AI on Wikiloops a no-go?
Membre
Posts: 281
Joined: 30 janv. 2021
PaulM44 wrote:
I suspect AI may be thought of the same way that DAW drummers are now used. It seems reasonable to use it to complete an idea that couldn’t be gotten any other way. When I get in front of my DAW I already feel like Superman compared with what I could accomplish just in front of a microphone without it. A drumming track could take a week or more (as a non-drummer). I have only used AI briefly for making images about a year ago and don’t intend to use it for music.
The scary thing about AI was the option of create an image “in the style of” (a famous artist). IF the same can be done with music by scraping websites, it might be possible for someone to decide to add sax in the style of Wade or guitar like one of the 5000 tracks from GlezBass. This is obviously a place to draw the line at acceptability but or perhaps it’s just a case of creator’s paranoia. It would be the difference in feeling between a button-pushing programmer and a real musician who would get guilt and no satisfaction from this kind of creation. I already feel that when inserting DAW loops unless it blends perfectly with something already partially finished.
Finally, because I accept that my work can easily be copied and repurposed elsewhere it actually makes me hope so—that someone likes it that much. :) The chance of being heard at all with the constant churn and ease of commercial sites to find new artists and sounds reduces the chance. I pay for Tidal as a way to practice and play with whole albums of my favorite artists (even from the ’60’s!) although I have less time for that as I have gotten more involved with WL. (Thank you).
Good post. I never use drum midi tracks created by someone else, I start from nothing each time and it takes a long, long time to do, likely over several weeks for a good one that isn't too repetitive though never as good as real drumming. Likewise loops - I do use them but I only loop things I played myself.I suspect AI may be thought of the same way that DAW drummers are now used. It seems reasonable to use it to complete an idea that couldn’t be gotten any other way. When I get in front of my DAW I already feel like Superman compared with what I could accomplish just in front of a microphone without it. A drumming track could take a week or more (as a non-drummer). I have only used AI briefly for making images about a year ago and don’t intend to use it for music.
The scary thing about AI was the option of create an image “in the style of” (a famous artist). IF the same can be done with music by scraping websites, it might be possible for someone to decide to add sax in the style of Wade or guitar like one of the 5000 tracks from GlezBass. This is obviously a place to draw the line at acceptability but or perhaps it’s just a case of creator’s paranoia. It would be the difference in feeling between a button-pushing programmer and a real musician who would get guilt and no satisfaction from this kind of creation. I already feel that when inserting DAW loops unless it blends perfectly with something already partially finished.
Finally, because I accept that my work can easily be copied and repurposed elsewhere it actually makes me hope so—that someone likes it that much. :) The chance of being heard at all with the constant churn and ease of commercial sites to find new artists and sounds reduces the chance. I pay for Tidal as a way to practice and play with whole albums of my favorite artists (even from the ’60’s!) although I have less time for that as I have gotten more involved with WL. (Thank you).
Last year 100,000 tracks were uploaded to streaming platforms every single day. Commercialisation is next to impossible but is that really bad? Only for pros. I kind of like that music has become such a mainstream hobby and that we can create pleasing sounding music at home very cheaply. Also without commercial pressure one would think everyone is free to follow their muse rather than fashion. AI can make supermarket background slush, it's welcome to it.
+5
SUPPORTER
Posts: 3
Joined: 6 juin 2024
Humanity must be creative to thrive. If humanity shirks its duty to thrive, we may have signed our own death warrant due to allowing technology to be used for creation.
Humanity has created a technology that intercedes with our creative tendencies. We all joined WikiLoops to present a synopsis of our creative skill in a finished form, and to inspire others with our ingenuity. Why would we want technology to intercede for us when we are crafting music? If I bothered to join WikiLoops I must of had incentive to participate. I don't need (or want) a technology to make corrections or add its interpretations to my creations.
Artists should be welcome to use any tool they wish to use as long as they are ones with the finished product. For individuals using AI judiciously, they aren't subjugating crowds to outright replacement of human creativity. When creativity is replaced with AI selection, in its entirety, the technology immediately needs to be removed. We are the arbiters of AI integration.
The technology shouldn't be excluded merely because we are inconvenienced. It should be curbed for use in specific ways. Do we really want to have AI replace the human factor? I don't want to use something that is computer generated no matter how good it may seem. However, I am not doing extreme things like vocal replacement.
Like all of you, I make mistakes which I must go back and correct within my DAW. The technology is there that allows me to make those changes to achieve what I am looking for. However, the technology could make changes that do not fit with my criteria. Anyone trying to discern what AI will achieve, won't have a clue about what will be delivered.
AI will interpret an answer to a question in a different way than what a human being will. Thus, I don't want an artificial intelligence making decisions for me (a human being).
I don't need AI to make selections for me. I can make my own poor judgement without the need of an analysis calculation and choosing the 'best option' for me.
We must exercise AI's use judiciously and never allow it to do things which take the place of our mistakes and our creative freedom. Having the technology is convenient for specific things. It's not a necessity for most artists.
My history is as a computer administrator for many years at a casino and at the largest snackfood industry (sounds like F****-LAY) on the planet for 16 years. Seeing a technology replace humans with regard to creating something personal shouldn't be thought of as useful. A computer can't discern what my goals are with what I create. It can only create a facsimile of the real thing.
A computer should only be used to facilitate my choices and nothing more.
There are real world cases where AI can make a huge difference. Think of testing cells for cancer and trying to find a solution to kill off the cancer cell. A biologist may take months or years to concoct a remedy because they must do all of the testing for whatever they create. AI can help produce remedies almost overnight. What took years to find may take less than a month. The most destructive cells have a solution created by AI to protect humans. The technology isn't all bad, there are plenty of useful real world results. The idea is that AI must be used for 'good' purposes in every way and never for 'bad' purposes. I consider replacing my chosen method to create music a 'bad' idea.
Humanity has created a technology that intercedes with our creative tendencies. We all joined WikiLoops to present a synopsis of our creative skill in a finished form, and to inspire others with our ingenuity. Why would we want technology to intercede for us when we are crafting music? If I bothered to join WikiLoops I must of had incentive to participate. I don't need (or want) a technology to make corrections or add its interpretations to my creations.
Artists should be welcome to use any tool they wish to use as long as they are ones with the finished product. For individuals using AI judiciously, they aren't subjugating crowds to outright replacement of human creativity. When creativity is replaced with AI selection, in its entirety, the technology immediately needs to be removed. We are the arbiters of AI integration.
The technology shouldn't be excluded merely because we are inconvenienced. It should be curbed for use in specific ways. Do we really want to have AI replace the human factor? I don't want to use something that is computer generated no matter how good it may seem. However, I am not doing extreme things like vocal replacement.
Like all of you, I make mistakes which I must go back and correct within my DAW. The technology is there that allows me to make those changes to achieve what I am looking for. However, the technology could make changes that do not fit with my criteria. Anyone trying to discern what AI will achieve, won't have a clue about what will be delivered.
AI will interpret an answer to a question in a different way than what a human being will. Thus, I don't want an artificial intelligence making decisions for me (a human being).
I don't need AI to make selections for me. I can make my own poor judgement without the need of an analysis calculation and choosing the 'best option' for me.
We must exercise AI's use judiciously and never allow it to do things which take the place of our mistakes and our creative freedom. Having the technology is convenient for specific things. It's not a necessity for most artists.
My history is as a computer administrator for many years at a casino and at the largest snackfood industry (sounds like F****-LAY) on the planet for 16 years. Seeing a technology replace humans with regard to creating something personal shouldn't be thought of as useful. A computer can't discern what my goals are with what I create. It can only create a facsimile of the real thing.
A computer should only be used to facilitate my choices and nothing more.
There are real world cases where AI can make a huge difference. Think of testing cells for cancer and trying to find a solution to kill off the cancer cell. A biologist may take months or years to concoct a remedy because they must do all of the testing for whatever they create. AI can help produce remedies almost overnight. What took years to find may take less than a month. The most destructive cells have a solution created by AI to protect humans. The technology isn't all bad, there are plenty of useful real world results. The idea is that AI must be used for 'good' purposes in every way and never for 'bad' purposes. I consider replacing my chosen method to create music a 'bad' idea.
+1
Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 3rd NT1A Bundle
Rode NT1-A Complete Vocal Recording
299 €
iThis widget links to Thomann, our affiliate partner. We may receive a commission when you purchase a product there.
Visit Shop
SUPPORTER
Posts: 198
Joined: 1 janv. 2017
I find AI music, or "canned music" quite boring. Why even spend time with listening to music which is not personal.
wikiloops online jamsessions are brought to you with friendly
support by:
Wikiloops is a must for ageing musicians like myself ! It has given me something to look forward to every day ! I have made may new great friends !
onewholeft