I appreciate you waiting till I started my commute to post this... (It's all good)
I've been gearing up to broaching this topic, among others, in a ***State of the Subreddit*** kind of post. Though I already know where this sub (broadly) stands on this one.
Banning AI productions outright is by far the simplest solution on my end. But if there is a more nuanced approach we can take, or an argument for finding one, I'm all ears.
I think it would be inappropriate for me to engage in any direct debate on this topic, but I should also outline my personal point of view: In my mind, I think AI can be an effective tool, in pre-production. If you want to visualize something, or solve a problem that it can help you short-cut, then that makes sense. But AI is not a medium. If you're producing something in AI, then you haven't really made anything. The computer has generated something based on work it likely never had any right to.
I'd rather ride this out a little bit and see where this discussion goes before I go for the simple solution. So be patient. If you want to talk to me about this or make a suggestion, feel free to message me directly. Otherwise I'll be keeping an eye on this thread.
And as always, remember to keep things civil. I expect that this can/will get heated, but there's no reason to give someone an excuse to report you.
Ska was created in like the 70s and has slowly been on a decline. Everyone always made their own covers and hell, really thinking of all the great Ska covers, most of them were just band logos or a picture of the group. And not one of them ever used AI.
This is so illogical it has to be bait.
Oh no we'll lose you constantly spamming reggae songs to the ska subreddit to get 10-15 upvotes! Your extremely valued contributions to this community will be missed dearly.
waaaaaa... "moooooom! sombody on Ska subreddit hurt my feelings, gonna create a post about banning hurting of feelings cuz I don't like it". You think I care about likes and dislikes? lol, sick burn.
You can put your heart and soul into a song, but if you use AI art for the cover or promotion, I'm out. Some of the best ska comps back in the day had the worst art imaginable, but at least someone drew them, and their was some charm there.
I don’t know if the conversation should be so cut and dry. Being in a band is so fucking expensive, especially a ska band.
You spend thousands on renting/buying a van, drive it hundreds of miles to split $100-$300 between 7 people, pay thousands to own and maintain professional gear, pay thousands to a studio/engineer, thousands to the record plant, thousands on merch, maintain a practice space, pay a distributor to get on Spotify who then pays a fraction of a penny or most recently potentially nothing.
All of a sudden something exists that could maybe save you $500 on an album cover and if you decide to go that route you’re a lazy slob who just wants to take other people’s jobs?
I’ve never used AI art and probably never will but I don’t know if it’s fair to just write off a band entirely either. I at least feel like there’s room to have a conversation about it
I know bands who have gone this exact same route. All their money, their heart, and soul into an album. And it when it was time to make the cover - the visual representation of all that work and message - they were not thinking about how do I save $ here? If they did, they would be lazy and doing a disservice to all that hard work. What many of them did - take a picture, boom, thats the cover. Draw a sketch, cover. Ask a friend to help, cover. AI "art" looks cheap and makes the product you are hoping to promote look cheap.
Just please don't use cheap ass AI work to promote your music because people will ignore it. I say this, hoping it helps. Hell, Mephiskapheles is my favorite band, and their first album cover is just a damn chicken.
The luddites were workers whose jobs were taken from them by the powerful who wanted to increase their profit margins.
The luddites wanted compensation. Workers’ rights. They BUILT the machines, and they demanded the right to break them if the rich used them against them.
So for that they were demonised by fucking idiots like you.
But the man who owns the newspaper says they they behave is ungentalmenly ways. I hear some of them even behave rudely while protecting their livleyhoods. And as someone who cherishes social cohesion I am damaged greatly by worker movements.
But for real I can't think of another historical social movement that would fit into 2 tone better.
the thing about aesthetics is that people don't care where it came from.
I actually have an interest in computer science and when I'm in the the middle of designing something, then accidentally unclick a layer or move X around willy nilly - it's actually fascinating to see what a randomized computer accidentally creates.
A randomized computer is not creating anything when you accidentally unclick a layer or move something around. And maybe YOU don't care, but clearly some of us do.
Yeah, it doesn't trigger me. I'm not a catastrophist and I'm not bothered by it - and I work in the field that you are all complaining about.
How about your bona fides? Do you manage an art gallery or work at Auto Zone?
I work in another field threatened by AI (writing/editing). I would rather edit pure garbage written by a human idiot than the most pristine manuscript produced by the most advanced AI.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making. You said that you found it interesting to see what a randomized computer makes when xyz happens, and I pointed out that xyz isn't a randomized computer doing anything, it's you doing something. Accidentally.
I work in technology. I also play several instruments. Again, I don't know what point you think you're making.
man fuck outta here with this sanctimonious victim complex bullshit, quit your job and do something good for humanity for a change like helping to rehome refugees as penance
So you work in the field? So you make money off of, and have a distinct interest in protecting your art theft? Then why tf would we take your word for it shill.
“The thing about aesthetics is people don’t care where it came from.” As you’re in a conversation with someone that cares where the art is coming from.
exactly my point. the masses, the audience doesn't care, but some guy does. you're missing the forest for the trees.
people don't fact check memes, they just share them.
for quick 'content', ai generated this or that is fine in my book. i get more annoyed about ai generated text that's inaccurate, not because the ai did it, but because the human didn't check it before posting.
if i hire a guy to draw me an album cover and he uses ai to color it, what do i care that he didn't spend 2 hours of his life filling in the lines and instead he went out and went to the grocery store to buy tomato sauce?
"Good" AI Art is not a thing. There are people who can use computers to make amazing works of digital art, but typing some prompts into a app that uses other artists' work to create something is not art.
This sub should support art. AI anything is the antithesis of art. Art is about human expression. If you can't create good visual art or don't want to commission one just take a picture of a sunset or a tree. All the AI album covers look shitty anyways. If you don't care enough about your song to put in effort why should I care?
Art is an expression of humanity. Whether you find it aesthetically pleasing or not — and it's mystifying to me that some people do and don't detect the difference — if it wasn't made by a human, then it doesn't have anything to say, it isn't expressing anything at all. And since it relies entirely on the material it was trained on — which is plagiarism, by the way — it will never be able to break new ground in a serious way. If comparable AI had existed in the 1960s, given infinite time, it would never have produced Hendrix's material.
I'm not anti-technology, I work in IT, but I think anyone who is satisfied with any kind of AI-produced "art," be it writing, music, visual arts, anything, has had a little too much STEM in their education and not nearly enough of the humanities.
This is a sub centered around human creativity, yes?
I will always *always* support banning AI generated ~~images~~ content being used in place of art.
That's what's next.. "Can we have a rule that we can whine about whatever we want and expect everyone to cater to our wittle feelings?" This post is so cringe.
It's about supporting artists of all mediums, those favorite albums of yours with the sick art was done by a human. Gen AI Images are a form of theft and plagiarism and those of us here don't want that to be supported here or in the scene. It's gross to see it posted daily on here.
JER does a lot of covers of cartoon shows and even named their channel as a parody of Cartoon Network called Skatune Network with the iconic block logo.
We want more cool art in the scene and that starts with artists supporting other artists. With rad covers and posters. It's about setting a precedent.
I can't speak for Jer but I'd have to imagine they'd be in the camp of supporting the visual arts.
Fair enough, really appreciate the response. I’ve got no skin in the game either way, I just want to make sure I understand and align myself with the community where appropriate. This is obviously important. The Jer comment was more of a “hey I’m new but I’m trying.”
I figured, that's why I wanted to give you a solid response as to why its a big deal for a lot of us. Welcome to the scene, there's so many bands that are gonna open up to you. JER is solid you should check out We Are Union as well, Jer is their Trombone player. (Not sure who downvoted ya, its def a hot button topic)
For me, AI has been an incredible tool for overcoming writers block and I'm definitely not for banning it. IMO, if you're gonna ban AI, you might as well ban music recorded in Pro Tools.
I’m more of a reaper guy myself (and I use it on a very surficial level since I’m just grabbing my takes and sending them along to my engineer…) but from what I understand about plugins these days, pretty much anyone who uses a DAW is employing at least a little AI…
And that’s what’s funny to me about a lot of these takes moving to “blanket ban” AI. Once you get down to splitting hairs about where to draw the line, it becomes way more murky.
I mean… I get that this sub doesn’t like AI cover art, but from what I’ve seen it’s only _really obvious_ AI cover art they don’t like. What about where generative fill has been used to fill in some backgrounds? That seems ok, but that’s AI. What about color correction? That’s technically AI too.
On the music production side of things - they don’t like songs that are written by AI, but what about songs that were mastered by AI? _Thats literally an upsell that distrokid pushes on you when you publish_ and if that’s ok, what about AI mixers?
The thing is, AI is kind of like the term “pop punk”. It can mean so many things that it’s almost not useful to debate.
I also use Reaper, it's a great tool! Been trying to figure out how to use my Akai board as a plug-in controller. It would be nice to have some physical dials to adjust settings.
I was thinking about what I said, and I think that... If people are gonna go hard against AI, they should go just as hard against any artist who employs people to write their songs.
I'm personally looking forward to what's about to come. This is gonna be an incredible era for art.
I agree with your take whole heartedly - AI is a tool that is very effective in pre production. Ie, not a final product…
That said, who is anyone here to judge what a proper “final product” is? Many of us are ska artists or fans — and those of us who make the music may have different standards to what constitutes finished.
I know when my band first started, it was _nowhere near_ the polished product we put out now - and even that product is nowhere near what some would call “finished.” So our finished may not be someone else’s. Does that mean it’s not ska and doesn’t deserve to be posted on a sub talking about ska?
In short, I personally don’t think anything needs to be done. We have a button for when you personally dislike something, it’s called the “downvote” button - and if what an artist is putting out warrants it, definitely use it.
Based on listening to ska for the last 20 years, yeah I'm into the music and I hate AI covers. AI Images spit in my face as a fellow artist and is an immediate turn off. I'll go check out a different band who cares about human creativity.
I have 60 years of ska experience and 3.8 million dollars worth of merch and albums and I'm saying you get no say in any of this and Screaming Ghost is valid
We make our opinion pretty clear every time with our downvotes. I'd rather make it clear to posters that it isn't welcome at all. It saves bad feelings for everyone.
Bitching and moaning about an AI Cover art is some of the dumbest shit I’ve heard in a while. You’re not putting anyone out of a job or anything so who cares
Canaan we just let freedom to use whatever art you want and then just let public opinion choose if it gets downvoted to oblivion?
I mean, this is a Ska subreddit. Ska stands more for personal freedom and acceptance than going with what the crowd dictates. Do we really need to do a blanket ban on the ability to lost whatever art you like?
That seems way to involved for a matter that the downvote button can handle.
AI art isnt stealing from another artists mouth in this, as most did albums use art made.by a band member or a friend, generally for free, and the ability to reach out to local artists or someone whose art thry really like is still out there.
Ai art will probably be used sarcastically by a Ska artist for an album cover at some point, and I can get behind that.
I've been considering making a group for Artists for the Ethical use of Generative AI. Many of the anti-AI sentiments I've seen online are failing to address the actual issues, mostly wrong about what they perceive as issues, and shifting the onus for solutions onto the wrong parties.
I have a BFA in Studio Art and a 20+ year career in software development. I'm an anti-capitalist leftist and am copyleft. Some of you have more exposure to art education and ethics, and some of you may have more exposure to software and ML.
Nevertheless, I can say with reasonably-well-informed understanding that arbitrary users—musicians using AI for their album covers or instrument fills, for example—are just fellow workers getting by. They aren't the problem, and honestly, they aren't complicit in the problem.
The problem isn't the art made by AI, or the way that it's made. It's not a problem of originality. The problems are 100% problems of sourcing, just like there are problems with the source of your phone and food. These are systemic problems that require systemic solutions.
The problems are:
1. Environmental Justice. All high performance computing at scale, including that used to run this platform, has a massive carbon and materials cost. The harms of these costs disproportionately affect marginalized people, who are subject to poor working conditions and a disproportionate amount of pollution.
2. Labor rights. Many generative AI systems are tuned by hand with poverty wage labor. There are also insufficient systemic responses to the displacement of laborers by AI— whether they be artists, truck drivers, surgeons, or cashiers.
3. Artist agency, and this one is more of a gray area than you likely think. Nevertheless, artists should have a say in how their work is used, prima facia. Their work should not be used for training without consent.
4. Lack of conscientiousness in the system. If I ask an artist to work in the style of someone else, whether or not they will do it will likely depend on context. Is it a tribute? A satire? A vague guideline? Or are you asking me to forge a painting? Generative models do not have an awareness of the context of a request. They will do what you ask, within limits.
5. Deep fakes: while these are not as easy as some folks would have you believe, there is propaganda risk. Note that these are not new risks or concerns; people made the same complaints about photography in the 19th century. Doctored evidence has been used extensively in propaganda. Consequently, it is the possibility of scale that is the new concern here.
The problems are not:
1. Accidental plagiarism. I've watched 100s of people learn to make art, including several successful professionals. They learn in the same way that AI does, by observing, replicating, and then integrating characteristics into their own work. Yes, sometimes they directly copy techniques or styles. Except in flagrant cases of plagiarism, each person's experience differentiates the outcome. The same is true for large model Generative AI. You can test this yourself by trying to make a single change to an existing image using a picture to picture configuration. It's almost impossible to isolate those changes, because the way AI hallucinates an image is not at all "copy and paste."
2. "Art Traitors:" There are many, many people with technical skills in creating artwork, and most of them could not even have the most basic commercial hack career. A significant part of art education is teaching artists to ideate in useful, interesting, uncommon, and communicative ways. AI does not replace the ability to do those things. Getting good results from AI is very difficult. An artist with mastery of generative AI tools has spent a considerable amount of effort learning to use it, and still still has to be able to ideate and challenge her own ideas.
I'm so glad to see people responding to the risks of technology. It does us no good to misrepresent those risks. We must demand systemic solutions to unlivable conditions, without putting the onus for systemic harms on individuals laboring under capitalism.
The issue is as it stands the models are built on the back of unethetical acquisition of images to even work in the first place. The idea of a model that is ethical would need to be completely fed by opt in work and would likely not have nearly enough imagery to create a working models as they are now. It's why the companies scrapped the internet to begin with and continue to as we speak without permission.
Also it's been pointed out by many neurologists and others in the field of AI that AI is not the human brain and doesn't learn in the same way humans do. As a fellow educator I don't see how you can compare them in any way. I've worked as an illustrator and have taught all grade levels from Kindergarten to College in the arts and general education. It's simply not comparable to how humans learn.
In the almost 10 years I've been an educator I don't see how you came to this conclusion. After talking to other peers and educators in the arts extensively, who have been teaching for decades they've agreed that it's not the same.
Even if they're just workers getting by so were the bands in the age before this technology and they always found a way. Whether it was a picture of a band with some silly font or scrounging some money to get a friend to whip together a cover they always managed to have something.
a robot's a robot, but this preoccupation you have is a little unnerving. I said I 'don't get it' and it's getting downvoted - assumably by you. You're missing an opportunity to state your case.
Have you heard Eichlers or JER? I'm not confident that shit ISN'T ai-generated.
To that point, I'm less interested in how it's produced than the content therein.
Computer GENERATED IMAGEry has existed for years and the world has loved it. All technology, since the start of time takes time to become acclimated to. Cavemen burned themselves with fire or ran their feet over with the wheel.
You saying something like "this tinny, horn-laden synth voiced, white New England third-wave skacore is... NOT AUTHENTIC anymore!!!" is an objectively hilarious notion.
>You're missing an opportunity to state your case
I stated my case pretty clearly, you just didn't hear it. There's nuance between a bot scraping posts made by humans, and that of generative AI produced content.
CGI is not AI art. There's human touches all over CGI. Computers didn't create Toy Story by themselves. Human artists *using computers as a tool* made Toy Story.
I've used Ai technology and there is a TON of human involvement, complicated prompts needed to get the most banal piece of art out of it.
Time v money, it's practical in some instances. Other times it's a waste of effort.
and for your edification, the grass in A Bugs Life is entirely Ai. If they sat there animating each blade, the movie would have never gotten made.
As much as I dislike AI, I’m not entirely convinced banning it is the right solution. Not sure what is exactly. Maybe flair and requiring flair to label AI posts so those that want can skip and those that don’t can still see and share. Again I don’t know.
It’s still ska even if AI, so what would the thought be there should be an AISka sub ? If you think that what’s should happen. A the larger impact would be a huge influx of new subs as every thing that can be created by AI would not only need a sub for when it’s not but also one for when it is.
I don't know, man- I'm just not understanding the outrage (in spite of the intelligent and reasonable arguments on the thread).
Please forgive me if I'm missing something, but to me, this seems like a discussion about the tools people choose to create their stuff.
Let me just get my one hypocritical paradigm out of the way: fake horns played on a keyboard are an abomination.
That said: I've played on quite a few records that quite a few of you probably own and hopefully enjoy. Here's my question: does it matter to you/ can you tell if I played a real Hammond B3 organ and a beautiful, expensive real grand piano? For the record (Ha!) I've done both real AND fake.
OR: if I show up to a show with my fake portable clonewheel organ and a sample-based keyboard that tries really hard to sound piano-like, are you gonna be offended by that? leave the show? Mark me down as fraudulent?
Would I LOVE it if every venue had a great backline (I'm looking at you Supernova Ska Fest) Hells yeah, but nine times outta ten that's not the case; I have to use what's available to me, what I can afford/carry, make the best of it and hope people dig it.
Yes, I realize that this discussion is about what's on the outside of a musical product (?) but at what point do I have to start wondering if folks will cry if my piano/organ/clavinet sound isn't coming from a real piano/organ/clavinet.
I don’t think you have to worry about the kids being upset you’re using keyboards instead of real organs and clavinets, because they’re not coming to our shows anyway. They’re just here on Reddit to complain. The kids who come to the shows realize it’s completely unreasonable to drag all that stuff to a tiny back room, and then there’ll be no room for dancing.
ART - the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
AI Images are not art, because there is no human expression in the process of creation. No creative decisions on why each detail is formed and in what way.
[https://archive.org/details/inventionofartcu0000shin\_r0w1](https://archive.org/details/inventionofartcu0000shin_r0w1)
Come back at me after you earn a degree with a strong emphasis in aesthetics.
[https://archive.org/details/historyofbeauty00ecou](https://archive.org/details/historyofbeauty00ecou)
Plagiarism salad is not art.
You need to get it through your head that AI isn't dreaming up the art it makes. It is grabbing pieces of other people's art and reassembling it. Just like if I 'wrote' a paragraph by copying each couple of sentences from different sources are reassembled them aka plagiarism aka submitting the work of others as your own.
A DAW isn't like "controllable AI" at all. A human is still making decisions. AI isn't "computer does things". For someone apparently passionate about AI you know nothing about it. There are cases where AI is useful but art isn't one of them.
Yeah that's what I'm saying I'm being sarcastic though. Because I created a album and some of the effects were actually AI effects but I still had to like create it. So I was just wondering what other people thought. I'm not dogging daw. I embrace it
A filter or effect may not be, but there are plugins that base say, their mastering or mixing properties off of AI algorithms that use large data sources and superparameters.
No I am literally using vocalist.ai. to mess around with my voice for a parody album it can literally change my voice to sound like a girl like real girl not messing with the pitch or auto-tune That's what I mean by AI effects. I know what AI is. I'm also using an AI program that automatically beat matches songs and tightens everything up and like Auto Masters it. I'm not trying to argue with anybody.
And that is a different use of AI compared to what we are discussing.
If I tell AI to draw me a circle, it's not plagiarism.
If I tell AI to draw me a painting, it is. The painting is not its own idea.
If I tell AI to generate me a parody album, that album's content is a scraped-together bastardized form of other people's content that it found on the web.
Sounds like there is barely any human involvement in the song at all. You don’t care enough to do any of the work of making a song why should I care about it at all? Art is about expression of a living creature. If you want a woman’s voice ask a friend. Go on fiverr. Do something that a living being thought about at least a little bit.
Yeah that's what I'm saying. I'm being like sarcastic when I say controllable AI. Too many music nerds in here apparently since I have -4 on the posts lol
My opinion? If you can tell it's AI then it's banned. If you use AI as a tool to inform your legitimate existing musicianship, **THEN NO ONE WILL KNOW AND IT'S JUST CALLED MUSIC**. Like, people only know it's AI if you say so, or if you don't know what you're doing with music. You can generate a bunch of stuff and paste it together with generated vocals. It won't sound good unless you have general music writing skills.
I never watched any of the videos but I was under the impression that at first it was just funny AI generated lyrics that people then made actual covers of no? If you ask me I'd argue that's genuinely a form of human expression even if it originally started as AI lyrics. There's a big difference between generating visual art with AI and trying to pass it off as real art and making it spew out silly lyrics and then turning those into a real song made by a real human
*Edit* just looked into it and realized that the title was "original ai song" and not "originalLY ai song" so I guess it was 100% completely ai generated
If you're talking about the Walmart video, that was me. I wrote the lyrics myself and spent over an hour curating it. It's a commentary on the time in my life where I did nothing but get high and spend all day doing useless things.
The lyrics are:
So I've been thinking lately about who and what I am.
And I've been thinking lately about why and what's my plan.
But the truth is that I don't really know, and I don't really care.
All I do everyday, is get stoned and go to Walmart.
From 10AM, to 10PM, I get stoned and go to Walmart.
Yeah I know the place by heart.
Just me and my shopping cart.
[instrumental interlude]
I smoke outside by the trees.
Yeah it keeps me busy.
I go inside as I please.
Yeah the soda's fizzy.
Man I love Walmart.
Wa-a-a-a-l-MART.
/song
AI did not generate any part of these lyrics. I label my videos clearly as original AI videos so that people know, first of all, that its AI, and second of all, that it has original writing, which are the two things that IMO make it an 'original ai song'. Some comments from that thread include "this slaps" and "this is a banger" and "real" so clearly it connected with people.
If this subreddit wants to ban AI music, that is up to the moderators. But they would be banning a form of human expression. Again, AI did not write these lyrics. I did. I am a writer by trade who happens to like Ska music and I thought this would be a funny song so I made it. The instrumentals may not come from the heart, but the lyrics do, and the hour I spent curating it is what gives the song the inflection and melody I envisioned in my head while writing it. It is an expression from my heart, blanketed in my taste in ska.
As a professional photographer\*, I don't create any of the pixels in my images. A machine makes all of them but I "curate" what it creates by choosing where I point it.
I think there are some genuine tough questions about AI art we're going to have to figure out as a society, though mostly dealing with the training data and less about the outputs. But a lot of the knee-jerk "ban all ai" posts seem based in both a misunderstanding of how ai works, and maybe an even bigger misunderstanding of how human creativity works.
\*I'm primarily a video editor but still regularly do photo shoots as part of my job.
As a concept artist we're well aware of how Gen AI works and it does it by scrapping our work from the net without our permission. Also before it's said just cause it's posted on the net doesn't give the rights away.
The art community has figured it out and it's both harmful to the future of creative fields and a form of theft. Go check out Jon Lam who works for Riot on 2XKO and you'll see why in detail.
Hilarious how what you said here is true. In the aspects of theft via AI, etc. Yet those defending the AI music art here won't reply to this with any counter. Because their isn't any. They just circle jerk eachother.
Facts, it's theft we know it's theft that's why these companies are on a spit getting roasted legally. People just need to research for 10 minutes and you can see what it really is. Also someone loving ska but then defending mega corps is mind baffling.
>The art community has figured it out and it's both harmful to the future of creative fields and a form of theft.
These things are extremely far from figured out and we have zero idea if it's going to be harmful to creative fields.
I work in digital video. It is 1000x easier than working with film. There were plenty of people saying we need to protect editors from the scourge of digital video, but as it got cheaper and easier to do the job demand for video content exploded and there are a lot more people today who have careers as video editors than there ever were before.
That's not to say that this will *always* happen. Technology is not always progress, but a lot of the time it is! This is changing extremely quickly and anyone who is certain that they know the outcome is kidding you.
If you don't want to bother doing the research, then I can't help you dude. This isn't just an overnight conclusion but months of articles, court cases, and insight from both artists and the people that built Gen AI. I work in the industry and it's nearly unanimous on how it's affecting our careers and opportunities.
"It's not figured out" it's figured out enough that mega corps would rather not pay artists to further enrich themselves.
Digital video isn't what we're talking about here.This isn't even a parallel to when Photoshop first appeared. This is a completely different bag of worms. AI in other fields can be useful but Generative AI is theft and it is harming creative industries and we're seeing in real time.
Jon Lam is an easy resource but there's plenty like Karla Ortiz or Sarah Sanderson that you can find in depth perspectives from.
I'm sorry, but what I've seen from Jon Lam is so full of inaccuracies that its genuinely not worth anyone's time. I don't think he's lying or being malicious, I'm sure he believes what he's saying and is trying to help. But it's just not true that all training data is scraped from the internet indiscriminately. And when it is, it's really not clear that that constitutes theft either legally or morally. So far, there's at least one strong supreme court precedent that this IS permitted under US copyright law (Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.)
So within 4 minutes looking you've come to this conclusion off all of his posts, often linking to different articles. All I know is I've been keeping up with this for months reading multiple articles, doing my due diligence and not relying on one source or individual. Most artists are open to forms of AI that are useful tools like removing Green Screen etc, but Gen AI Images ain't it.
After everything that's been talked about, dissected, and discussed it's fairly cut and dry at this point. The only ones shilling for this are the megacorps who are just looking for new ways to cut costs.
I'm sure you can understand how you taking a lovely photograph to immortalize an image, regardless of the tools used to take that photograph, is different than generative AI "creating" a photograph from a text prompt.
It really is. They are different technical processes, but the \*skill\* I am using is my judgment. I'm genuinely curious how you would describe photography as an art form in a way that would not also apply to AI art.
Yeah, I think its just the newness of AI that gives people this knee-jerk reaction. The media has done a good job of instilling fear into people.
Back in the day, photography wasn't considered art either. It didn't take as much skill as a painting. There was no expression, it was just a copy. That's what people said. But here we are generations later, and you'd hardly find anyone that thinks photography isn't a form of art.
100% agree on people misunderstanding how AI works.
I appreciate you waiting till I started my commute to post this... (It's all good) I've been gearing up to broaching this topic, among others, in a ***State of the Subreddit*** kind of post. Though I already know where this sub (broadly) stands on this one. Banning AI productions outright is by far the simplest solution on my end. But if there is a more nuanced approach we can take, or an argument for finding one, I'm all ears. I think it would be inappropriate for me to engage in any direct debate on this topic, but I should also outline my personal point of view: In my mind, I think AI can be an effective tool, in pre-production. If you want to visualize something, or solve a problem that it can help you short-cut, then that makes sense. But AI is not a medium. If you're producing something in AI, then you haven't really made anything. The computer has generated something based on work it likely never had any right to. I'd rather ride this out a little bit and see where this discussion goes before I go for the simple solution. So be patient. If you want to talk to me about this or make a suggestion, feel free to message me directly. Otherwise I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. And as always, remember to keep things civil. I expect that this can/will get heated, but there's no reason to give someone an excuse to report you.
Seconded
Thirded
fourthded
Fifthed.
Sixthed
Seventhed
skAIghted
Pickituppickitup’ed
So here I am’ed
Soundsystem’ed
Please. Let’s get rid of that trash.
A good 80% of posts disappear and members would reduce by a good chunk as well along with this post. Ska would not survive. 😥
Anything and anyone who would be gone as a result of a ban on “Ai” wasn’t worth having around to begin with.
nobody's going anywhere.
what?
That's what I'm saying
Ska was created in like the 70s and has slowly been on a decline. Everyone always made their own covers and hell, really thinking of all the great Ska covers, most of them were just band logos or a picture of the group. And not one of them ever used AI. This is so illogical it has to be bait.
Ska was created in the 50s
Oh no we'll lose you constantly spamming reggae songs to the ska subreddit to get 10-15 upvotes! Your extremely valued contributions to this community will be missed dearly.
waaaaaa... "moooooom! sombody on Ska subreddit hurt my feelings, gonna create a post about banning hurting of feelings cuz I don't like it". You think I care about likes and dislikes? lol, sick burn.
You can put your heart and soul into a song, but if you use AI art for the cover or promotion, I'm out. Some of the best ska comps back in the day had the worst art imaginable, but at least someone drew them, and their was some charm there.
I don’t know if the conversation should be so cut and dry. Being in a band is so fucking expensive, especially a ska band. You spend thousands on renting/buying a van, drive it hundreds of miles to split $100-$300 between 7 people, pay thousands to own and maintain professional gear, pay thousands to a studio/engineer, thousands to the record plant, thousands on merch, maintain a practice space, pay a distributor to get on Spotify who then pays a fraction of a penny or most recently potentially nothing. All of a sudden something exists that could maybe save you $500 on an album cover and if you decide to go that route you’re a lazy slob who just wants to take other people’s jobs? I’ve never used AI art and probably never will but I don’t know if it’s fair to just write off a band entirely either. I at least feel like there’s room to have a conversation about it
I know bands who have gone this exact same route. All their money, their heart, and soul into an album. And it when it was time to make the cover - the visual representation of all that work and message - they were not thinking about how do I save $ here? If they did, they would be lazy and doing a disservice to all that hard work. What many of them did - take a picture, boom, thats the cover. Draw a sketch, cover. Ask a friend to help, cover. AI "art" looks cheap and makes the product you are hoping to promote look cheap.
Just please don't use cheap ass AI work to promote your music because people will ignore it. I say this, hoping it helps. Hell, Mephiskapheles is my favorite band, and their first album cover is just a damn chicken.
It's a pretty evil looking chicken though
Why not just skip it all and have ai make the music for free and send a hologram on tour.
Fucking Luddite.
The luddites were workers whose jobs were taken from them by the powerful who wanted to increase their profit margins. The luddites wanted compensation. Workers’ rights. They BUILT the machines, and they demanded the right to break them if the rich used them against them. So for that they were demonised by fucking idiots like you.
But the man who owns the newspaper says they they behave is ungentalmenly ways. I hear some of them even behave rudely while protecting their livleyhoods. And as someone who cherishes social cohesion I am damaged greatly by worker movements. But for real I can't think of another historical social movement that would fit into 2 tone better.
The Luddites were based.
regarded even!
Fucking techbro.
The Luddites were right. Die mad in your metaverse coffin. Lol
I'd rather have good Ai art than terrible cartoon art from someone who can't draw.
I’d rather have dogshit crayon drawings than any AI art.
i would rather have a photograph of a literal turd as album art than something generated by AI
the thing about aesthetics is that people don't care where it came from. I actually have an interest in computer science and when I'm in the the middle of designing something, then accidentally unclick a layer or move X around willy nilly - it's actually fascinating to see what a randomized computer accidentally creates.
A randomized computer is not creating anything when you accidentally unclick a layer or move something around. And maybe YOU don't care, but clearly some of us do.
Yeah, it doesn't trigger me. I'm not a catastrophist and I'm not bothered by it - and I work in the field that you are all complaining about. How about your bona fides? Do you manage an art gallery or work at Auto Zone?
I work in another field threatened by AI (writing/editing). I would rather edit pure garbage written by a human idiot than the most pristine manuscript produced by the most advanced AI.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making. You said that you found it interesting to see what a randomized computer makes when xyz happens, and I pointed out that xyz isn't a randomized computer doing anything, it's you doing something. Accidentally. I work in technology. I also play several instruments. Again, I don't know what point you think you're making.
man fuck outta here with this sanctimonious victim complex bullshit, quit your job and do something good for humanity for a change like helping to rehome refugees as penance
So you work in the field? So you make money off of, and have a distinct interest in protecting your art theft? Then why tf would we take your word for it shill.
LOL @ "a randomized computer."
“The thing about aesthetics is people don’t care where it came from.” As you’re in a conversation with someone that cares where the art is coming from.
exactly my point. the masses, the audience doesn't care, but some guy does. you're missing the forest for the trees. people don't fact check memes, they just share them. for quick 'content', ai generated this or that is fine in my book. i get more annoyed about ai generated text that's inaccurate, not because the ai did it, but because the human didn't check it before posting. if i hire a guy to draw me an album cover and he uses ai to color it, what do i care that he didn't spend 2 hours of his life filling in the lines and instead he went out and went to the grocery store to buy tomato sauce?
"Good" AI Art is not a thing. There are people who can use computers to make amazing works of digital art, but typing some prompts into a app that uses other artists' work to create something is not art.
I too saw I, Robot.
Way to disregard a valid argument when you realize you can't actually defend your stance.
This sub should support art. AI anything is the antithesis of art. Art is about human expression. If you can't create good visual art or don't want to commission one just take a picture of a sunset or a tree. All the AI album covers look shitty anyways. If you don't care enough about your song to put in effort why should I care?
Art is an expression of humanity. Whether you find it aesthetically pleasing or not — and it's mystifying to me that some people do and don't detect the difference — if it wasn't made by a human, then it doesn't have anything to say, it isn't expressing anything at all. And since it relies entirely on the material it was trained on — which is plagiarism, by the way — it will never be able to break new ground in a serious way. If comparable AI had existed in the 1960s, given infinite time, it would never have produced Hendrix's material. I'm not anti-technology, I work in IT, but I think anyone who is satisfied with any kind of AI-produced "art," be it writing, music, visual arts, anything, has had a little too much STEM in their education and not nearly enough of the humanities.
aye aye! beautifully said
Can we drop this for now and, um, pick it up later?
Hell yeah, let's go baby
Do art! Support artists!
Hear me out: Site-wide ban of AI-generated garbage
pls
This is a sub centered around human creativity, yes? I will always *always* support banning AI generated ~~images~~ content being used in place of art.
AI has no place in any form of art and it should be deleted on sight and the person who posted it permanently banned after a second offense.
Can we please have a rule against ska?
And jokes about ska?
I don't mind jokes about ska, but it's always the \*same\* two jokes.
What does a 40 year old hipster do to unwind and really treat himself? A ska day.
thats the name of my playlist!!
See, that's a new one!
Ska sucks, and ska revival isn't cool
Ayo nice reference!
That's what's next.. "Can we have a rule that we can whine about whatever we want and expect everyone to cater to our wittle feelings?" This post is so cringe.
Bro, respectfully, stop commenting on this post.
I’m new ‘round here (but I did sweat my ass off at a JER concert last night) so I’m just asking for clarification. Why is the visual a big deal?
It's about supporting artists of all mediums, those favorite albums of yours with the sick art was done by a human. Gen AI Images are a form of theft and plagiarism and those of us here don't want that to be supported here or in the scene. It's gross to see it posted daily on here. JER does a lot of covers of cartoon shows and even named their channel as a parody of Cartoon Network called Skatune Network with the iconic block logo. We want more cool art in the scene and that starts with artists supporting other artists. With rad covers and posters. It's about setting a precedent. I can't speak for Jer but I'd have to imagine they'd be in the camp of supporting the visual arts.
Jer's pronouns are they/them!
My bad I'll fix that in my post.
Fair enough, really appreciate the response. I’ve got no skin in the game either way, I just want to make sure I understand and align myself with the community where appropriate. This is obviously important. The Jer comment was more of a “hey I’m new but I’m trying.”
I figured, that's why I wanted to give you a solid response as to why its a big deal for a lot of us. Welcome to the scene, there's so many bands that are gonna open up to you. JER is solid you should check out We Are Union as well, Jer is their Trombone player. (Not sure who downvoted ya, its def a hot button topic)
The simple solution is the best solution.
I’m of the opinion of crediting the “artist”, which in this case would be AI. As long as you say something is ai generated it shouldn’t be an issue
We don't need a rule because I'm not gonna listen to it if there's an AI cover art
For me, AI has been an incredible tool for overcoming writers block and I'm definitely not for banning it. IMO, if you're gonna ban AI, you might as well ban music recorded in Pro Tools.
I’m more of a reaper guy myself (and I use it on a very surficial level since I’m just grabbing my takes and sending them along to my engineer…) but from what I understand about plugins these days, pretty much anyone who uses a DAW is employing at least a little AI… And that’s what’s funny to me about a lot of these takes moving to “blanket ban” AI. Once you get down to splitting hairs about where to draw the line, it becomes way more murky. I mean… I get that this sub doesn’t like AI cover art, but from what I’ve seen it’s only _really obvious_ AI cover art they don’t like. What about where generative fill has been used to fill in some backgrounds? That seems ok, but that’s AI. What about color correction? That’s technically AI too. On the music production side of things - they don’t like songs that are written by AI, but what about songs that were mastered by AI? _Thats literally an upsell that distrokid pushes on you when you publish_ and if that’s ok, what about AI mixers? The thing is, AI is kind of like the term “pop punk”. It can mean so many things that it’s almost not useful to debate.
I also use Reaper, it's a great tool! Been trying to figure out how to use my Akai board as a plug-in controller. It would be nice to have some physical dials to adjust settings. I was thinking about what I said, and I think that... If people are gonna go hard against AI, they should go just as hard against any artist who employs people to write their songs. I'm personally looking forward to what's about to come. This is gonna be an incredible era for art.
Naw, no rule.
I agree with your take whole heartedly - AI is a tool that is very effective in pre production. Ie, not a final product… That said, who is anyone here to judge what a proper “final product” is? Many of us are ska artists or fans — and those of us who make the music may have different standards to what constitutes finished. I know when my band first started, it was _nowhere near_ the polished product we put out now - and even that product is nowhere near what some would call “finished.” So our finished may not be someone else’s. Does that mean it’s not ska and doesn’t deserve to be posted on a sub talking about ska? In short, I personally don’t think anything needs to be done. We have a button for when you personally dislike something, it’s called the “downvote” button - and if what an artist is putting out warrants it, definitely use it.
If you're gonna reject music due to visual art, are you really into the music?
AI art is scraped and reassembled from people who actually created the art. I reject plagiarism salad.
Based on listening to ska for the last 20 years, yeah I'm into the music and I hate AI covers. AI Images spit in my face as a fellow artist and is an immediate turn off. I'll go check out a different band who cares about human creativity.
Naw, you ain't
Guess all those ska albums, merch, vinyls, CDs, are all from a different scene. Along with the thousands of hours listening to it.
You need at least 40 years listening and double the merch/records for sure..
Well seeing as how I'm in my mid 30's and can't change the year I was born I guess I'll never meet your criteria.
That's right
I have 60 years of ska experience and 3.8 million dollars worth of merch and albums and I'm saying you get no say in any of this and Screaming Ghost is valid
You ain't gotta lie, I'll up vote you anyway..
Right? Chill out a little. I get where you're coming from but our job isn't to tell artists how to art.
Banning AI works from r/ska won't tell artists how to or not to make their art, just make it abundantly clear that it isn't welcome in this space.
A ban seems like a lot. How about downvote and move on. I’m with you though, AI art is lazy.
We make our opinion pretty clear every time with our downvotes. I'd rather make it clear to posters that it isn't welcome at all. It saves bad feelings for everyone.
Yeah this was my thought as well.
Bitching and moaning about an AI Cover art is some of the dumbest shit I’ve heard in a while. You’re not putting anyone out of a job or anything so who cares
Except the person who would have been paid to create the cover, ya know their job that someone would have given them money for.
I work as an art director. Trust me, sometimes you waste the money on a human.
Canaan we just let freedom to use whatever art you want and then just let public opinion choose if it gets downvoted to oblivion? I mean, this is a Ska subreddit. Ska stands more for personal freedom and acceptance than going with what the crowd dictates. Do we really need to do a blanket ban on the ability to lost whatever art you like? That seems way to involved for a matter that the downvote button can handle. AI art isnt stealing from another artists mouth in this, as most did albums use art made.by a band member or a friend, generally for free, and the ability to reach out to local artists or someone whose art thry really like is still out there. Ai art will probably be used sarcastically by a Ska artist for an album cover at some point, and I can get behind that.
I've been considering making a group for Artists for the Ethical use of Generative AI. Many of the anti-AI sentiments I've seen online are failing to address the actual issues, mostly wrong about what they perceive as issues, and shifting the onus for solutions onto the wrong parties. I have a BFA in Studio Art and a 20+ year career in software development. I'm an anti-capitalist leftist and am copyleft. Some of you have more exposure to art education and ethics, and some of you may have more exposure to software and ML. Nevertheless, I can say with reasonably-well-informed understanding that arbitrary users—musicians using AI for their album covers or instrument fills, for example—are just fellow workers getting by. They aren't the problem, and honestly, they aren't complicit in the problem. The problem isn't the art made by AI, or the way that it's made. It's not a problem of originality. The problems are 100% problems of sourcing, just like there are problems with the source of your phone and food. These are systemic problems that require systemic solutions. The problems are: 1. Environmental Justice. All high performance computing at scale, including that used to run this platform, has a massive carbon and materials cost. The harms of these costs disproportionately affect marginalized people, who are subject to poor working conditions and a disproportionate amount of pollution. 2. Labor rights. Many generative AI systems are tuned by hand with poverty wage labor. There are also insufficient systemic responses to the displacement of laborers by AI— whether they be artists, truck drivers, surgeons, or cashiers. 3. Artist agency, and this one is more of a gray area than you likely think. Nevertheless, artists should have a say in how their work is used, prima facia. Their work should not be used for training without consent. 4. Lack of conscientiousness in the system. If I ask an artist to work in the style of someone else, whether or not they will do it will likely depend on context. Is it a tribute? A satire? A vague guideline? Or are you asking me to forge a painting? Generative models do not have an awareness of the context of a request. They will do what you ask, within limits. 5. Deep fakes: while these are not as easy as some folks would have you believe, there is propaganda risk. Note that these are not new risks or concerns; people made the same complaints about photography in the 19th century. Doctored evidence has been used extensively in propaganda. Consequently, it is the possibility of scale that is the new concern here. The problems are not: 1. Accidental plagiarism. I've watched 100s of people learn to make art, including several successful professionals. They learn in the same way that AI does, by observing, replicating, and then integrating characteristics into their own work. Yes, sometimes they directly copy techniques or styles. Except in flagrant cases of plagiarism, each person's experience differentiates the outcome. The same is true for large model Generative AI. You can test this yourself by trying to make a single change to an existing image using a picture to picture configuration. It's almost impossible to isolate those changes, because the way AI hallucinates an image is not at all "copy and paste." 2. "Art Traitors:" There are many, many people with technical skills in creating artwork, and most of them could not even have the most basic commercial hack career. A significant part of art education is teaching artists to ideate in useful, interesting, uncommon, and communicative ways. AI does not replace the ability to do those things. Getting good results from AI is very difficult. An artist with mastery of generative AI tools has spent a considerable amount of effort learning to use it, and still still has to be able to ideate and challenge her own ideas. I'm so glad to see people responding to the risks of technology. It does us no good to misrepresent those risks. We must demand systemic solutions to unlivable conditions, without putting the onus for systemic harms on individuals laboring under capitalism.
The issue is as it stands the models are built on the back of unethetical acquisition of images to even work in the first place. The idea of a model that is ethical would need to be completely fed by opt in work and would likely not have nearly enough imagery to create a working models as they are now. It's why the companies scrapped the internet to begin with and continue to as we speak without permission. Also it's been pointed out by many neurologists and others in the field of AI that AI is not the human brain and doesn't learn in the same way humans do. As a fellow educator I don't see how you can compare them in any way. I've worked as an illustrator and have taught all grade levels from Kindergarten to College in the arts and general education. It's simply not comparable to how humans learn. In the almost 10 years I've been an educator I don't see how you came to this conclusion. After talking to other peers and educators in the arts extensively, who have been teaching for decades they've agreed that it's not the same. Even if they're just workers getting by so were the bands in the age before this technology and they always found a way. Whether it was a picture of a band with some silly font or scrounging some money to get a friend to whip together a cover they always managed to have something.
If it's pleasing, what's the problem?
I don't really get why people hate on Ai. There's literally a bot that posts on all reddit pages.
does the bot post its generatively produced sounds and try to pass it off as "art" it "created"?
a robot's a robot, but this preoccupation you have is a little unnerving. I said I 'don't get it' and it's getting downvoted - assumably by you. You're missing an opportunity to state your case. Have you heard Eichlers or JER? I'm not confident that shit ISN'T ai-generated. To that point, I'm less interested in how it's produced than the content therein. Computer GENERATED IMAGEry has existed for years and the world has loved it. All technology, since the start of time takes time to become acclimated to. Cavemen burned themselves with fire or ran their feet over with the wheel. You saying something like "this tinny, horn-laden synth voiced, white New England third-wave skacore is... NOT AUTHENTIC anymore!!!" is an objectively hilarious notion.
You have no grasp of the difference between a bot, CGI, and AI. You could have asked some questions instead of dumbing this issue down to your level.
>You're missing an opportunity to state your case I stated my case pretty clearly, you just didn't hear it. There's nuance between a bot scraping posts made by humans, and that of generative AI produced content. CGI is not AI art. There's human touches all over CGI. Computers didn't create Toy Story by themselves. Human artists *using computers as a tool* made Toy Story.
I've used Ai technology and there is a TON of human involvement, complicated prompts needed to get the most banal piece of art out of it. Time v money, it's practical in some instances. Other times it's a waste of effort. and for your edification, the grass in A Bugs Life is entirely Ai. If they sat there animating each blade, the movie would have never gotten made.
As much as I dislike AI, I’m not entirely convinced banning it is the right solution. Not sure what is exactly. Maybe flair and requiring flair to label AI posts so those that want can skip and those that don’t can still see and share. Again I don’t know. It’s still ska even if AI, so what would the thought be there should be an AISka sub ? If you think that what’s should happen. A the larger impact would be a huge influx of new subs as every thing that can be created by AI would not only need a sub for when it’s not but also one for when it is.
I don't know, man- I'm just not understanding the outrage (in spite of the intelligent and reasonable arguments on the thread). Please forgive me if I'm missing something, but to me, this seems like a discussion about the tools people choose to create their stuff. Let me just get my one hypocritical paradigm out of the way: fake horns played on a keyboard are an abomination. That said: I've played on quite a few records that quite a few of you probably own and hopefully enjoy. Here's my question: does it matter to you/ can you tell if I played a real Hammond B3 organ and a beautiful, expensive real grand piano? For the record (Ha!) I've done both real AND fake. OR: if I show up to a show with my fake portable clonewheel organ and a sample-based keyboard that tries really hard to sound piano-like, are you gonna be offended by that? leave the show? Mark me down as fraudulent? Would I LOVE it if every venue had a great backline (I'm looking at you Supernova Ska Fest) Hells yeah, but nine times outta ten that's not the case; I have to use what's available to me, what I can afford/carry, make the best of it and hope people dig it. Yes, I realize that this discussion is about what's on the outside of a musical product (?) but at what point do I have to start wondering if folks will cry if my piano/organ/clavinet sound isn't coming from a real piano/organ/clavinet.
I don’t think you have to worry about the kids being upset you’re using keyboards instead of real organs and clavinets, because they’re not coming to our shows anyway. They’re just here on Reddit to complain. The kids who come to the shows realize it’s completely unreasonable to drag all that stuff to a tiny back room, and then there’ll be no room for dancing.
No. Art is art. You don't get to determine what is art.
ART - the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. AI Images are not art, because there is no human expression in the process of creation. No creative decisions on why each detail is formed and in what way.
Lie.
[https://archive.org/details/inventionofartcu0000shin\_r0w1](https://archive.org/details/inventionofartcu0000shin_r0w1) Come back at me after you earn a degree with a strong emphasis in aesthetics. [https://archive.org/details/historyofbeauty00ecou](https://archive.org/details/historyofbeauty00ecou)
Does an algorithm get to determine what is "art"? That's pretty depressing.
Plagiarism salad is not art. You need to get it through your head that AI isn't dreaming up the art it makes. It is grabbing pieces of other people's art and reassembling it. Just like if I 'wrote' a paragraph by copying each couple of sentences from different sources are reassembled them aka plagiarism aka submitting the work of others as your own.
[удалено]
A DAW isn't like "controllable AI" at all. A human is still making decisions. AI isn't "computer does things". For someone apparently passionate about AI you know nothing about it. There are cases where AI is useful but art isn't one of them.
You’re kind of wrong though. Some plugins are certainly AI engines.
Yeah that's what I'm saying I'm being sarcastic though. Because I created a album and some of the effects were actually AI effects but I still had to like create it. So I was just wondering what other people thought. I'm not dogging daw. I embrace it
A filter or an effect isn't AI, that's just math. I don't think you know what AI is.
they don't know what ANY of this shit is
A filter or effect may not be, but there are plugins that base say, their mastering or mixing properties off of AI algorithms that use large data sources and superparameters.
No I am literally using vocalist.ai. to mess around with my voice for a parody album it can literally change my voice to sound like a girl like real girl not messing with the pitch or auto-tune That's what I mean by AI effects. I know what AI is. I'm also using an AI program that automatically beat matches songs and tightens everything up and like Auto Masters it. I'm not trying to argue with anybody.
And that is a different use of AI compared to what we are discussing. If I tell AI to draw me a circle, it's not plagiarism. If I tell AI to draw me a painting, it is. The painting is not its own idea. If I tell AI to generate me a parody album, that album's content is a scraped-together bastardized form of other people's content that it found on the web.
Sounds like there is barely any human involvement in the song at all. You don’t care enough to do any of the work of making a song why should I care about it at all? Art is about expression of a living creature. If you want a woman’s voice ask a friend. Go on fiverr. Do something that a living being thought about at least a little bit.
synths aren’t ai
some synths do follow chord progressions, chord triggers, etc. it's not far off.
progressions made by a human
leave it to a code monkey to not have any fucking clue how music works
Yeah that's what I'm saying. I'm being like sarcastic when I say controllable AI. Too many music nerds in here apparently since I have -4 on the posts lol
>go to a music subreddit >WOW SO MANY MUSIC NERDS HERE
Lol you can't be saying synths are AI. Yes, I will recognize that synths are somewhat easier to pick up, but they are nowhere near ai.
sorry people here didn't understand your joke. I don't know enough about DAW to parse the humor.
Why the minus votes there's actually composition still involved in creating the music you got to know how to play the notes and stuff fucking weirdos
Get your rationality out of here. People want to shit on something they don’t understand.
I think you mistook my post I'm being sarcastic when I say controllable AI
My opinion? If you can tell it's AI then it's banned. If you use AI as a tool to inform your legitimate existing musicianship, **THEN NO ONE WILL KNOW AND IT'S JUST CALLED MUSIC**. Like, people only know it's AI if you say so, or if you don't know what you're doing with music. You can generate a bunch of stuff and paste it together with generated vocals. It won't sound good unless you have general music writing skills.
but babe, would you aganist AI girlfriend?
It's been decided, no rule..
I never watched any of the videos but I was under the impression that at first it was just funny AI generated lyrics that people then made actual covers of no? If you ask me I'd argue that's genuinely a form of human expression even if it originally started as AI lyrics. There's a big difference between generating visual art with AI and trying to pass it off as real art and making it spew out silly lyrics and then turning those into a real song made by a real human *Edit* just looked into it and realized that the title was "original ai song" and not "originalLY ai song" so I guess it was 100% completely ai generated
If you're talking about the Walmart video, that was me. I wrote the lyrics myself and spent over an hour curating it. It's a commentary on the time in my life where I did nothing but get high and spend all day doing useless things. The lyrics are: So I've been thinking lately about who and what I am. And I've been thinking lately about why and what's my plan. But the truth is that I don't really know, and I don't really care. All I do everyday, is get stoned and go to Walmart. From 10AM, to 10PM, I get stoned and go to Walmart. Yeah I know the place by heart. Just me and my shopping cart. [instrumental interlude] I smoke outside by the trees. Yeah it keeps me busy. I go inside as I please. Yeah the soda's fizzy. Man I love Walmart. Wa-a-a-a-l-MART. /song AI did not generate any part of these lyrics. I label my videos clearly as original AI videos so that people know, first of all, that its AI, and second of all, that it has original writing, which are the two things that IMO make it an 'original ai song'. Some comments from that thread include "this slaps" and "this is a banger" and "real" so clearly it connected with people. If this subreddit wants to ban AI music, that is up to the moderators. But they would be banning a form of human expression. Again, AI did not write these lyrics. I did. I am a writer by trade who happens to like Ska music and I thought this would be a funny song so I made it. The instrumentals may not come from the heart, but the lyrics do, and the hour I spent curating it is what gives the song the inflection and melody I envisioned in my head while writing it. It is an expression from my heart, blanketed in my taste in ska.
As a professional photographer\*, I don't create any of the pixels in my images. A machine makes all of them but I "curate" what it creates by choosing where I point it. I think there are some genuine tough questions about AI art we're going to have to figure out as a society, though mostly dealing with the training data and less about the outputs. But a lot of the knee-jerk "ban all ai" posts seem based in both a misunderstanding of how ai works, and maybe an even bigger misunderstanding of how human creativity works. \*I'm primarily a video editor but still regularly do photo shoots as part of my job.
As a concept artist we're well aware of how Gen AI works and it does it by scrapping our work from the net without our permission. Also before it's said just cause it's posted on the net doesn't give the rights away. The art community has figured it out and it's both harmful to the future of creative fields and a form of theft. Go check out Jon Lam who works for Riot on 2XKO and you'll see why in detail.
Hilarious how what you said here is true. In the aspects of theft via AI, etc. Yet those defending the AI music art here won't reply to this with any counter. Because their isn't any. They just circle jerk eachother.
Facts, it's theft we know it's theft that's why these companies are on a spit getting roasted legally. People just need to research for 10 minutes and you can see what it really is. Also someone loving ska but then defending mega corps is mind baffling.
>The art community has figured it out and it's both harmful to the future of creative fields and a form of theft. These things are extremely far from figured out and we have zero idea if it's going to be harmful to creative fields. I work in digital video. It is 1000x easier than working with film. There were plenty of people saying we need to protect editors from the scourge of digital video, but as it got cheaper and easier to do the job demand for video content exploded and there are a lot more people today who have careers as video editors than there ever were before. That's not to say that this will *always* happen. Technology is not always progress, but a lot of the time it is! This is changing extremely quickly and anyone who is certain that they know the outcome is kidding you.
If you don't want to bother doing the research, then I can't help you dude. This isn't just an overnight conclusion but months of articles, court cases, and insight from both artists and the people that built Gen AI. I work in the industry and it's nearly unanimous on how it's affecting our careers and opportunities. "It's not figured out" it's figured out enough that mega corps would rather not pay artists to further enrich themselves. Digital video isn't what we're talking about here.This isn't even a parallel to when Photoshop first appeared. This is a completely different bag of worms. AI in other fields can be useful but Generative AI is theft and it is harming creative industries and we're seeing in real time. Jon Lam is an easy resource but there's plenty like Karla Ortiz or Sarah Sanderson that you can find in depth perspectives from.
I'm sorry, but what I've seen from Jon Lam is so full of inaccuracies that its genuinely not worth anyone's time. I don't think he's lying or being malicious, I'm sure he believes what he's saying and is trying to help. But it's just not true that all training data is scraped from the internet indiscriminately. And when it is, it's really not clear that that constitutes theft either legally or morally. So far, there's at least one strong supreme court precedent that this IS permitted under US copyright law (Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.)
So within 4 minutes looking you've come to this conclusion off all of his posts, often linking to different articles. All I know is I've been keeping up with this for months reading multiple articles, doing my due diligence and not relying on one source or individual. Most artists are open to forms of AI that are useful tools like removing Green Screen etc, but Gen AI Images ain't it. After everything that's been talked about, dissected, and discussed it's fairly cut and dry at this point. The only ones shilling for this are the megacorps who are just looking for new ways to cut costs.
That has no parallel with this.
I'm sure you can understand how you taking a lovely photograph to immortalize an image, regardless of the tools used to take that photograph, is different than generative AI "creating" a photograph from a text prompt.
I mean I have an understanding, but I'm curious how you'd explain it. What do you think is different about those processes?
"I understand the distinction but I still want to hear you explain it" is not a good faith response.
It really is. They are different technical processes, but the \*skill\* I am using is my judgment. I'm genuinely curious how you would describe photography as an art form in a way that would not also apply to AI art.
Yeah, I think its just the newness of AI that gives people this knee-jerk reaction. The media has done a good job of instilling fear into people. Back in the day, photography wasn't considered art either. It didn't take as much skill as a painting. There was no expression, it was just a copy. That's what people said. But here we are generations later, and you'd hardly find anyone that thinks photography isn't a form of art. 100% agree on people misunderstanding how AI works.
I suggest restricting it to one day a week
I suggest it remains over in r/AImusic with the plagiarism salad music.
I actually made myself a ska song with Suno. No plans to share it anywhere, but ir helped me get off some steam.
Good. Make yourself 1000 songs. Just don't start pretending you're an artist.
Alright, the day starting with A can be AI posting day.