Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 hours ago, Goredho said:

 

Related, a cross post from the music forum:

A thoughtful perspective from Rick Rubin.  While I think he’s right about what AI lacks now (a unique perspective), it kind of presupposes that the average music consumer cares about such high falutin’ ideas.

I think this is where AI augmented human creativity comes in.  The human providing the editorial perspective and AI allowing rapid iteration through ideas.

Like, I saw a print from someone at a coffee shop who described themselves as an “AI artist.”  It was of a handful of sheep eating dollar bills from a feeding trough and ignoring a lush field of grass behind them.  A kind of cynical statement about life in a capitalist society.

Using Rick Rubin’s terms, the human provided the perspective in the piece of art, and AI just provided easier access to that perspective being realized in a tangible way.  I think that is the sweet spot for using AI in art forms like music.

This is terrible and ham-fisted and exactly what I’d expect from an AI “artist.” It belongs on some Facebook slop page for people with brain rot. All it’s missing is an explanatory caption that the sheep represents the viewer. 

With art, I see AI as the type of thing the worst kind of aspiring artist wants to use as a short-cut. It will be used by people who think they could be artists but don’t have the talent or work ethic to learn the craft or even understand what’s good or bad.

Droves of wannabe screen-writers who havesome “brilliant” treatment but is incapable of actually produce a script. And the thing is that the idea itself will be half as good as they think it is. 

Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That's a terribly narrow way to interpet music and art in general. It isn't just the mere mechanism of production that makes art so impactful to people - it's the dialogue and conversation back and forth in a medium that isn't always explicit in its intent. I mean yeah sometimes in rap, it's pretty clear what their message is. Kendrick out front shoulda told ya. 

But with that example, what made Kendrick's music so interesting was its context and delivery and collaboration with other artists.

 

Hell, even just as a musician, you can take the same notes and rhythm on the page and produce a wildly different communicated emotion. Music and art is far more than just an idea, it's the execution and context its delivered that brings so much more meaning.

When the thing you're in conversation with is just a set of seven hundred billion parameters in a very very very very large parametric equation...... That's sort of missing the partner in the discussion that imbues art with its metaphysical meaning and value. Not to mention, LLM's definitionally produce an "average" of all the information they've been trained on. They definitionally cannot take in and internalize new information like a conversational partner can. It's very literally talking at a wall and you will never convince it of anything, until you spend another ten million bucks on a new training run for your large language model to give it a new set of ~700,000,000,000 parameters.

 

That's just my opinion at least, both as a life long musician and as a professional technical specialist in machine learning and large language models in particular (and a few other discliplines as well, dm me if you want to nerd out).

Este. The point about the same notes conveying something wildly different is apt. The “creative” or “idea” part of art is often the easy part. The actual artistry is in the deeply individual perspective and craft the artist brings to the subject. 

The halls of great museums are adorned with endless examples of the same subject: the Gods, the Saints, the nude, the landscape, the sea, the garden.  We are transfixed by the great pieces because the artist has gone beyond mechanical reproduction of the subject and makes us see something familiar in the way the artist wants us to see it.

And that is something AI can’t do by definition because it can have no intentionality or perspective.  AI can produce a passable version of an El Greco cityscape when prompted but it can never, ever see the world in an original way like El Greco did and put that vision onto canvas because it can’t see anything at all. And that will always be the difference in what it spits out.

Similar with literature. Having a great idea for a story is easy and we have pretty much tapped out basic ideas for plots. Shakespeare only wrote two original plots. The artistry is in the hard part, the actual writing. AI will never have its own voice or be able to understand the motivations of a character and thus cannot produce anything of real value. 

I am not saying here that AI art won’t be popular. It will be, but it will be terrible. 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...