Hacker News Reader

Comment by chpatrick | Hacker News Reader

This is different though, because the end game of AI music isn't better music technology for musicians, but replacing musicians.

I'm worried we're going to go into a dark age where society forgets how to make truly creative new art due to lack of incentives, and the AIs won't make anything new due to lack of anything creative to train on. We'll just regurgitate the pre-AI stuff forever.

View on HN

If we're fast-forwarding the tape, why not directly go to the ultimate conclusion that the end game is AI replacing humans, period?

This is not a slippery slope; new art will be created regardless of incentives and skilled people who learn to augment their craft with AI will probably create better works of art.

Why is it different? I don't see how any of the incentives go away here.

Because previously if you honed your skills as a musician there was a chance that you could do it for a living, so there was another incentive to get better. Electronic tools just facilitated human creativity, but the random listener couldn't sit down with a synth or a DAW and just press a button to get music out. But if all the money drops out of the music industry because the consumers can auto-generate unlimited music, how will that work?

Furthermore, generate music based on music you created. They're alienating the labor of the musician then using it to drive that musician ut of their livelihoods. I feel like pro-AI people constantly miss this point with inane quips about the printing press. Artists created all the value and get none of the reward.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com