[rafram]

> Lyria 2 can create new starting points, suggest harmonies, or draft longer arrangements. It helps musicians focus on their broader visions — or jump past writer’s block.

AI salespeople seem to imagine that there are tons of artists out there who just wish they didn't have to spend so much time making their art. Sorry, no. The people using this won't be artists, they'll be non-artists who need filler (basic theme music, hold music, elevator music, whatever) that they would've paid an artist for in the past. Those jobs are normally a steady livelihood for artists, even if they aren't that interesting. Now those would-be customers can just generate some slop on their computer and call it a day.

Nobody likes to confront the reality that their work will hurt people, but this absolutely will.

[elpocko]

I like to call myself a hobbyist musician. If I could give the chord progression I just played on my piano to an AI and have it spit out ideas for melodies or more chords for a chorus that would go well with my 4 chords then I'd be a much happier, more productive, more creative musician, and I would learn from that. It would make me a better musician. AI doesn't hurt me, it boosts my creativity and my productivity. It's like a partner with infinite patience.

A filler-producing artist who can't rise above the level of generated content isn't much of an artist. Both are merely recycling pre-existing ideas.

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." I don't agree 100% with that quote but I've heard it a lot in the past as a response to my complaints about the lack of originality in a lot of creative fields. Suddenly, with the advent of generative AI, it's not true anymore.

[joshstrange]

I'm trying very hard not to be flippant or inconsiderate but I keep coming back to "no job is guaranteed", it never has been, it never will be. I'll couple that with "If you aren't always learning/improving you are falling behind".

> imagine that there are tons of artists out there who just wish they didn't have to spend so much time making their art

I read this as "you are taking away the thing people love to do" but then

> Those jobs are normally a steady livelihood for artists, even if they aren't that interesting.

Maybe you mean "not interesting" to other people (not the artist) but I'm reading this as "Yeah, it's not great but it's a living" which leads me to ask "Which is it? Are they doing it because they love it or because it pays the bills?" (Yes, yes, "porque no los dos").

Maybe it's "completely different" but one of the biggest uses of LLMs (well, at least here on HN) is generating/writing code yet, as a programmer, I have zero worry about losing my job to the LLM. I don't worry for multiple reasons, one, I've used them and seen what they are and are not capable of. Two, they are a great _tool_ but they are not close to replacing the work I or my co-workers do (I've tried). Three, if they start to errode my "edge" then I'll work to hone some other skills and/or move "up" the chain/stack/whatever. If I was an artist/musician then I'd be looking at what LLMs do well and how I can use my skillset to leverage LLMs as tools or start positioning myself for a different role.

Over the span of my career I have worked on all types of different systems. Each time I had to learn (at least enough to be dangerous) something new. If my job didn't consist of this I think I'd find it incredibly dull. I think a lot of "people losing their job to AI" is really disguised firings (similar to how people use layoffs to cut the low performers) and/or misguided execs who will end up walking it back or failing. I'm not even sure if, with our current generation of AIs, that we won't have more employment even with "AI Layoffs", AI creates jobs as well.

Technology moves on, jobs become obsolete, industries are created and destroyed, you have to learn and change or you die, it's as simple as that.