neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 hours ago
It suggests that if AI companies unfairly exploit musicians’ intellectual property to train their generative AI models, the creative ecosystem will be wrecked and original music silenced.
I kind of disagree with this.
There may be less people making music when money is their main motivator. But there will still be people making music.
Maybe we will lose low effort artists but gain great music by passionate people.
I’m not a musician, but these protests are going to be completely ineffective.
Maybe we will lose low effort artists but gain great music by passionate people.
You’ll never be able to find it or hear it though. The barrier to entry for AI music is so low, even lower then the “low-effort” artist you are deriding, that typical streaming sites will be inundated by it and nothing else will be found. The algorithm™ already prefers low-royalty music, and AI music will certainly have the lowest costs to play.
I’m not a musician, but
Exactly.
Yes, when you are not trying from time to time to make something - digital art, music, software, - you might feel as if this opinion were valid.
When you are trying, eventually you gain understanding. Specifically that you have far more time to do what you want if you get paid for that.
Though I haven’t ever sold an intellectual work. Using my vacations and weekends for these things. But I perfectly understand people who are, eh, trying to do more than toying around once half a year.
So you are telling me that in your ideal world only people that excel in their field should be compensated?
While also telling that musicians should make music just for the pure joy of it and not for living?
Bear in mind that most stars had a lowly start, by replacing entry level jobs with AI you will likely destroy a lot of potential.
My ideal world does not use money.
be realistic my friend.
Even in a full-communism-now utopia, the idea of compensating people for their creative endeavers and labor is still going to happen, that compensation will be indistinguishable from “money” as it is currently used.
Oh… That would be swell. First we ought to remove greed from human nature.
So how much work are you willing to do for free?
Is it that your ideal world does not use money, or you’re the only one who can get paid?
As for me, since it begs the question, I was raised on Star Trek, so I too like the idea of an ideal world where money isn’t needed. But I also have bills to pay, and I’m not ashamed to admit I would not work for free, because that would mean getting my lights and Net cut off, and losing my home. Some people do crazy things for their ideals, risking their very safety and lives. Like Greta Thunberg a month or two ago bringing humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people (or rather attempting to do that; she was caught, detained, and ridiculed by the Israelis for it). Most people wouldn’t risk it though. But it’s okay to talk about it online, but in real life? We all gotta pay the bills.
Musicians, too.
I think what it’s saying is that if AI is what starts making money, the music industry will exploit the hell out of that.
Imagine making millions of dollars, from a band that doesn’t exist, that you created, that you keep all money from their sales.
What would be your motivator to pay human artists? Why sign any?
It’s more than that. genAI can’t create music out of the ether. It has to be trained first, meaning it basically “listens” to a shit ton of music before it can generate any music. That means:
Its music will be 100% derivative with no true creativity at all.
most importantly, the artists whose music the genAI was trained on were likely not compensated at all for that training.
Wouldn't put it past them to try.
The recording industry loves making money off of artists who are long dead. Reminds me of that opening to Ministry's Ghouldiggers, where the singer is talking about how some artists are being sold off in pieces. Kurt Cobain. Janis Joplin. So many more.
What would be your motivator to pay human artists? Why sign any?
I mean, the internet has given artists a way to spread their works and profit off them without any major record labels. So what artists will lose by that are exploitative companies whose only benefit is that your music will be sold by major retailers as physical CDs or Downloads.
But what about live performances?
‘Oh it’s ok, they’ll still do it for the of it despite being poor, I’ll still get my music.’
This sums up modern society so well. I don’t even think it’s ill intentioned, just that the Epstein class has convinced us that individualism is ok. Conveniently.
jonathan7luke@lemmy.zip 16 hours ago
This is such a bizarre take.
I wouldn’t characterize musicians who depend on some financial return as “low effort” at all. Almost all the best musicians, going back to classical music and beyond, were dependent on their music as a source of income.
If anything, the people who do music as a side hobby are usually more “low effort” than those who actually make it their main career. And if artists can’t make money of their music anymore, we’ll really only get music from rich people who can afford the lessons, instruments, recording studio, production, etc. as an expensive hobby rather than a source of income.
MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 15 hours ago
Ding ding ding
Scubus@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
When discussing things like this, i find it best to view it through the lens of ubi. AI is happening, theres no amount of online debating thats going to change that. So if you dont create an economic system where people dont have to work to survive, people arent going to survive in your system. Hence, they have a point. People that WANT to get into music always have that option, untied to economic success. People that only make music as a cash grab now no longer have that incentive, because they dont need to.
People having to work to survive is barbaric
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 14 hours ago
Aren’t most successful musicians already the children of the wealthy?
shishka_b0b@lemmy.zip 14 hours ago
No.