Well, from listening to several on the first page, I say musicians and composers have nothing to worry about in terms of AI competition for some time.
As amazing as AI image generation is, AI music generation (to me) is not.
As amazing as AI image generation is, AI music generation (to me) is not.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10707049
"This is a business I know well. Jukedeck is an example of how founders and investors do not conduct appropriate market research. There is a limited market demand for low-cost royalty-free music for videos. One could argue there is an oversupply* of royalty-free music relative to buyers. The quality is not good enough to disrupt the billion dollar Production music industry that is top heavy, a relative small amount of creators at the top get the majority of the money, the rest compete for the little that is left. Jukedeck has raised enough money ($3million #) to be around for a few years if they control their burn rate. But Jukedeck in its current form, is just another music startup destined for the Deadpool."
You know how I know? The Rolling Stones are still touring. Most people don’t go to Spotify or YouTube for discovery, they go for convenient on demand.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/apr/28/streaming-musi...
“people let playlists run on in the background when they serve inoffensive, bland music they can’t be bothered to turn off. If you look at the music Spotify has broken, it’s all chill-out stuff. That isn’t art, it’s wallpaper.”
Or, the more likely one, in this case, "the first draft of the beat was AI-generated, then human-edited and the vocals were by the singer but they were processed, so it's AI-generated". Typical singularitarian bullshit.
This insane interpretation will not only not occur in 2 years, it will not occur this decade. Singularitarian delusion runs higher than even I imagined.
It's interesting you react so strongly to my prediction. Are you a musician? How much do you know about music generation research?
I am not a musician, have no musical (or any other art, actually) talent and have kept up (shallowly) with state-of-the-art music generation for a decade (because of idiocy kurzweil has spewed out).
I am "reacting strongly" because I detest singularitarians and everything they stand for. This board in particular has been a hotbed of delusion and idiocy for the last 6 months in every single AI thread I have read comments in.
Predictions rely on everyone forgetting how wrong you were
to echo what the comment above is saying. not because this AI generated music is good. but because it is good enough for the vast majority! and this concerns other fields as well. the consumption economy has set the bar for music and entertainment in general very low. most people don't know (or think) that the bar is low. because they have not experienced anything better and probably never will.
what's gonna happen next will be sad.
The people who would be satisfied with AI generated music are people who would not have paid for human made music in the first place.
You as a good musician will never lose a sale to an AI music source, because that buyer wouldn't have bought your music in the first place.
Now if you make your living providing easy listening background music, then you will eventually be replaced.
If it were as simple as it looks, everybody would be a Max Martin or somebody would train an AI on his canon and maybe actually have something decent. Music is based in emotion, and the bits and bytes aren’t close to simulating anything close other than probably raw schizophrenia.
The current state of AI music? There’s no amount of money you could pay me to listen to it for an hour a day for a week. No way. It’s that bad.
Counterpoint: a moderately musically inclined person with Propellerhead’s Figure can come up with more pleasing and coherent music on their third or fourth try that would put any of these to shame. It’s just reality at present.
This. All the previous comments made really good statements, but, in the end, it's the value we give to art that might suffer from AI generated content, and the people who produce "real" art.
In the end, it's an iron law of post-industrial capitalism that the market value of human effort eventually approaches zero.
The gap between 'okay' and 'really good' is smaller than we think
A blind test would be better. A musical Turing test - whether you like music and can't tell if that's AI or real composer.
As we have seen with text-to-image, sometimes AI models can improve at an astonishing rate.
Anyway models have been improving for a long time but when was the last time you saw a news item about the progress in machine translation? That was probably around 2016-17 when the hype cycle for neural machine translation was at its apex. You don't hear anything more about it in the news because the hype cycle has now dipped to its bottom-most pit of indifference and the hype about being able to speak to a machine and communicate with any human on the planet in their native language has been replaced with, for example, the hype about being able to generate human-like art.
My point being, just because performance increased in the past in one particular task, it doesn't mean that it will improve in all other tasks, or, indeed, that it will keep improving in the same task. For all we know what we've seen so far of image generation is all we'll get for the next ten years or so.
I don't have a crystal ball, but I do have history books, so I don't make predictions. We can't even speak about the past with confidence, let alone the future.