[MrSkyNet]

I don't think your reason is valid at all.

I have bsaically 0 background knowledge of music and still enjoy it.

Do you know the story of the writer and his son? He wrote a book and this book was used at his sons school. The son wrote an analysis of the book and he got a bad grade because the teacher disagreed with the authors sons interpretation of his fathers book.

If an artist doesn't exactly tell us what they want us to feel, its nothing we can feel through magic.

I liked the cinemactic syncwave, but you know its a demo page. Its not included in a game, movie or something else.

[fnordpiglet]

There’s a better version of that story written by Asimov where a physicist is talking at a party to an English professor about a Time Machine they created that can bring famous people from the past to the present. He used it to bring William Shakespeare to the present. And Shakespeare took the English professors class on Shakespeares plays. He had to send Shakespeare back tho because he was angry that he failed the class on his own plays.

[t888]

What is that story supposed to mean?

I liked the cinematic synthwave track too - much better than what a lot of human creators do.

But… the fact that it can generate a pleasant electronica tune is essentially meaningless. This is no Miles Davis.

An LLM generated narrative cannot convey the emotions and experiences of the author. Nor can AI generated music.

[MrSkyNet]

My point was that the interpretation or 'feeling' you get, doesn't has to align with what Miles Davis thought to induce.

Therefore it doesn't really matter what Miles Davis was planing to do because if Miles Davis doesn't tell you exactly what he felt and thought you would feel about it, but you still enjoy the music, you don't need a Miles Davis as long as you enjoy the music

[aurareturn]

I don't think you're getting my point.

The point is that human created songs have some sort of "soul" to it. I don't know what the reason was that the human artist chose this lyric or this beat. But some thought was put into it.

It's why I appreciate human art over AI generated art.

[MrSkyNet]

I think i got your point.

And i still argue that this 'soul' thing doesn't exist and it doesn't matter.

Music becomes popular not because it has a magic soul to it but because it triggers enough people at the right time.

And covers are often also super popular and i myself was not always aware that a cover was a cover. Which also indicates to me that some music wasn't magic because of its soul but because the search space for interesting/intriging music is HUGE and it takes time for us to walk through it.

Edit: Nonetheless, I do count myself to the group of people who value things more than others IF it has more personallity. Like if i know this thing is handmade and very well build vs. the same thing machine build.

But this is appreciation and luxury. In case of me not having the money to do so, i would not say that the mass produced thing is bad just because.

[appplication]

This same argument will be henceforth made about anything created by AI, and regardless of how ubiquitous and capable AI becomes, it will never be invalidated.

AI generated inputs will never have the soul of human created art, by definition. The soul is the intangible and inimitable kernel of emotion buried in the art by virtue of it being created by a human. It’s what separates art from ‘output’.

Of course it’s not to say AI content cannot be enjoyed, but I think as a society we will need to be increasingly mindful of cultivating and appreciating this soul wherever we can. Endless scrolling apps have shown us we humans get easily sucked into becoming content consumers, and AI is particularly well poised to generate limitless content.

This is uncharted territory for our spongy, dopamine-seeking brains. Self-awareness of our own consumption is more important than ever.

[neom]

I think that's probably right too. I think it's also important to remember right now most of us are not really artists trying to tell our stories, move people, call to people, whatever, with our art. Most people playing with this stuff right now are techheads faffing around with cool new toys. In the future, I don't know how I'll feel but I suspect when I just want audible distraction, I'll be fine with an infinite loop of AI generated inoffensive tropical house. That won't be the same as seeking out or discovering something a human made, and I don't know I'll care about the tools they used to make it, I'll still be interested to learn why they made it, how they made it, etc.

I went to art school in the early 2000s, lived the second wave of analogue to digital change in the motion picture industry. I was somewhat worried about AI in art, these days I'm changing my mind, I think it will be fine/good and will push the meaning of art even further, that's always good. now I'm excited. Humans will always have emotions. Artists will always art. Humans will always seek out other humans emotions thru art.

[t888]

It’s also worth pointing out that a lot of current “art” is produced under similar constraints to AI art - for commercial purposes and with algorithmic feedback. It’s easy for people to think ‘this is just as good as a human’, when they are only comparing it to soulless corporate art in the first place.

[wahnfrieden]

A sense of intentionality vs spontaneous cut-up forms

Eventually people will say they can see thoughtful attention in AI art. Not today