AI GNR Songs

[doakes]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

No, it isn't. AI could absolutely create music that seems novel, like having been programmed to understand musical trends and what makes good music "good", without it necessarily being able to feel things and think. These are two very different things. 

Are you able to discuss the merits of AI "arts" without going completely Skynet on us? 

I don’t think we can discuss the merits or the dangers, unless we all acknowledge the common denominator of “machine learning.”

The AI will get better with every task we demand from it, whether seemingly benign or however grand in scale.

Not even counting the implicit biases programmed into the machine, we need to be careful what we teach AI, curb our enthusiasm and absolutely consider the larger implications of machine learning and human reliance on an ever increasing artificial sentience— Especially when using AI for “creative” purposes. 

[SoulMonster]

33 minutes ago, doakes said:

I don’t think we can discuss the merits or the dangers, unless we all acknowledge the common denominator of “machine learning.”

The AI will get better with every task we demand from it, whether seemingly benign or however grand in scale.

Not even counting the implicit biases programmed into the machine, we need to be careful what we teach AI, curb our enthusiasm and absolutely consider the larger implications of machine learning and human reliance on an ever increasing artificial sentience— Especially when using AI for “creative” purposes. 

Again, this seems like a generic argument advising caution to AI in general and nothing specific about AI "arts". Whether AI is good or bad and how to regulate it is a much wider discussion and, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant to the topic at hand. 

[fantomas]

The game has changed now.

I've made no hesitation on stating my opinions on AI "art" and that I feel that it's lazy. We all know that AI art is here to stay. This isn't news to anyone, but it's mostly just stealing and modifying existing art. There's no skill or talent involved.

Two weeks ago I was browsing YouTube, and AISIS came up. The concept is it's an Oasis "lost tapes" album from the 95-97 lineup. It's fun, but you know it isn't Oasis. Oasis never recorded anything like this. There is a mental disconnect that allows you to dismiss it. But me being me, I kept digging. I found a bunch of other Oasis and most of them were shit. Staticy vocals that sounded like words were cut and pasted together.  I was quickly thinking that the whole concept was dreadful. Then I found an uploader who had taken songs from Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds and added Liam's vocals to it. The first song it recommended was a rare b-side of Noel's called A Simple Game of Genius. I know the song well, so I figured I'd listen to it for a laugh. Now I am a huge, HUGE Oasis fan. I know both Liam's and Noel's voice extremely well. I know when someone is trying to imitate them. I assumed it was going to be another digitized mess. I wasn't prepared for what I heard. This is one of those "I remember where I was when..." moments.

I knew I wasn't listening to the real Liam Gallagher singing. The song was written and performed two years after Oasis split up. My head knew I wasn't listening to Oasis. My ears however heard something entirely different. I heard Liam singing a song he'd never recorded. Not a shitty digitized sampling. Liam Gallagher. The brothers sang and harmonized for six beautiful minutes. the uploader nailed the nuances of Liam's voice. The elongated syllables, the grow, the drawl, the cracking voice. All of it.  After the song ended, I sat in silence for ten minutes, uncertain how to feel. I was listening to something that was never supposed to be. I was at once feeling excited, dirty, but ultimately completely and utterly terrified. This is game changing. So why did this resonate with me, when the AI album did not? Liam and Noel were always better together, and most of the Oasis catalogue has demo albums of Noel on vocals. This felt like a natural progression of Oasis. The quality and level attention to detail is quite stunning.

There is so much to process here. So much good, but also so much bad. Musicians who are still alive and in charge of their music and embrace this are gifted immortality. The voice they had in their 20's can still be recorded and they can sound like they did at their prime. Axl or Steven Tyler are great examples. They can put out albums long after they are unable to. Then there's the gray area with reunions fans wanted but never happened and then "new" albums are released from fans tinkering with demos and whatnot. And then the loss of autonomy. Dead musicians who no longer have control of their music or legacy. What if we have a new Beatles or Queen album? Is that ethical? I've listened to Freddie Mercury singing The Final Countdown and Kurt Cobain singing Wonderwall, and they are all shit. 

Who decides what should or shouldn't be released? As fans should we boycott it? Are we lying to ourselves that it's real music? What is the definition of music? Should we feel the same emotional highs we receive when listening to bands that resonate with us? Can we experience the same highs? Are these highs real? How much of music is the person creating it? Their personality, their attitude, their larger than life swagger?  This changes everything we know and feel about music.

After I listened to A Simple Game of Genius, I sat in silence trying to process what I'd just experienced. Because I didn't just listen, I experienced. Where do we go from here? The game has changed now. The applications for this are at once exciting and utterly fucking terrifying.  How soon before we have politicians making comments and then blaming AI when things backfire? Or AI voices declaring war? We need checks and balances on AI before it's too late. It's all fun and games talking about Skynet and tech going sentient, but how far off that are we really?  This all warrants a much deeper discussion of just because we can, should we? 

 

 

[gunsnchalupas]

21 minutes ago, fantomas said:

The game has changed now.

I've made no hesitation on stating my opinions on AI "art" and that I feel that it's lazy. We all know that AI art is here to stay. This isn't news to anyone, but it's mostly just stealing and modifying existing art. There's no skill or talent involved.

Two weeks ago I was browsing YouTube, and AISIS came up. The concept is it's an Oasis "lost tapes" album from the 95-97 lineup. It's fun, but you know it isn't Oasis. Oasis never recorded anything like this. There is a mental disconnect that allows you to dismiss it. But me being me, I kept digging. I found a bunch of other Oasis and most of them were shit. Staticy vocals that sounded like words were cut and pasted together.  I was quickly thinking that the whole concept was dreadful. Then I found an uploader who had taken songs from Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds and added Liam's vocals to it. The first song it recommended was a rare b-side of Noel's called A Simple Game of Genius. I know the song well, so I figured I'd listen to it for a laugh. Now I am a huge, HUGE Oasis fan. I know both Liam's and Noel's voice extremely well. I know when someone is trying to imitate them. I assumed it was going to be another digitized mess. I wasn't prepared for what I heard. This is one of those "I remember where I was when..." moments.

I knew I wasn't listening to the real Liam Gallagher singing. The song was written and performed two years after Oasis split up. My head knew I wasn't listening to Oasis. My ears however heard something entirely different. I heard Liam singing a song he'd never recorded. Not a shitty digitized sampling. Liam Gallagher. The brothers sang and harmonized for six beautiful minutes. the uploader nailed the nuances of Liam's voice. The elongated syllables, the grow, the drawl, the cracking voice. All of it.  After the song ended, I sat in silence for ten minutes, uncertain how to feel. I was listening to something that was never supposed to be. I was at once feeling excited, dirty, but ultimately completely and utterly terrified. This is game changing. So why did this resonate with me, when the AI album did not? Liam and Noel were always better together, and most of the Oasis catalogue has demo albums of Noel on vocals. This felt like a natural progression of Oasis. The quality and level attention to detail is quite stunning.

There is so much to process here. So much good, but also so much bad. Musicians who are still alive and in charge of their music and embrace this are gifted immortality. The voice they had in their 20's can still be recorded and they can sound like they did at their prime. Axl or Steven Tyler are great examples. They can put out albums long after they are unable to. Then there's the gray area with reunions fans wanted but never happened and then "new" albums are released from fans tinkering with demos and whatnot. And then the loss of autonomy. Dead musicians who no longer have control of their music or legacy. What if we have a new Beatles or Queen album? Is that ethical? I've listened to Freddie Mercury singing The Final Countdown and Kurt Cobain singing Wonderwall, and they are all shit. 

Who decides what should or shouldn't be released? As fans should we boycott it? Are we lying to ourselves that it's real music? What is the definition of music? Should we feel the same emotional highs we receive when listening to bands that resonate with us? Can we experience the same highs? Are these highs real? How much of music is the person creating it? Their personality, their attitude, their larger than life swagger?  This changes everything we know and feel about music.

After I listened to A Simple Game of Genius, I sat in silence trying to process what I'd just experienced. Because I didn't just listen, I experienced. Where do we go from here? The game has changed now. The applications for this are at once exciting and utterly fucking terrifying.  How soon before we have politicians making comments and then blaming AI when things backfire? Or AI voices declaring war? We need checks and balances on AI before it's too late. It's all fun and games talking about Skynet and tech going sentient, but how far off that are we really?  This all warrants a much deeper discussion of just because we can, should we? 

 

 

 

A lot of people making AI covers are doing a half assed job. As in, they haven't taken the time to learn how to do it properly, they may not have the proper equipment, etc. I am currently researching it, and there is a definite way to do it properly that takes longer. To do it properly, you have to spend time building a library of vocal stems, clip and edit the songs to remove anything that might be interfering with the training, separate vocals when there are more than one vocal track, remix it, lots of trial and error, etc. 

An example, I made a thread about AI wallpapers. I put those together in 5 minutes. I didn't do a good job on them. If you look at them closely, you can see how derpy the sidewalk is on the AFD one, or how the CD one doesn't actually look like a cohesive area. I just thought people would get a kick out of them. The same as the people making this Axl AI covers and putting them on Youtube. I think it's just people casually doing it and having fun, and even if they aren't great yet, people get a kick out of them. In the case of the wallpapers, someone who didn't want to do a half ass job, and who already had the skill or ambition to learn how to use Photoshop or Illustrator like a professional could conceivably use AI to expand the AFD cover into a wall paper that is indistinguishable from one that they took longer to illustrate themselves. So the current Axl covers sounding as they do seems to be a matter of skill and ambition, and not of limitations with the AI.

That's basically what is happening with some of these AI covers. People are making them, and Axl sounds like a shit metal robot. Out of the few dozen Axl ones posted, there has only been one that if it was posted prior to AI being a household thing, you would think it was actually Axl. That is mainly because the original vocal track was close enough to Axl's range and style that there was a lot less artifacts and clipping. I think it's cool that people are getting excited about the AI stuff and posting new music, and I am not meaning to insult or discourage the two or three people posting Axl covers, but I suspect the reason they sound like they do aren't down to the limitations of the current AI technology but down to the fact that as it stands now it still requires time, effort, and a certain level of knowledge about audio to produce a decent AI cover. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by gunsnchalupas

[fantomas]

9 minutes ago, gunsnchalupas said:

 

A lot of people making AI covers are doing a half assed job. As in, they haven't taken the time to learn how to do it properly, they may not have the proper equipment, etc. I am currently researching it, and there is a definite way to do it properly that takes longer. To do it properly, you have to spend time building a library of vocal stems, clip and edit the songs to remove anything that might be interfering with the training, separate vocals when there are more than one vocal track, remix it, lots of trial and error, etc. 

An example, I made a thread about AI wallpapers. I put those together in 5 minutes. I didn't do a good job on them. If you look at them closely, you can see how derpy the sidewalk is on the AFD one, or how the CD one doesn't actually look like a cohesive area. I just thought people would get a kick out of them. The same as the people making this Axl AI covers and putting them on Youtube. I think it's just people casually doing it and having fun, and even if they aren't great yet, people get a kick out of them. In the case of the wallpapers, someone who didn't want to do a half ass job, and who already had the skill or ambition to learn how to use Photoshop or Illustrator like a professional could conceivably use AI to expand the AFD cover into a wall paper that is indistinguishable from one that they took longer to illustrate themselves. So the current Axl covers sounding as they do seems to be a matter of skill and ambition, and not of limitations with the AI.

That's basically what is happening with some of these AI covers. People are making them, and Axl sounds like a shit metal robot. Out of the few dozen Axl ones posted, there has only been one that if it was posted prior to AI being a household thing, you would think it was actually Axl. That is mainly because the original vocal track was close enough to Axl's range and style that there was a lot less artifacts and clipping. I think it's cool that people are getting excited about the AI stuff and posting new music, and I am not meaning to insult or discourage the two or three people posting Axl covers, but I suspect the reason they sound like they do aren't down to the limitations of the current AI technology but down to the fact that as it stands now it still requires time, effort, and a certain level of knowledge about audio to produce a decent AI cover. 

But then the issue becomes if the fakes are so good, and casual listeners can't tell the difference, where is the motivation on the artist to keep recording?  For the longest time the discussion has centered around record labels screwing artists on album sales and the artists only making money on tours, but what happens when/if the labels decide to start releasing albums based on contract small print that are AI generated? They own the rights to the masters, can they use the vocals to program into new music?  Why would performers go on the road to sing songs they didn't record? What if an artist is using Ai to release music, but doesn't tell the fans? Does it matter how it was created? Would you feel cheated if you found out that band you love had put out four albums where the vocals were fake? Does it matter? I don't have the answers for any of this as we're all in new and unclear waters now.

The entire AI discussion is hypothetical for now. We can talk about the maybe's and what if's, but there is a lot we just don't know. Record labels love money and have proven time after time that they don't always have the artists best interests at heart.  Where there is money to grab, you know they will. It's all cute and charming now, but what happens when the technology replaces the need to have artists? Absurd? Possibly. Likely? Unknown. Would you buy an AI Gn'R album? Could you have the same emotional connection as you did when you heard Appetite for the first time. Would it affect your opinion if the band was involved and gave their blessing? I think the whole discussion is fascinating, but let's not fool ourselves about the slippery slope we find ourselves on. There are some practical uses for AI, but this could all just as easily go very wrong. 

[LandOla]

This is just wrong. And it's scary how fast this has evolved. Please nuke as all the hell out of this world.

[DeNfr]

 

telephone invention is so lazy...now we can talk to another person without walking 80 miles to do so.
I hate technology, science is bad and scary. 

[fantomas]

16 minutes ago, DeNfr said:

 

telephone invention is so lazy...now we can talk to another person without walking 80 miles to do so.
I hate technology, science is bad and scary. 

That's apples to oranges. You're comparing an invention that was designed with the sole intention of allowing people to communicate over long distances. Yes, AI is lazy. I stand behind that statement. It is allowing people with no artistic talent to create art from simply typing in a prompt. If you start making art accessible to everyone, what is the need or value of real artists? We're already having books and comics written by AI, yet the lazy shits doing it are slapping their name on it and selling it as their own work.  How does AI art/music benefit society as a whole? It doesn't. The telephone did.

[Sweersa]

The Crash Diet with AI Axl vocals is impressive. (It can be found on YouTube) It's late '80s to early '90s Axl, so it would sound off on a CD or more modern era GN'R song. 

I'm sure with the CD isolated vocal tracks, an AI Axl of his different singing styles on that album could be fashioned.

Weird times, for sure. Not sure how I feel about it. 

[DeNfr]

25 minutes ago, fantomas said:

That's apples to oranges. You're comparing an invention that was designed with the sole intention of allowing people to communicate over long distances. Yes, AI is lazy. I stand behind that statement. It is allowing people with no artistic talent to create art from simply typing in a prompt. If you start making art accessible to everyone, what is the need or value of real artists? We're already having books and comics written by AI, yet the lazy shits doing it are slapping their name on it and selling it as their own work.  How does AI art/music benefit society as a whole? It doesn't. The telephone did.

 

well, if an invention allows everyone to become a creative person, that's probably evil, you're very correct my dude, don't allow common mortal to become more than they are, vade retro, filthy technology!

[Rovim]

17 minutes ago, fantomas said:

That's apples to oranges. You're comparing an invention that was designed with the sole intention of allowing people to communicate over long distances. Yes, AI is lazy. I stand behind that statement. It is allowing people with no artistic talent to create art from simply typing in a prompt. If you start making art accessible to everyone, what is the need or value of real artists? We're already having books and comics written by AI, yet the lazy shits doing it are slapping their name on it and selling it as their own work.  How does AI art/music benefit society as a whole? It doesn't. The telephone did.

it's not just restricted to typing in a command, it's a powerful tool artists and musicians can use in more intricate ways.

[fantomas]

1 hour ago, DeNfr said:

 

well, if an invention allows everyone to become a creative person, that's probably evil, you're very correct my dude, don't allow common mortal to become more than they are, vade retro, filthy technology!

You're looking at this wrong. It's not about keeping people down. If everyone can create art without any artistic skill, why would we need real artists? Can you fully appreciate art made by a computer versus that made by a human? Music, drawings or otherwise?  You can't because it's soulless. There's no meaning or depth behind it. It's an algorithm.  There's a reason why only some people can sing, play a guitar, write, act, draw.  It's a gift and it makes it special. It allows us to make connections with others. If everyone can do it with minimal effort, then it loses all meaning and value. For example, we're here to discuss Gn'R. Their music has brought us together. If the music was made by a computer, how can we relate to it? It's simple. We can't.  Most of Appetite works as it's a biography. The band lived that album. A computer generated AFD wouldn't have that same impact, because the core emotion is gone. It's a facade.

[fantomas]

1 hour ago, Rovim said:

it's not just restricted to typing in a command, it's a powerful tool artists and musicians can use in more intricate ways.

Midjourney is nothing more that typing /imagine (prompt) Therefore AI art is about as lazy as it gets. Especially given that much of it harvests from existing artwork. There's already plenty of lawsuits doing the rounds from artists whose work has been stolen.  

AI music dangles its toe over a moral and ethical line.  Who should use it? Estates of dead celebrities? Artists who can no longer sing? Artists who can't be bothered to sing? Fans? Record labels? Yes, it is a powerful tool, almost too powerful. Unchecked it is going to cause all kinds of legal issues. 

[BucketEgg]

i always thought that Axl sounded like what if you turned a hawk into a human. maybe i should finally put that idea to the test

one day, when i have the time, i'm going to get so many sample sounds of red-tailed hawks and other cool sounding birds, then have an AI train on them. Then I'm going to have abominations of guns n roses (covered by birds) audio files on my computer.

squawk squawk!

 

 

(bald eagles make cheep cheep sounds, they're so cute.)

 

 

[Rovim]

14 minutes ago, fantomas said:

Midjourney is nothing more that typing /imagine (prompt) Therefore AI art is about as lazy as it gets. Especially given that much of it harvests from existing artwork. There's already plenty of lawsuits doing the rounds from artists whose work has been stolen.  

AI music dangles its toe over a moral and ethical line.  Who should use it? Estates of dead celebrities? Artists who can no longer sing? Artists who can't be bothered to sing? Fans? Record labels? Yes, it is a powerful tool, almost too powerful. Unchecked it is going to cause all kinds of legal issues. 

current limitations - not sure how relevant when it comes to this type of technology, but even still, some musicians and artists are showing interest in using it in what seems to be interesting way and a non creative person or whatever you wanna call people who have no background when it comes to the arts or music seem to like it and have a use for it. I'm aware of the problems a technology like this brings with it, but I do see the potential value in using it in a responsible way, or at least as much as possible, but I was more touching on the ways which is can be used in creative ways to help people create their art.

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Rovim

[fantomas]

Just now, Rovim said:

current limitations - not sure how relevant when it comes to this type of technology, but even still, some musicians and artists are showing interest in using it in what seems to be interesting way and a non creative person or whatever you wanna call people who has no background when it comes to the arts or music seem to like it and have a use for it. I'm aware of the problems a technology like this brings with it, but I do see the potential value in using it in a responsible way, or at least as much as possible, but I was more touching on the ways which is can be used in creative ways to help people create their art.

 

When has humanity ever used tech in responsible ways?  We invent something new and within six months it's used to either steal, exploit or fuck. We can barely be trusted with the tech we can control, AI is opening a Pandora's Box that we will not be able to close when it's fully opened. Right now, it's making John Lennon sing Green Day songs, which is cute and all, but how soon before it's being utilized for something more ominous?  The simulation of voice combined with bad actors is going to cause so many problems that any potential good that comes from AI is going to be erased. Then add that to de-aging or face simulation tech, and we have people saying things that could cause all kinds of problems. How do you believe what you see and hear when you can't differentiate between what's fake and what's real? In a utopian society it would be used to create, but in reality, it's going to be used by criminals and politicians to lie, back track, and point fingers even more than they do now.  We're already divided by politics. This is not going to do anything to improve things.  We all know it won't be limited to the arts.  When AI creators are already starting to speak out on their concerns, we're standing on the edge of a precipice. As I said, when I heard AI Oasis for the first time, I was at once excited and terrified. This isn't going to end well.

Right now, AI music gives us some really cool "What ifs". If only it would stop there.

[Stro]

For now, its a novelty in the same way as the CD/VR mash ups. It could get real sketchy in the future, but could also just as easily be another tool used by the artists themselves to produce something like Pro Tools and auto tuning allowed for further creativity.

[fantomas]

4 minutes ago, Stro said:

For now, its a novelty in the same way as the CD/VR mash ups. It could get real sketchy in the future, but could also just as easily be another tool used by the artists themselves to produce something like Pro Tools and auto tuning allowed for further creativity.

And that is the crossroads we are going to find ourselves at in the very near future. My concern is that conversation is going to come up faster than we realize.

[Rovim]

3 minutes ago, fantomas said:

When has humanity ever used tech in responsible ways?  We invent something new and within six months it's used to either steal, exploit or fuck. We can barely be trusted with the tech we can control, AI is opening a Pandora's Box that we will not be able to close when it's fully opened. Right now, it's making John Lennon sing Green Day songs, which is cute and all, but how soon before it's being utilized for something more ominous?  The simulation of voice combined with bad actors is going to cause so many problems that any potential good that comes from AI is going to be erased. Then add that to de-aging or face simulation tech, and we have people saying things that could cause all kinds of problems. How do you believe what you see and hear when you can't differentiate between what's fake and what's real? In a utopian society it would be used to create, but in reality, it's going to be used by criminals and politicians to lie, back track, and point fingers even more than they do now.  We're already divided by politics. This is not going to do anything to improve things.  We all know it won't be limited to the arts.  When AI creators are already starting to speak out on their concerns, we're standing on the edge of a precipice. As I said, when I heard AI Oasis for the first time, I was at once excited and terrified. This isn't going to end well.

Right now, AI music gives us some really cool "What ifs". If only it would stop there.

my conclusion is that it's a very powerful tool that is going to change and already has changed/is changing the way we do a lot of things, for better or worse when it comes to music and art, I'm not discussing all of the issue right now, and I'm not judging this tech based on just the harm it can do to music and art cause I feel that that doesn't represent it in an accurate way. 

it's already here so might as well understand how to make the best uses of it with minimal damage to what we all enjoy in music and art. I think the instinct for creative people to create and the need of people to connect will hopefully keep it going side by side with more AI driven content or a hybrid of both.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, fantomas said:

You're looking at this wrong. It's not about keeping people down. If everyone can create art without any artistic skill, why would we need real artists? Can you fully appreciate art made by a computer versus that made by a human? Music, drawings or otherwise?  You can't because it's soulless. There's no meaning or depth behind it. It's an algorithm.  There's a reason why only some people can sing, play a guitar, write, act, draw.  It's a gift and it makes it special. It allows us to make connections with others. If everyone can do it with minimal effort, then it loses all meaning and value. For example, we're here to discuss Gn'R. Their music has brought us together. If the music was made by a computer, how can we relate to it? It's simple. We can't.  Most of Appetite works as it's a biography. The band lived that album. A computer generated AFD wouldn't have that same impact, because the core emotion is gone. It's a facade.

But this will regulate itself. If people don't want AI arts because it is soulless, than no one will create it and it disappears and problem solved. If, on the other hand, people still enjoy it, then your argument is wrong. 

[fantomas]

21 minutes ago, Rovim said:

my conclusion is that it's a very powerful tool that is going to change and already has changed/is changing the way we do a lot of things, for better or worse when it comes to music and art, I'm not discussing all of the issue right now, and I'm not judging this tech based on just the harm it can do to music and art cause I feel that that doesn't represent it in an accurate way. 

it's already here so might as well understand how to make the best uses of it with minimal damage to what we all enjoy in music and art. I think the instinct for creative people to create and the need of people to connect will hopefully keep it going side by side with more AI driven content or a hybrid of both.

I think the time to prevent damage to music and art has passed. We can't cherry pick which parts of the discussion we want to have. The applications of AI technology are widespread and potentially dangerous and I think the cons far outweigh the pros at this point. This is a really discussion though, so thanks for that.

[fantomas]

36 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But this will regulate itself. If people don't want AI arts because it is soulless, than no one will create it and it disappears and problem solved. If, on the other hand, people still enjoy it, then your argument is wrong. 

But I think it changes everything we think and feel about music. How it resonates with us on a personal level. Can we have the same attachment to an AI Axl as we do to the real thing? I don't have the answers, but I find the whole subject fascinating. My biggest concern is the applications outside of music and the potential for destructive abuse. I'm not talking Skynet, I'm taking terrorists or threats to national or global security. I think the music element of voice replication is just the tip of the iceberg.  As I've said, this is a really cool discussion.

[DeNfr]

2 hours ago, fantomas said:

You're looking at this wrong. It's not about keeping people down. If everyone can create art without any artistic skill, why would we need real artists? Can you fully appreciate art made by a computer versus that made by a human? Music, drawings or otherwise?  You can't because it's soulless. There's no meaning or depth behind it. It's an algorithm.  There's a reason why only some people can sing, play a guitar, write, act, draw.  It's a gift and it makes it special. It allows us to make connections with others. If everyone can do it with minimal effort, then it loses all meaning and value. For example, we're here to discuss Gn'R. Their music has brought us together. If the music was made by a computer, how can we relate to it? It's simple. We can't.  Most of Appetite works as it's a biography. The band lived that album. A computer generated AFD wouldn't have that same impact, because the core emotion is gone. It's a facade.

 

imagine one minute the world you live in is a big lie, a virtual reality generated by a powerful AI, and GNR music is too, would it diminished its qualities because it's not "human"?
I don't think so.

there's nothing as "gifts". you have interests, and you work hard to develop skills. every child draws. most stops, some continues : they become visual artists, painters, etc. that's my case.

do I use AI? yes, that's a fantastic way to create new stuff, is it easy to obtain what you want? no. give an AI to someone who has no artistic background, no imagination, no sense of composition or color, you obtain shit, bad images, there's a lot online, you can see them. now give the same AI to an artist, you'll find some amazing things who "connects people".

it's just a tool, and writing a perfect prompt is not an easy task.

for a musician, it can helps you to generate very quickly different parts. it's not that different that having a bunch of studio musicians who tries 15 solos for on track. 
except with AI you can have 150 solos in minutes.

way to increase Axl's productivity...

 

 

 

[Rovim]

4 minutes ago, fantomas said:

I think the time to prevent damage to music and art has passed. We can't cherry pick which parts of the discussion we want to have. The applications of AI technology are widespread and potentially dangerous and I think the cons far outweigh the pros at this point. This is a really discussion though, so thanks for that.

to prevent the invention from being invented and used, yes but I think we should do our best to protect the artists and their work as I think this tool has a future when it comes to what we're talking about in this thread and its application can be what leads us to new ways of making art for example. Personally, I'm not sure I'm interested in what it can do in this field beyond being curious about its potential, but maybe that will change.

I'm not ignoring the drawbacks btw, or cherry pick shit, but we're still here with nukes, maybe real music will still be here with a much more advanced version of the technology cause people still want to create and to consume music and art that is made by humans (so far)

[fantomas]

1 minute ago, DeNfr said:

 

imagine one minute the world you live in is a big lie, a virtual reality generated by a powerful AI, and GNR music is too, would it diminished its qualities because it's not "human"?
I don't think so.

there's nothing as "gifts". you have interests, and you work hard to develop skills. every child draws. most stops, some continues : they become visual artists, painters, etc. that's my case.

do I use AI? yes, that's a fantastic way to create new stuff, is it easy to obtain what you want? no. give an AI to someone who has no artistic background, no imagination, no sense of composition or color, you obtain shit, bad images, there's a lot online, you can see them. now give the same AI to an artist, you'll find some amazing things who "connects people".

it's just a tool, and writing a perfect prompt is not an easy task.

for a musician, it can helps you to generate very quickly different parts. it's not that different that having a bunch of studio musicians who tries 15 solos for on track. 
except with AI you can have 150 solos in minutes.

way to increase Axl's productivity...

 

 

 

There is a difference between augmentation and creation. Using AI to supplement existing art is different than allowing it to create it from scratch. When you can skip the human middleman, you have tech creating tech and by it's very definition it is soulless. 

I disagree as far as talent not being a gift or skills. You can learn the fundamentals, but if you don't have the natural eye for scale, depth, perspective or the ear for pitch, tune or tone. you won't fully hone your craft.  Not everyone can act, or write or produce music. That's just how it is. We will always need entertainers. But if everyone can create, where is the need for us to gather in communities to celebrate it? It would remove uniqueness and the social need for art and talents that brings us together.

As far as needing talent to create AI art, I'm guessing you haven't used Midjourney yet? If you can string five words together it will create your vision. It's lazy. And in an era where we suffer from massive plagiarism, this will make things even worse.