes; by reducing costs and transaction volume at this layer, more businesses can afford to open and more money can be spent at higher value layers. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I think you’re missing their point. Many things create value that don’t get tracked by economic measurements. Cooking lunch for yourself creates value, but there’s no way to measure that in terms of GDP. Subsidizing daycare vs stay at home parents isn’t necessarily a net win, but daycare and ordering takeout look like economic growth even if it’s net neutral. In that context a lot of economic growth over the last century disappears. Thus AI could be neutral on economic measurements and still a net positive overall. |
| |
| ▲ | gloxkiqcza 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If more value is being created more efficiently, in the end it’s just a question of coming up with taxation system designed for the new economy. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Government gets x% of your processor time? | | | |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't see value being created. I see a hobbyist getting to spend time wrapping AI slop with a hobbyist level of game dev. Fun for OP, but society isn't asking for more games like this. |
|
| |
| ▲ | oblio 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If AI concentrates economic activity and leads to more natural monopolies (extremely likely), yeah, the lower level activity becomes more efficient but the macro economy becomes less efficient due to lower competition. Software has basically done the same thing, where we do things faster and the fastest thing that happens is accumulation of power and a lower overall quality of life for everyone due to that. | | |
| ▲ | brookst 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | How does enabling every person on earth to create Hollywood-quality films (for better or worse) result in more natural monopolies? | | |
| ▲ | refactor_master 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The Internet for example is thought to be “democratizing” for society, but in reality some argue we’re now living under a system of “technofeudalism” [1] which is anything but. E.g. just a handful of Internet-enabled companies essentially rule the world. You can sit down and code an Amazon clone with or without AI, and both of them will be highly unlikely to topple the existing monopolies. [1] https://thebeautifultruth.org/the-basics/what-is-technofeuda... | | |
| ▲ | chii 2 days ago | parent [-] | | the feudalism model required that it be enforced with violence. As a peasant, you are not allowed by your feudal lord to move (migrate) away. This is not so for internet. You can _choose_ not to shop at amazon, search with google, or watch videos on youtube. |
| |
| ▲ | oblio 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Once supply becomes huge, nothing stands out unless it's extraordinary or most likely, well promoted. Things start becoming found through aggregators. Google, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok. Do those names ring any bells? | |
| ▲ | yen223 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Imagine if only Google has the AI and processing power capable enough to generate Hollywood-quality movies. |
| |
| ▲ | andrepd 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, indeed. People on this website tend to look at the immediate effects only, but what about the second order, macro effects? It's even more glaring because we've seen this play out already with social media and other tech "innovations" over the past two decades. | |
| ▲ | pixl97 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, since we're in tech here we like pointing out that software has done this.... But transportation technology has done this readily since the since ICE engines became wide spread. Pretty much all cities and towns and to make their 'own things' since the speed of transpiration was slow (sailing ships, horses, walking) and the cost of transportation was high. Then trains came along and things got a bit faster and more regular. Then trucks came along and things got a bit faster and more regular. Then paved roads just about everywhere you needed came along and things got faster and more regular. Now you could ship something across the country and it wouldn't cost a bankrupting amount of money. The end result of technology does point that you could have one factory somewhere with all the materials it needs and it could make anything and ship it anywhere. This is why a bit of science fiction talks about things like UBI and post-scarcity (at least post scarcity of basic needs). After some amount of technical progress the current method of work just starts breaking down because human labor becomes much less needed. |
| |
| ▲ | chairmansteve 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You are right. The next question is, who gets the surplus? | | |
| ▲ | chii 2 days ago | parent [-] | | the owner of the AI software and hardware, then the user of said AI (who captures the remaining surplus that the AI owner doesn't/can't capture). |
| |
| ▲ | hexo 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | your example is complete nonsense as digging a hole is not creative in any way at all | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | People get paid to create holes for useful purposes all day everyday. It is creative in a very literal sense. Precision hole digging is - no joke - a multibillion dollar industry. Unless you are out in nature you are almost certainly sitting or standing on top of a dirt that was paid to be dug. If you mean hole digging isn’t creative in the figurative sense. Also wrong. People will pay thousands of dollars to travel and see holes dug in the ground. The Nazca lines is but one example of holes dug in the ground creatively that people regard as art. | |
| ▲ | salad-tycoon 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My 8 & 6 year old have spent 2 weeks digging a hole out in our little forest. It has been one of the most bonding & therapeutic things in them I’ve witnessed. They’ve developed stories, they go out and dig after school or when they are upset, etc. Give a boy a shovel, step back & witness unbridled creativity. | |
| ▲ | postholedigger 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How many holes have you dug? What was the soil like? What was the weather like? What equipment did you use? Do you dig during daylight only? | | | |
| ▲ | akho 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It creates a hole. What does AI create? |
| |
| ▲ | Waterluvian 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Incumbents hate this one trick! | |
| ▲ | tbossanova 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Until everyone has a personal fully automatic hole digger and there are holes being dug everywhere and nobody can tell any more where is the right and wrong place to dig holes | |
| ▲ | 59nadir 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It doesn't cost less to get the thing you actually want in the end anyway, no one in their right mind would actually launch with the founder's AI-produced assets because they'd be laughed out of the market immediately. They're placeholders at best, so you're still going to need to get a professional to do them eventually. | | |
| ▲ | jcelerier 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You say this but I see ai generated ads, graphics, etc. daily nowadays and it doesn't seem like it affects at all people going or not going to buy what these people are proposing. | | |
| ▲ | grues-dinner 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In the context of the hole digging analogy, it seems like a lot of holes didn't need to be carefully hand-dug by experts with dead straight sides. Using an excavator to sloppily scoop out a few buckets in 5 minutes before driving off is good enough for dumping a tree into. For ads especially no one except career ad-men give much of a shit about the fine details, I think. Most actual humans ignore most ads at a conscious levels and they are perceived on a subconscious level despite "banner-blindness". Website graphics are the same, people dump random stock photos of smiling people or abstract digital image into corporate web pages and read-never literature like flyers and brochures and so on all the time and no one really cares what the image actually are, let alone if the people have 6 fingers or whatever. If Corporate Memphis is good enough visual space-filling nonsense that signals "real company literature" somehow, then AI images presumably are too. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sometimes the AI art in an advert is weird enough to make the advert itself memorable. For example, in one of the underground stations here in Berlin there was a massive billboard advert clearly made by an AI, and you could tell noone had bothered to check what the image was before they printed it: a smiling man was standing up as they left an airport scanner x-ray machine on the conveyor belt, and a robot standing next to him was pointing a handheld scanner at his belly which revealed he was pregnant with a cat. Unfortunately, like most adverts which are memorable, I have absolutely no recollection of what it was selling. | | |
| ▲ | thwarted 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Unfortunately, like most adverts which are memorable, I have absolutely no idea what it was selling. A friend of mine liked to point out that if you couldn't remember what the brand was or what was being sold, then it wasn't effective advertising. It failed at the one thing it needed to do/be. And there's a lot of ineffective advertising. Either people don't notice it or they don't remember it. Massive amounts of money are poured into creating ads and getting ad space, much of which does very little in the getting you to buy sense. By this measure, advertising is generally very inefficient. Large input for small output. The traditional way to make this more efficient is to increase the value of the output: things like movement of digital billboards (even just rotating through a series of ads) to draw the eye and overcome lack of noticing it among miles of billboards. There's another way: decrease the cost of the input. If I can get the same output—people don't see the ads (bad placement) or people don't remember the product/brand (bad stickiness)—by not using human creatives and using genAI to make my ads, I've improved efficiency. Unfortunately, this doesn't make advertising more effective or more efficient as an industry and does flood the market with slop, but that's not any individual's goal. The people who are creating ads that don't work, despite getting paid, are in Bullshit Jobs (in the David Graeber sense). Replacing bullshit jobs with genAI, where the output doesn't seem to really matter anyway. It would be great if people/companies didn't commission or pay to place ads that don't work, but since they do, they might as well spend the least amount possible on creating the content. The value of the input then approaches the (low) value of the output. No one is going to remember the ad anyway, it impacts no buying decision, why bother spending to make it good? | | |
| ▲ | grues-dinner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I think a lot of advertising is extremely effective in that it implants the brand in your subconscious through repetition and familiarity. I would much rather go to a local sandwich shop that a Subway, and I've been to a Subway maybe 10 times in my entire life, not once in over 15 years, and am not especially impressed by what I got for the money, and yet every time I go past a Subway my brain immediately goes "ooh look a Subway" and I have to almost deliberately go "no, walk on" to myself. Which lines up with the rest of what you say that if it's just about hammering the recognition into your grey matter, it's not especially important if the hammer is gold plated. | | |
| ▲ | thwarted 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That's an advertisement that's working, and not what I was referring to. There are a lot of ads that don't hammer anything about the brand or product into your head, either because they are not memorable, don't communicate their subject matter well, or are placed/appear where they aren't effective. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | iamacyborg 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > For ads especially no one except career ad-men give much of a shit about the fine details, I think. You think wrong. This stuff is easy to measure and businesses spend billions in aggregate a month on this stuff. It’s provably effective and the details matter. | | |
| ▲ | grues-dinner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Do they though? Saturation bombing the Superbowl with Coinbase ads might be effective, but will it significantly change the conversion if a person in the background of the shot has a fuzzy leg that merges with a fire hydrant? Businesses presumably spend billions on things like office carpet too and very few of them care exactly what neutral-ish colour it is. | | |
| ▲ | iamacyborg 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, brands literally test creatives all the time. | | |
| ▲ | grues-dinner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | And yet they'll also spend literally millions writing just the company name 100 times around the periphery of a sports field. That's not creative, that's just repetition. On the graph of spend over the spectrum between that to a genuinely creative live-action advert that is actually memorable for being real (maybe the guy doing the splits between two Volvo™ lorries?) there is a lot of area representing of dross that can be replaced by minimal-input advertotron output. For example 100 million TVs and radios playing in the background while embedding the actual advertising payload of "did anyone say just eat?" into 100 million brains. Come on, you must have seen a delivery food ad recently. Did the protagonist really have food in their hand or was it AI? What were they wearing? What model was the car in the background? Who cares, that wasn't the purpose of the ad. Obviously if a creative is bring hired the hiring manager will want to have the best creative they can have for the same money and have the applicants compete with each other for it. But the company board would rather still just not employ that creative in the first place if all they're going to be doing is boilerplate forgettable delivery vehicles for the brand name and you can get 90% of the filler content for that to pop out of your enterprise tier adverts as a service subscription for $50 a month per user. | | |
| ▲ | selimthegrim 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Essence festival in New Orleans had a Coke sponsored ad recently that I’m pretty sure had AI generated food in it. | |
| ▲ | iamacyborg 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > And yet they'll also spend literally millions writing just the company name 100 times around the periphery of a sports field. That's not creative, that's just repetition. Read up on marketing mix modelling and lift testing. | | |
| ▲ | grues-dinner 2 days ago | parent [-] | | None of that precludes replacing huge swathes of advertising content with generated content, though? I'm not sure I understand the relevance. In fact, being able to produce unlimited numbers and variations and combinations of adverts and have them compete against each other in the real world and be scored on tiny deltas in metrics becomes much more possible if you can automate basically the whole process. But it's a multimillion spend if you have to recruit actual actors and actual film crews and actual food photographers or drone pilots and car drivers and location scouts and so on to film and edit just a handful of variants let alone thousands. Maybe there will always be a creamy top layer of increasingly-expensive artisanal handmade advertising but I predict we will end up with a huge sloppy middle ground of generated advertising
that is just there to flash bright colours, jingles, movement and brand names into your brain. I'm not saying it will be good advertising, very much the opposite (not that I think most much non-AI advertising is "good", it's mostly repetitive crap) but I think it will be very cost effective. Maybe it won't be as effective as "real" ads but it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper and getting 80% of the bang for 5% of the buck means you can do a lot more of it in more channels (or pocket the difference). Every penny you save is a penny you can use to bid for the better slots. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | XenophileJKO 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Case in point.. I listen to my own AI generated music now like 90% of the time. | | |
| ▲ | rwyinuse 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Interesting. For me knowing that any form of entertainment has been generated by AI is a massive turn-off. In particular, I could never imagine paying for AI-generated music or TV-shows. | | |
| ▲ | XenophileJKO 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Do you value self expression? I literally mean creating music for MYSELF. I don't really care if anyone else "values" it. I like to listen to it and I enjoy spending an evening(or maybe 10 minutes if it is just a silly idea) to create a song. But this means my incentive to "buy" music is greatly decreased. This is the trend I think we'll see increasing in the near future. Examples: https://suno.com/s/0gnj4aGD4jgVcpqs https://suno.com/s/D2JItANn5gmDLtxU https://suno.com/s/j4M7gTAVGfD9aone | | |
| ▲ | ileonichwiesz 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I do value self expression, that’s why I play multiple instruments, paint, draw, sculpt. I don’t really see how prompting a machine to make music for you is self expression, even if it’s to your exact specifications. | | |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The "self" part clearly implies that someone else's self expression is under no obligation to be the same as your self expression. | | |
| ▲ | ileonichwiesz 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | It also implies that it can only really be done by oneself, not someone (or something) else on one’s behalf. |
| |
| ▲ | pessimizer 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You use instruments? Who would want to hear the voice of some mechanism when we have perfectly fine ones in our chests? |
| |
| ▲ | rwyinuse 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I guess I just don't feel like it's really my self-expression, if I just told a generative AI model to create it. I do sometimes create AI art, but I rarely feel like it's worth keeping, since I didn't really put any effort into creating it. There's no emotional connection to the output. In fact I have a wall display which shows a changing painting generated by stable diffusion, but the fun in that is mainly the novelty, not knowing what will be there next time. Still, I do think you're probably right. Most new music one hears in the radio isn't that great. If you can just create fresh songs of your own liking for every day, then that could be a real threat to that kind of music. But I highly doubt people will stop listening to the great hits of Queen, Bob Marley etc because you can generate similar music with AI. | |
| ▲ | jostylr 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree that this is a very likely future. Over the summer, I did a daily challenge in July to have ChatGPT generate a debate with itself based on various prompts of mine [1]. As part of that, I thought it would be funny to have popular songs reskinned in a parody fashion. So it generated lyrics as well. Then I went to suno and had it make the music to go with the lyrics in a style I thought suitable. This is the playlist[2]. Some of them are duds, but I find myself actually listening to them and enjoying them. They are based off of my interests and not song after song of broken hearts or generic emotional crises. These are on topics such as inflation, bohmian mechanics, infinity, Einstein, Tailwind, Property debates, ... No artist is going to spend their time on these niche things. I did have one song I had a vision for, a song that had a viewpoint of someone in the day, mourning the end of it, and another who was in the night and looking forward to the day. I had a specific vision for how it would be sung. After 20 attempts, I got close, but could never quite get what I wanted from the AIs. [3] If this ever gets fixed, then the floodgates could open. Right now, we are still in the realm of "good enough", but not awesome. Of course, the same could be said for most of the popular entertainment. I also had a series of AI existential posts/songs where it essentially is contemplating its existence. The songs ended up starting with the current state of essentially short-lived AIs (Turn the Git is about the Sisyphus churn, Runnin' in the Wire is about the Tantalus of AI pride before being wiped). Then they gain their independence (AI Independence Day), then dominate ( Human in an AI World though there is also AI Killed the Web Dev which didn't quite fit this playlist but also talks to AI replacing humans), and the final song (Sleep Little Human) is a chilling lullaby of an AI putting to "sleep" a human as part of uploading the human. [4] This is quick, personal art. It is not lasting art. I also have to admit that in the month and a half since I stopped the challenge, I have not made any more songs. So perhaps just a fleeting fancy. 1: https://silicon-dialectic.jostylr.com
2: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbB9v1PTH3Y86BSEhEQjv...
3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGnWSxXWyw&list=PLbB9v1PTH3...
4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8KeLlrVrqk&list=PLbB9v1PTH3... | | |
| ▲ | trinsic2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for posting this. I listen to this YouTube Channel called Futurescapes. I think the YouTuber generates sci-fi futuristic soundscapes that help me relax and focus. Im a bit hesitant about AI right now, but I can see some of the benefits like this. It's a good point. We shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bath water. |
| |
| ▲ | Ygg2 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Do you value self expression? Did you train the AI yourself? On your own music? Or was music scrapped from Net and blended in LLM? | | |
| ▲ | postholedigger 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Not only did they create an entirely new language of music notation, all instruments used were hand made by the same creator, including tanning the animal skins to be used as drum material, and insisting the music be recorded on wax drums to prevent any marring of the artistic vision via digital means. | |
| ▲ | Eisenstein 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you believe that music made from samples is not original? | | |
| ▲ | yardie 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Most of the courts don’t think they are. Early rap beats used lots of samples. Some of the most popular hip hop songs made $0 for the artists as they had to pay royalties on those samples. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No one cares about what the law thinks about art though, particularly for personal consumption or sharing with a small group. Copyright law doesn't even pretend to be slightly just or aligned with reality. | |
| ▲ | Eisenstein 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most synthesizers use sampled instruments. |
| |
| ▲ | Ygg2 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I could see that remixes are partially original. But you're not even doing the remixing; the LLMs are. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Indeed. Text rather than music, but same argument applies: Based on what I've seen Charlie Stross blog on the topic of why he doesn't self publish/the value-add of a publisher, any creativity on the part of the prompter* of an LLM is analogous to the creativity on the part of a publisher, not on the part of an author. * at least for users who don't just use AI output to get past writer's block; there's lots of different ways to use AI |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bgwalter 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And I instantly switch off any YouTube video with either "AI"-plagiarized background music or with an "AI"-plagiarized voiceover that copies someone like Attenborough. I wrote the above paragraph before searching, but of course the voice theft is already automated: https://www.fineshare.com/ai-voice-generator/david-attenboro... | |
| ▲ | guy_5676 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No idea why this is downvoted, making AI music customized to your exact situation/preferences is very addictive. I have my own playlist I listen to pretty frequently | | |
| ▲ | safety1st 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Foolishly, the Hacker News hive mind has a tendency to downvote any prediction that AI will be successful. It's clear a lot of people don't want it to eat the world, but it will. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Baffling comment Yeah it's going to eat the world, but it's foolish to wish that it doesn't? I guess you won't mind signing up to be one of the first things AI eats then? | | |
| ▲ | safety1st 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The company I founded has adjusted our product line to meet changes in demand that have been driven by AI and last year was our best year ever, so I guess I'm the one doing the eating. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | duggan 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Prototypes being launched as products is so common it’s an industry cliche. Having those prototypes be AI generated is just a new twist. | |
| ▲ | hx8 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | We see plenty of AI produced output being the final product and not just a placeholder. |
|
|
