If A.I. took the place of musicians, would you listen to it?

@baylinor - the referrals still seem to work, but the autofill doesn't and the text looks just like all the other text.... 

@larryi

That's like Monsanto suing farmers when genetically modified seeds are, unbeknownst to them, transported onto their property and germinate. 

There's no ceiling when it comes to human greed and I expect AI will merely provide more tools for those who are so motivated. 

I’ve been thinking about this for a bit and it seems to me that my affinity is due to art, music, and literature being a form of human expression and connection.  It is a way for the artist to express sadness, joy, anger, empathy, passion, or whatever other human emotion that drives the creative process.  It is a form of human connection based on sharing the experience of the human condition.  I don’t know if will live long enough to see AI evolve to the point that it has “human” experiences but for now I don’t find that connection with it as opposed to art created by human minds.

There is a company out there with a business model that involves using computers to generate "music," filing for copyright of that music, then using software to search for instances where new music happens to violate one of their copyrights so that they can sue that person or extract some payment from such person inadvertently violating the copyright.  

This company is right up there in my esteem with the company that is buying Ahi tuna for ultra deep freeze storage so that, in the future, they can sell sushi at incredibly high prices when the tuna is extinct.

Great thread. Thanks @hilde45

We are experiencing a preview of A.I. generated music right now. If you have Serius XM try listening to the station of current Pop hits for a couple of hours. There are three or four genres and within those genres this music is regurgitated, homogenous pablum that is made on electronic instruments. There is very little song structure, the beats sound the same, the chord structures are similar, and it is hard to tell one song from the other. It is made purely for profit and directed to an audience that wants to hear the same thing over and over. BTW, I sometimes listen to this station while driving just so I can be judgemental and yell at the radio. It makes me feel good to know that my generation made music that was so much better.

120,000 songs are uploaded to Spotify every day. Think about that. 3.6 million songs per month. We are already at the point where music is a fungible commodity.

I will avoid music that is known to be A.I. generated but there won't be a clear dividing line. What if a musician uses A.I. to come up with a catchy riff? How about A.I. lyrics that tell a compelling story but the musician writes the tune? Most of the time we'll never know. I think we are clearly on the road to popular music as a commodity and A.I. will accelerate that trend.

I'm in my late 60's and I'm constantly discovering great music that is decades old (thanks Qobuz). I'm finally doing a deeper dive into jazz, for example. And there are new interesting titles being released all the time by real musicians. My dying words will likely be, "I wish I had more time to listen to music." The music business can completely go to hell and I will be finding great music until I die.

On a related subject, if you haven't seen it already, I highly recommend the movie "Her."

Until AI has emotional trauma, vices, virtues, regrets, and hope, it's music will simply be a reorganization of sounds that were created in response to those lived experiences. Some human songwriters do that already and I'm not interested in their music either.

Interesting answers. Thanks.

@snilf -- will download. Thanks so much.

Machines can, because they already do, produce "meaningful" sequences of words, notes, colors, etc. These artifacts become artworks when someone regards them as such.

Thinking about George Dickie as I read your words. Of course, for him (and Danto, and maybe Hume), who that "someone" is matters a great deal. I’ll go read your piece to see your reasoning in more detail. Also agree that Turing test is inadequate. Thanks again.

Beato stuff is great. Strong recommend.

’Sermons in church’? Don’t get me started there.

Not everybody here has a wife and kids.

Those are examples. I’m counting on readers to extrapolate.

For whatever reason I want to hear music that a human being has created of their own imagination after working hard to master (at least to some degree) a musical instrument.

Me too. Just like I want to hear from my "wife and kids" and not a simulation of them and a "sermon in church" and not a simulation. Communication from a human being to another -- in the form of family banter, spiritual wisdom, or even music.

I have been a musician most of my 60 years and know how hard it is to create something that touches people to their core.

This gets at a very important factor for me. It’s not just about being interested or pleased by the "product." It’s about receiving and experiencing something some other living, feeling person has created.

It’s up to you. If you like an AI generated song... fine. I wouldn’t try to censor it. If the real artist can do better then do it and I’ll listen to that instead.

Well stated version of the notion that the only factor that matters is how the consumer feels. Thanks for putting it so definitely!

we live in a culture where those who have the greatest capacity for leveraging technology for the sake of enhancing personal wealth and power enjoy an unhealthy level of influence

Well stated. In addition, the people writing the code are not artists and they don’t care about the range of feelings and emotions and values that artists care about. They care about "consumer satisfaction" in the short term, and that will mean something different than what artists with a longer vision or independent personality care about, I reckon.

No A.I. program would ever have created "Guernica" as Picasso did. A.I. does not tend to make passionate statements against war, injustice, etc. I guess it could, but I wouldn't expect it to. And even if it did, just "who" would be taking a moral stand in that case? It would just be a generated pattern ostensibly against injustice, but not really having a stake in this world at all.

Guessing that only humans can create something truly “new and unique” makes me inclined to dismiss AI as a viable, long-term listening option.

As others point out, A.I. will be getting much more clever, and fast, especially as it sucks up the human-created novelty you value (and I do, too). It will be much harder to avoid and it will be much more engaging and interesting, I suspect. Those with the view "If it pleases me, it’s good" will be completely satisfied by these fabrications.

For most listeners likable music has to sound somewhat familiar without sounding exactly like something else. Music has to sound like you expect it to sound and when it doesn’t it’s hard to engage with.

Very true. Sort of like the homogenization of food taste. Fat, salt, sugar and a nice display -- what more could we want! ;-) And then you go to Italy and taste real butter, cheese, wine -- almost a realization that one has been eating food made on a (Star Trek) replicator. Good, real ingredients create experiences hard to imagine beforehand. Maybe this analogy works with music, maybe not. Kind of depends on what one is listening for and that is a very individualized purpose.

I don't listen to much recorded after about 1980 anyway; it won't be a problem.

I would listen to some but only out of curiosity and then I would be done. There is way more human created music than I’ll ever be able to listen to. I don’t want to waste my time or spend money to support the AI created music industry. As a musician, I understand how hard it is to make it in the industry and how many musicians struggle to make it. The music industry does not need AI. 

Kraftwerk... 'we are the robots'    They (robot legs dancing only) were the featured act at the music awards back in the 80's. Was very popular and interesting to listen to.

Singers made themselves sound like robots and now robots are sounding like singers.

Well, imagine going to an AI concert.  Whatcha gonna see?  Why go?  I am not buying into it no matter what.  I like old music anyway and seldom find new artists who trip my trigger.  

No AI interest for me, I guess that's why I was born in the middle of last century. On another note, I noticed the administration has cut off our ability to directly communicate to eachother with the blue @ gizmo. They must figure it to be a way to cut down on nasty blog interaction. 

If it sounds good it’s good. I’m sure a goodly amount of music is manipulated at the bench so to say, what’s the difference. Instruments are man-made someone that can’t sing can’t sing…or run it through the process, bingo a star is born ! So get used to it, shellac 78 records are toast. 

I’m not sure that AI would affect my listening habits much. Almost everything I listen to is from the 50’s through the 70’s. 

The overwhelming majority of music is not the work genius.  It's work and involves craftsmanship, but it usually involves working within forms that is fairly well defined and providing small variations to those forms.  For most listeners likable music has to sound somewhat familiar without sounding exactly like something else.  Music has to sound like you expect it to sound and when it doesn't it's hard to engage with.  AI should be really good at creating most music types and some of this generated music might actually sound "good".  But just like most human created music, most it won't sound "good".

In the late 1990s computers started beating grand masters at chess.  Somehow people still play chess.

I agree with @sns when he mentions "sentience" as important in distinguishing real human minds from computer simulacra, but then he goes on to say "If people perceive it as a sentient being isn't it a sentient being?" This assumes something like the Turing Test, or "Imitation Game," as sufficient for determining machines as genuine minds. I think this is mistaken (as does Searle, Chomsky, Chalmers and many others). Again, see my essay linked above for a full discussion, if you're interested.

I've got a long address to this very question, just published last month. Here's the link: https://www.cckp.space (go to the paper "Our Minds, Our Selves: Mind, Meaning, and Machines" to download it for free). 

Short take: it's a mistake to consider the product alone as the artwork. Art is a matter of a complex interaction between creator and appreciator; it necessarily involves a social context, and the values which structure social context involves sentience (feelings of pleasure and pain). Machines can, because they already do, produce "meaningful" sequences of words, notes, colors, etc. These artifacts become artworks when someone regards them as such.

Would we recognize the difference? :)

Classical music was created by bots from prior civilization.

Interesting question indeed.

Back in the 60’s a group of studio musicians who were eventually referred to as “the wrecking crew” provided the early musical background for The Byrds, The Beach Boys, The Doors (?), and who knows who else.

Audiences who saw those groups had no reason to believe the musicians onstage didn’t record those songs that they loved. Does that classify as deception?

An 80’s band whose album I really liked usually played with a drummer I admired and respected. However, I read a few years ago they used a drum machine when recording the album. I was seriously conflicted as to whether I still liked the music as much knowing that bit of information (I saw them touring the album with the aforementioned human drummer).

In my mind there are parallels between AI and these pre-AI occurrences.

Guessing that only humans can create something truly “new and unique” makes me inclined to dismiss AI as a viable, long-term listening option.

If I cannot go see them, him, her perform the music I will not be supporting that music. There is far too much excellent new music being made and at our fingertips to not support these artists. I have been a musician most of my 60 years and know how hard it is to create something that touches people to their core. AI will never do that in my lifetime. Thank God.

I wouldn't. 

What's A.I.? 

Rick Beato takes.
 

https://youtu.be/zbo6SdyWGns

https://youtube.com/shorts/Tq5zfDyQL5k

Big Nope. 

No.  I would not listen to it.

Technology may not be the enemy, if considered within a vacuum.

However, it’s uses and impacts are all too often determined by aspects of human nature whose benefit to humanity as a whole is, in my view, questionable at best.Furthermore, we live in a culture where those who have the greatest capacity for leveraging technology for the sake of enhancing personal wealth and power enjoy an unhealthy level of influence when it comes to avoiding regulation and enjoying impunity from being held responsible for the destructive impacts their utilization of technology  incurs. Zuckerberg is a great example.

As a creative person, why would I want to help such individuals enrich themselves or aid them in replacing human artists with software?

@jastralfu - you are right; getting paid as an artist is bad enough as it is, and you wouldn't want a Milli Vanilli situation where the artists do not perform on the record. But ultimately I do not see an artistic problem as long as the recording is not misidentified as something it's not. 

@larsman AI might not stop humans from creating art but it might prevent them from getting paid.  This is a thing in the music industry where companies are using the music libraries they own to train AI to write, produce and record songs in the style of human artists.  Rick Beato has done a couple of videos on the subject.  Not that he is an expert on AI but he has an interesting take on it.

A good song would still be enjoyable to listen to no matter who made it. I don't see   a reason to hate on it just because it's AI generated.

It's up to you. If you like an AI generated song... fine. I wouldn't try to censor it.  If the real artist can do better then do it and I'll listen to that instead.

It is an open question of how far AI can go. This is the most dangerous experiment I can think of. We can't really even control ourselves, how can we hope to be able to control we don't know what ? And why bother with this AI nonsense, anyway ?

Primitive robots is one thing and true AI is something completely different.

@hilde45

"Ah, so it's just their present state of development, and you have no objection to AI in principle -- it's just not good enough. I feel the same way about butter substitutes, but not about art."

Why would I object to AI until it has done something objectionable? Technology is not the enemy. It is what we do with it that causes all the problems. Comparing AI to butter substitutes is apples to oranges.

Besides, what I said was....

"Until AI is capable of actual creative genius, as opposed to merely clever mimicry, it will never push creativity forward or have the ability to touch our souls."

Cherry picking parts of a quote to suit your narrative is never a good practice.

Yes, although I lament the abuse that A.I. can bring, too late to do anything about it and any protest to reverse direction would be fruitless.

@hilde45 - 'Sermons in church'? Don't get me started there.

Not everybody here has a wife and kids.  

And yes, that would go for painting, novels, and other arts. An AI-written novel would not stop humans from writing novels or other humans from reading them. Same goes for paintings. I see it as 'more', not 'instead of'. ... 

Likely not.  For whatever reason I want to hear music that a human being has created of their own imagination after working hard to master (at least to some degree) a musical instrument.  I find AI interesting and use it in my work but in terms of artistic creativity I prefer human endeavors.

@larsman

I'd be perfectly fine with it if I liked it. I don't care much how the sausage is made if it tastes good to me. And AI is still programs created by humans. 

Interesting. Would this extend to painting, novels, art, too?

How about sermons in church?

How about the things your wife or kids say to you? What if they were being written by A.I.? As long you are made happy by them, it doesn't matter where it came from? 

@sns

Interesting questions raised by your post. I definitely agree we can and will be fooled. I am wondering if there's a reason to care if we're fooled. The limit case here is the kind of situation we find in science fiction, e.g. the human who thinks they're in love with another human but is in love with a simulation instead. Some would say, "Sure, give me the robot spouse as long as they please me" whereas others would say, "Being in a relationship means having a partner whose ethical value matters, who I am responsible to and for." One cannot care for a robot and, for me, caring makes me human.

The systems analysts, at least in their roles as technologists advancing company objectives, are (in my mind) more machine than man.

As to your further comment, about sentience, I guess it depends on how that gets defined. One can imagine that if sentience is nothing more than us *thinking* something is sentient, then it is measured by our epistemic limits, which are fairly low.

@tony1954

Until AI is capable of actual creative genius, as opposed to merely clever mimicry

Ah, so it's just their present state of development, and you have no objection to AI in principle -- it's just not good enough. I feel the same way about butter substitutes, but not about art.

@robert53

Emotion, imagination, skill and intelligence are all utilized to play and write music. Does AI have all these?

No. And those are important, to me. To others, they may all be superfluous. E.g. for @larsman, all he/she/they want is to have the right kind of reaction. They need their buttons pushed, and nothing more.

There will probably be many Zuckerberg-like, non-musician nerds getting rich from generating music through AI in the future, and some of it may even be good.  Good for them I guess, but I’ll never respect or wanna meet them, and I’ll damn sure never go see a buncha bots perform live music.  People will always be the heart and soul of music whatever AI brings to the table. 

People really underestimating the abilities of AI going into the future. We are presently in the infancy stage of AI, AI will replicate all the emotion, imagination, skill and intelligence of living breathing humans ,however,  it can never be a sentient being. The question is, will that matter in the long run? If people perceive it as a sentient being isn't it a sentient being?  Some already interacting with robots as sentient beings, I expect human's relation to AI to only expand into the future, expect long term emotional relationships. Our emotional involvement with AI generated music will become ubiquitous and accepted given enough time, easy accomplishment vs. a personal friendship/relationship.

Emotion, imagination, skill and intelligence are all utilized to play and write music. Does AI have all these?

Not intentionally. 

Very interesting question.

On the whole, if the music moves me, then I would probably listen to it and I wouldn't boycott Qobuz if it was part of their music library.

However, when it comes to replacing actual musicians, that's where the issues begin. Much like replacing actors with AI CGI, replacing musicians with AI is inherently offensive.

Until AI is capable of actual creative genius, as opposed to merely clever mimicry, it will never push creativity forward or have the ability to touch our souls.

What an interesting and thought provoking question, thank you for posting hide45.

sns,

Well said.

Without prior knowledge we're all susceptable to the enjoyment and benefits of AI. Minus the knowledge, certain qualitative judgements won't enter the equation, we may be enjoying and promoting AI through sheer ignorance.

.Many makers will enjoy the utility of AI, perceiving it as a tool they're manipulating. Other makers choose to treat music as just another product, AI produced music may be more cost effective, more profitable.

I heard long discussion with systems analysts  the other day, fools believe we are and will continue to be the masters of AI, so wrong. AI will become our masters over time, with it's superior ability to accumulate data/learn it will deem many of us, perhaps all of us obsolete. I see this as inevitable as differentation between AI and human generated content fades, the efficiencies of AI generated content will win out in a world where success defined by profitability and wealth generation. In listening to these systems analysts the thought occurred to me, these weren't fools, rather product promoters with intention of misleading the masses to all the great virtues of AI, well aware of future downsides. These are purveyors of mass human obsolescence, fools only in their belief they alone will escape this obsolescence.

IMO EVERY piece of "modern music"produced the last 25 years has been A.I.produced!

My position is very clear. I will not listen to this artificial junk or support it in any way. The argument that AI is created by humans is weak to me, and in time AI may not need human participation at all. People better start improving natural intelligence, and that's much harder.

I'd be perfectly fine with it if I liked it. I don't care much how the sausage is made if it tastes good to me. And AI is still programs created by humans.