News So It Begins...Is This A Real Band Or AI? (2 Viewers)

[Pirioca]

Amazing video! Thanks Rick!

We are still at the beginning of AI music technology but we already have a problem: If you buy a digital album of a new band but you can't research the band members and their history, it's possible that you spent money for AI music! It's even more difficult when you listen to solo artists. Of course, the artists are real - but the music may be created by AI.

I don't think it's possible to fight AI technology but we need ways to identify and regulate AI music. It's ok if people like listening to free AI songs and use AI music platforms as their hobby. But you should only spend your money for real artists!

 

[Selfmate]

But you should only spend your money for real artists!

interesting

why though?

someone created that AI - do they not deserve to be paid?

there's AI groups in kpop and otherwise - do they not deserve to be paid

isn't it each person's choice to undertake their own research and determine how they spent their money whether it's on AI music or "real" music

If a person buys music then the music it turns out is AI and the person does not wish to support AI and never buys music from them again - completely valid and they are entitled to such actions
just as someone might deliberately buy AI music because they enjoy such no?

 

[eclipsoul]

someone created that AI - do they not deserve to be paid?

i mean those people are already billionaires lol

and imo they do not deserve to have their pockets lined up at the expense of real artists who struggle to profit from their actual human-made art

 

[Selfmate]

i mean those people are already billionaires lol

and imo they do not deserve to have their pockets lined up at the expense of real artists who struggle to profit from their actual human-made art

interesting

not sure those who create AI music are billionaires or not (since we aren't referring to the tech giants) but even if they are again it's each person's choice to buy/consume/listen to such songs no?

obviously it might be preferrable for everyone to support local grassroot indie musical artists and not corporate conglomerates but maybe they aren't everyone's cup of tea

whether they "deserve" something or not is moot since ultimately it is up to the consumer to decide no?

one can see it even in kpop the rise of AI idols - now they aren't my cup of tea but apparently from some of the numbers I've seen they obviously are someone else's...who am I or anyone to say they shouldn't be listening to such music if they choose to spend their own time and money on such

 

[eclipsoul]

not this AI garbage having more monthly listeners than my very much human eurovision faves 😭

i think it's terrifying but also really sad. while for me it's easy to tell that those creatures on the cover art are not real people, it's not like that for everyone so streaming services should definitely put some disclaimer so that users know whether they support an actual artist or some soulless AI slop.

 

[Pirioca]

isn't it each person's choice to undertake their own research and determine how they spent their money whether it's on AI music or "real" music

And that's the point: what if you can't distinguish an AI song from a song made by real musicians and producers? Let's talk about Blackpink.

Here's a Blackpink song we all know:



Here's a 'Blackpink' song, created by AI:



If you wouldn't know Blackpink, could you tell the difference between the real and the faked Blackpink song?

Obviously a person called SΩUL created this song and tells us: it's made with Suno AI. Listeners can decide if they want to support this AI song!

But then we have a 'band' like The Velvet Sundown. We don't know if their songs are created by an AI. How should listeners research and determine when there's no background information?

If we come to the point where typing some commands and hitting the 'create' button has the same value than learning instruments (virtual instruments included), writing own song lyrics instead of using ChatGBT and producing/mixing songs with the help of professionals, our musical culture is completely going down the drain.

What's the next step? People don't care if they buy AI music? I guess the K-Pop industry would be fine with that too. Let's create AI K-Pop songs and train idols for dancing and lip sync only.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not generally against the use of AI in music. But I'm against the equal treatment of AI music and music created by humans. And we need clear rules: people need to know when they listen to AI music! Then they can decide if they want to spend money for it.

 

[eclipsoul]

interesting

not sure those who create AI music are billionaires or not (since we aren't referring to the tech giants) but even if they are again it's each person's choice to buy/consume/listen to such songs no?

obviously it might be preferrable for everyone to support local grassroot indie musical artists and not corporate conglomerates but maybe they aren't everyone's cup of tea

whether they "deserve" something or not is moot since ultimately it is up to the consumer to decide no?

one can see it even in kpop the rise of AI idols - now they aren't my cup of tea but apparently from some of the numbers I've seen they obviously are someone else's...who am I or anyone to say they shouldn't be listening to such music if they choose to spend their own time and money on such

i was referring to the people behind the AI itself, those who generated the songs themselves probably aren't going to get rich on that since streaming services pay very little and actual artists gain more from touring which is impossible with people who don't exist.

sure local acts might not be up everyone's alley, but it's not like AI music is a genre on its own, it literally wouldn't exist without human-made music which is what the AI models are trained on and what caused major music labels to sue two of those generators. same goes for the image generator which made the album cover based on existing pictures, including of people who didn't consent to have their likeness used to train an AI model. which is why i said they don't deserve to be paid because it's simply unethical and shouldn't even be legal to make money off something you not only didn't make, but stole from others. and then there's also the environmental impact like AI used on twitter is responsible for heavily worsening air quality in memphis.

obviously i'm not a person to tell others what they should listen to, since that would be insufferable - but there's a difference between telling someone they shouldn't listen to eurodance because alternative rock is better and calling out harmful practices like AI "art". obviously i'm also not going to go to random people who happened to be among that non-existent band's 500k listeners and tell them that AI generated content is shit, but if a friend bragged to me that they spent money on an all-AI act i'd probably say that it's embarassing for them if they knew it's AI and still chose to support it. and if someone posted on social media that their most listened to artist was an AI act then they shouldn't be surprised if people call them out for it, because at the end it's not a matter of personal taste but the real impact it has on the world around us.

as for kpop, i luckily haven't seen any fully AI generated idols become popular, but the virtual ones at least seem to have a human team behind them so it's not really comparable because at least there is actual creative input in those groups even if we don't see those people on stage. generative AI has none of that.

 

[Pirioca]

AI generated music will suck €4 billion a year away from music creators by 2028 says CISAC

CISAC has published a new report looking at the impact generative AI will have on music creators’ earnings. It estimates that 24% of those earnings could be at risk, resulting in annual losses of €4 billion by 2028, while the value of AI-generated music will surge to €16 billion a year

completemusicupdate.com

 

[Pirioca]

Sorry, I forgot to answer that.

interesting

why though?

When you pay for a song made by a real artist, you also pay for the work behind the song. Because of your support an artist can make more songs. An artist can make a living because of your financial support. An artist can tour because of your support.

According to the current legal situation, AI-generated art is public domain.

AI-Generated Works Are Public Domain, Court Affirms

A recent court case affirms that works generated by AI, without human involvement, are not eligible for copyright protection.

www.synthtopia.com

Public domain media are free to use. Why do you want to pay for it?

That being said, there are still a few legally unanswered questions when it comes to the commercial use of AI music. If I create an AI song but add my own lyrics or if I download a created AI song and remix it, is it still public domain? If I add just one second of my own voice or instrument sound to an AI song, is it copyright protected?

 

[Selfmate]

And that's the point: what if you can't distinguish an AI song from a song made by real musicians and producers? Let's talk about Blackpink.

Here's a Blackpink song we all know:



Here's a 'Blackpink' song, created by AI:



If you wouldn't know Blackpink, could you tell the difference between the real and the faked Blackpink song?

Obviously a person called SΩUL created this song and tells us: it's made with Suno AI. Listeners can decide if they want to support this AI song!

But then we have a 'band' like The Velvet Sundown. We don't know if their songs are created by an AI. How should listeners research and determine when there's no background information?

If we come to the point where typing some commands and hitting the 'create' button has the same value than learning instruments (virtual instruments included), writing own song lyrics instead of using ChatGBT and producing/mixing songs with the help of professionals, our musical culture is completely going down the drain.

What's the next step? People don't care if they buy AI music? I guess the K-Pop industry would be fine with that too. Let's create AI K-Pop songs and train idols for dancing and lip sync only.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not generally against the use of AI in music. But I'm against the equal treatment of AI music and music created by humans. And we need clear rules: people need to know when they listen to AI music! Then they can decide if they want to spend money for it.

I also make a distinction between solely listening to the music which can be AI or otherwise and supporting the artist/producer/developer?? behind the music.
Everyone is free to listen to whatever music they so choose - if a person listens to a piece of music and enjoys it (purely on an enjoyment level) does it matter if it's AI or real.
The second issue then comes once someone wants to then support the artist behind the music and discovers it's AI then can choose to not support them

I have no issue with your edit statement - I fully agree that consumers should be given the freedom to choose whether they wish to listen to AI content or not. If the question is all AI content should be regulated as AI (not just musically) that's a separate issue I guess

 

[Selfmate]

i was referring to the people behind the AI itself, those who generated the songs themselves probably aren't going to get rich on that since streaming services pay very little and actual artists gain more from touring which is impossible with people who don't exist.

sure local acts might not be up everyone's alley, but it's not like AI music is a genre on its own, it literally wouldn't exist without human-made music which is what the AI models are trained on and what caused major music labels to sue two of those generators. same goes for the image generator which made the album cover based on existing pictures, including of people who didn't consent to have their likeness used to train an AI model. which is why i said they don't deserve to be paid because it's simply unethical and shouldn't even be legal to make money off something you not only didn't make, but stole from others. and then there's also the environmental impact like AI used on twitter is responsible for heavily worsening air quality in memphis.

obviously i'm not a person to tell others what they should listen to, since that would be insufferable - but there's a difference between telling someone they shouldn't listen to eurodance because alternative rock is better and calling out harmful practices like AI "art". obviously i'm also not going to go to random people who happened to be among that non-existent band's 500k listeners and tell them that AI generated content is shit, but if a friend bragged to me that they spent money on an all-AI act i'd probably say that it's embarassing for them if they knew it's AI and still chose to support it. and if someone posted on social media that their most listened to artist was an AI act then they shouldn't be surprised if people call them out for it, because at the end it's not a matter of personal taste but the real impact it has on the world around us.

as for kpop, i luckily haven't seen any fully AI generated idols become popular, but the virtual ones at least seem to have a human team behind them so it's not really comparable because at least there is actual creative input in those groups even if we don't see those people on stage. generative AI has none of that.

para 2 so the issue isn't with I in music per se but rather AI violating copyrights and infringing on artist's rights which is a completely separate issue to the one of enjoying or supporting AI music.

para 3 - you have every right to call out anybody who listens or supports AI just as everybody else has the right to listen to or support AI. Most of us live in countries where we still have (some) freedom of expression that allows us to criticize those we do not like or boycott or cancel (and vice versa defend or support) whoever the F we want.

para 4 - now for maybe - I've said it before but AI as it currently stands is the worst it will ever be and will only get "better" (as in better tech wise) so in the future we might be getting fully generative AI

 

[Selfmate]

Sorry, I forgot to answer that.



When you pay for a song made by a real artist, you also pay for the work behind the song. Because of your support an artist can make more songs. An artist can make a living because of your financial support. An artist can tour because of your support.

According to the current legal situation, AI-generated art is public domain.

AI-Generated Works Are Public Domain, Court Affirms

A recent court case affirms that works generated by AI, without human involvement, are not eligible for copyright protection.

www.synthtopia.com

Public domain media are free to use. Why do you want to pay for it?

That being said, there are still a few legally unanswered questions when it comes to the commercial use of AI music. If I create an AI song but add my own lyrics or if I download a created AI song and remix it, is it still public domain? If I add just one second of my own voice or instrument sound to an AI song, is it copyright protected?

gain this issue is not specially related to listening to and supporting AI music but rather how AI is using and training on existing copyrighted works to further the AI and how real human artists should be compensated for their works

whether something is copyright or not or whether the AI engines should be held accountable or whether copyright should exist for AI works etc etc is beyond me

 

[Pirioca]

Everyone is free to listen to whatever music they so choose - if a person listens to a piece of music and enjoys it (purely on an enjoyment level) does it matter if it's AI or real.

It's more about the flood of fake artists we may get in the future...



Imagine you visit a restaurant with your family. And you pay quite a lot of money for allegedly 'luxury' meals that taste ok. But before you leave the restaurant, you go to the toilet and walk by the kittchen. And you notice that the cook doesn't cook at all. Instead he put frozen prepared food in some microwaves. Would you still feel ok with the money you spent or would you feel ripped off? They told you that they have food made from scratch but all you got are those already prepared meals.

In musical terms: let's say Eminem has a new album and the digital version costs around 10 $. But there's another rapper you are interested in. You like his songs too but he tells you that he made everything with AI. Would you also pay 10 $ for his album? The crictical issue is that many new songs in the future will probably be released by people that don't tell you that an AI did all the work.

 

[Pirioca]

By the way, I need to clarify something (in case @Willow thinks I'm crazy now because I write like an AI hater). I'm not against individual AI creators that release songs at Spotify and put some creative work in that music (writing lyrics, using more advanced prompts). I'm against the idea that people try to make money quickly, use an AI for automatically creating songs in a few minutes, and flood the music platforms with that stuff. And I'm against the idea that people don't tell their listeners that they use AI for creating music.

 

[Selfmate]

It's more about the flood of fake artists we may get in the future...



Imagine you visit a restaurant with your family. And you pay quite a lot of money for allegedly 'luxury' meals that taste ok. But before you leave the restaurant, you go to the toilet and walk by the kittchen. And you notice that the cook doesn't cook at all. Instead he put frozen prepared food in some microwaves. Would you still feel ok with the money you spent or would you feel ripped off? They told you that they have food made from scratch but all you got are those already prepared meals.

In musical terms: let's say Eminem has a new album and the digital version costs around 10 $. But there's another rapper you are interested in. You like his songs too but he tells you that he made everything with AI. Would you also pay 10 $ for his album? The crictical issue is that many new songs in the future will probably be released by people that don't tell you that an AI did all the work.

is the meal ok for the price - did one enjoy the meal - that's the first question no? if I enjoyed the meal for the price range then why does it matter how it's cooked UNLESS they specifically said it was made from scratch then the issue I have is thaat it is misleading or deceptive rather than it be solely because it's microwave food

In terms of music the question is was the artist / developer deliberately lying about the source of their music - ie was it AI but they said it wasn't which again the issue becomes the lying and deceiving part rather than it being an AI issue - it's the same reason plagiarism exists as an issue that you are passing off something that not yours as if it were yours...

the question becomes what if the person didn't tell you it was AI or "handmade" then again I ask the question is it on the artist to inform us that it is AI - maybe and maybe even probably they should but as of right now I don't think it's a legal requirement yet. And given it is not a legal requirement does it behove me as the consumer before I spend my money on something should I not inform myself what exactly what I am buying?

but then an argument arises that I was enjoying the product (AI music) prior to knowing it was AI and that it only changed after knowing it's AI and thus people who then choose not to consume said product is perfectly valid - one can buy or not buy anything for whatever reason they want. I had a friend who liked this vodka but it was from Russia and post Ukraine/Russia war they said even though they still liked the vodka they didn't want to support a Russian producer and that's a perfectly valid reason so now when buying vodka he checks to see if the product is from Russia in which case he doesn't buy it anymore

 

[Pirioca]

In terms of music the question is was the artist / developer deliberately lying about the source of their music - ie was it AI but they said it wasn't which again the issue becomes the lying and deceiving part rather than it being an AI issue - it's the same reason plagiarism exists as an issue that you are passing off something that not yours as if it were yours...

An option to 'secure' AI generated music is the use of digital watermarks. So music services like Spotify have ways to identify an AI generated song. Udio seems to watermark generated songs, I'm not sure about Suno. That being said, it's a rather weak security option. Users can remove those watermarks when remixing a generated song.

the question becomes what if the person didn't tell you it was AI or "handmade" then again I ask the question is it on the artist to inform us that it is AI - maybe and maybe even probably they should but as of right now I don't think it's a legal requirement yet. And given it is not a legal requirement does it behove me as the consumer before I spend my money on something should I not inform myself what exactly what I am buying?

Things may get even more complicated. Musicians and producers often work with samples they can use without copyright limitations. Normally they would buy sample collections but AI music platforms are very good sources for samples because you can generate them for free. Of course, musicians and producers don't need to tell that they're using samples in their songs. So within certain limits, it's not possible to judge if a musician uses AI technology.

I'm eager to see how the music industry will handle AI music, especially legally. Maybe they will buy those big AI platforms and only their professionals can use them. But AI technology already went one step further: it got open source and you can use it offline.



My personal favorite use for AI music technology would be a virtual synthesizer that can simulate every instrument that was ever recorded, with the option to combine those instruments for completely new sounds. In this way, AI technology would boost creativity instead of limiting it.