For about 15 years now, I've operated under a schizo theory: that AI will make music that is not just more popular than human-made music but which is (in many cases) objectively and omnisubjectively far better than the best music made by the greatest human musicians in history.Such music may not be "objectively" "better" across literally every single metric; knowing something was made by a human will impart more emotional value, and some listeners may forever highly prioritize that. Just, as pure technical musical marvels, human music won't be able to compete.I believe such music will have "hyperobject" qualities and will be many orders of magnitude more intricate and elaborate than human-made music, despite not necessarily being superficially recognized as such. I believe it will discover and ruthlessly optimize "superstimulus"-type brain hacks that exploit the underlying aural processing in the brain, not unlike those brain-exploit images in BLIT.Right now we're in the "slop" era. Claude Fable is the earliest glimpse into the post-slop LLM era. So far there have not been signs of a post-Sunoslop paradigm - it may take longer and be more difficult than it is for coding, since there isn't a clear reward signal. But I expect we'll likely start to see signs of it by 2031.This is not to say this is necessarily what should happen or that it's good or bad. Like wireheading, I simply think it's the natural endpoint. And like wireheading, it will be too hedonically appealing to prevent, barring strict government action.
>>130886809>For about 15 years nowDamn, you came up with this shit when you were a child and never outgrew it?
>>130886809Pic is only partly true. I got as far as >omnisubjectivelyKYS pseudo
>>130886809i can be the guinea pig for thisi accept $15/hour
>>130886863I was hesitant about writing that but for some reason I included it after seconds of deliberation, idk. I couldn't think of a better term, because "objectively and subjectively" is not what I meant
>>130886969Maybe I could've said "formally and perceptually" but that's not really the same thing, and also form is a part of perception for many listeners
>>130886972Maybe you could just fuck off back to /r/lookhowcleveriam
>>130886809yes saar AI will take over world will see it !
>>130886809>/[0-9]{16}\..*/gotta stop using this website on my phone
>>130886809There'll barely be a functioning power grid by 2031
>>130886991I appreciate the feedback and will attempt to use fewer unnecessary coinages going forward>>130887004Too difficult to predict any of that. Too many factors. My post assumes that things basically continue to progress mostly as they are now, with no major economic or political crises
>>130886850/thread
ai is overhyped meme shit and you are a gay indian
>>130887019>>130886996lol I almost forgot I was on 4chan where at least half the users are retarded right-wingers. >>130886863 is orders of magnitude more of a good contributor than you subhumans
>>130886809To take you seriously for a moment and try to help you see sense. There won't be "omnisubjectively perfect music that is finetuned to ruthlessly optimise the aural processing in the brain" etc etc, because the pleasure we derive from music is dependent on who we are as people. It's a product of our social conditioning and changes constantly with the era/culture, it's not a scientific constant. You can create mathematically perfect brain-hacking music all you like, many people will still find it unappealing. Brains are squishy.I can tell you're neurodivergent from how/what you wrote so I can guess why this idea seems prescient to you, and many similarly autistic tech industry people share your notions (because they've read all the same sci-fi stories you're using as your only point of reference). It can be awkward for people to even accept the thought that what they enjoy, and how it makes them feel as a person, is mostly dependent on their own experiences rather than any rational and quantifiable metrics. But it makes sense of a world that effective-altruist morons and their ilk will still be baffled by on their deathbeds.Like most things, the real conversation about machine-generated music concerns value. Because we understand it as cheaper than hiring actual musicians, any distinctive sound markers it contains (e.g. that tinny rattle so much Suno stuff has) will be markers of cheapness. The question is how much cheapness, and resulting degradation of quality, audiences will accept in exchange for being able to immediately hear something that roughly matches their own pre-existing taste profile. The outlook's not great. I guess my prediction's the inverse of yours; instead of optimising music, it's just going to boil the frog and desensitise everybody to worse and worse music.
>>130887032saarSAARdo NOT talk to like that !
>>130887032OP the people most in support of AI are right wingers solely because leftists hate it.
>>130887047I think the nice thing is it's empirical: by year [whatever] we'll find out which of the two of us was more correct. I'd put it on a prediction market if I were less lazy and if it weren't annoying to do multiyear ones.Assuming anything like this actually comes to pass: I think it will be a "guilty pleasure" type of thing for many people, like the inane AI brainrot stuff is right now. People may not volunteer that this new brainhack-y music is "their favorite music", but their revealed preferences will show that they at the very least dedicate a high proportion of listening time to it.I think there will be many different types of it and the people who are less interested in maximalist/weird/complex stuff will still get brainhacked by this sort of approach without any notion anything like that is happening. They will just find it more enjoyable for reasons they can't really explain.I do think weird shortform slop stuff is a good argument in your favor (some people get hooked, many remain repulsed), but I think it's all time-relative and that eventually even the most discerning consumers will fall for the future much better superstimulus videos and music. You are assuming this stuff will correlate with a degradation of quality and that soullessness = slop = optimized brain hacks = junk food for the spirit. And it will for a while. My argument here is eventually this will change and we're going to be mindraped by things that are not just artificially optimized to exploit us but which are "objectively" more "artful" and talented and technical than Beethoven. I could write up a huge essay as to why, but no point.(And, yes, as you correctly surmised, I'm an Effective Altruist and go to their meetups and such. I think they're basically right about everything and everyone else is wrong about a lot.)>>130887066Just because I think right-wingers are retarded doesn't mean I think leftists aren't retarded, anon.
>>130886809Yes saar, when AI starts inbreeding because there will be nothing but AI slop everywhere to feed it, it will be the greatest thing ever and the peak of civilization saar
>>130886809I enjoy how stuff like this is always—without fault—said by people who don't know how to play instruments, don't know how to read music, don't know how to listen to music, don't know how to analyze music, don't know music history, or don't know how to talk about music. I also wish we left this kind of utopian (dystopian) techfaggotry thinking in the early 20th century where it belongs.
>>130887047>>130887105Like, everything you say is correct, but it's based on an outdated picture that gets more out of date daily. People who are skeptical of technology and AI really do not get what's happening. I'd say it's the one issue where I'm somewhat surprised by how reality-untethered the left is, since usually they're a lot more tethered than the right. (Not that surprised, since obviously ideology drives perception of anything.)I am only talking about what we'll see in the year 2031, not what we'll see tomorrow. I do not think there will be any interesting AI-created music this year. It's just not hard to see where the ball is rolling when it comes to non-art white collar fields. And while art is a very different matter, I think music is one of the categories of art that's particularly susceptible to this. I think it'd be a tough sell for even a "perfect" AI-created "art film"-type movie in the year 2050 to be highly appreciated by elitist film critics, for a number of reasons, but I don't think music is as soulfully pure an art form as film, so to speak, even if many initially may think it's the reverse.
>>130887105Yes saar, Sam Altman and Elon Musk are right about everything, now give them money and continue being a useful idiot for the elites saar
thats a bunch of paragraphs to say "i think ai is going to get gooder"Also if we ever reach AGI or ASI forget about music, if it doesnt kill us we will be leaving earth to colonize the galaxy
>>130887015No. My feedback was to go back.
>>130887151Just by being on /mu/ I am already in the top decile of music listeners and enjoyers, anon. As much as people like to shittalk this place, at least half the people here care way more about the act of music appreciation and creation than nearly all of humanity, with sites like RYM/AOTY as runners-up, even though within those communities people feel a need to judgmentally distance themselves from what they feel are the plebs surrounding themI have no interest in trying to have AI create music on my behalf, or anything. I would consider that total cheating. I am just making a neutral prediction of what we'll see within a decade based on the kinds of superstimulus optimization processes other domains see and based on where I suspect AI progress will be by 2036. I might be wrong, or I might be right for the wrong reasons (yes that people get hooked, yet the music actually is in some way objectively far inferior to the work of the best human composers in history), or I might be right but wrong at how widespread it is and rather it's just a niche of addicted weirdos like the kpop threaders>>130887168I suspect you have a fulfilling career and are in a loving relationship.>>130887187Well yeah, of course, but I don't think ASI, if it comes, will instantly enable all of that. Also people will want things to listen to while colonizing the galaxy. Also most humans on Earth will not want to deal with the shittiness of space travel or living on another planet. Especially when you can have unfeeling machines do most of the travel and colonizing without any complaining.Also, I don't think it's obvious that even a hypothetically scifi demigod-like ASI would or could create the kind of thing I'm describing. For example, >>130887047 could turn out correct. I think it's more likely I will be the one shown correct, though. I think most human brains are similar enough to each other that there will be a way to do this, no matter how complex enjoyment of music is.
>>130887032Thank you. >>130887047>>130887105>>130887154
>>130887221Your feedback was that I write like a pretentious pseud, which is valuable feedback. These people are saying "you are Indian, and artificial intelligence is bad and Indian". The former is both useful actionable criticism and is also at least partly correct, while the rest are people who would offer more utility as biofuel.
>>130887235>I suspect you have a fulfilling career and are in a loving relationship.I do yes saar
>>130887235>I am just making a neutral predictionYes saar very neutral saar
>>130887151>I enjoy how stuff like this is always—without fault—said by people who don't know how to play instruments, don't know how to read music, don't know how to listen to music, don't know how to analyze music, don't know music history, or don't know how to talk about music.That's because the biggest users of AI have always been jeets with 0 talent in their bodies. They are all desperate to get on the same "level" as the West with the least amount of exertion on their part. All the LinkedIn bloggers shilling it are jeets. All the AI generals on /g/ that have popped up in the past 3 years are populated by jeets. >>130887235>Just by being on /mu/ I am already in the top decile of music listeners and enjoyers, anonYes saar I am patrician listener of music saar I know what I talk about saar listen to what I say saar !
>>130886809where are the flying cars we were promised?
>>130886809LLMs are basically a dead-end for AI. Not that they can't do a lot of interesting stuff, but we're at the point of diminishing returns. They won't be able to evolve past the level of slop without some sort of paradigm shift, which probably won't happen because everyone's too focused on LLMs to try anything different and also LLMs will probably destroy the creative potential of younger generations.
>>130887374Yup. The very nature of neural networks (the underlying data structure of all LLMs) is pattern recognition. It will NEVER create a new genre of music; it fundamentally cannot.
how could AI innovate in such a way as to evoke new emotions, if it cannot experience those emotions itself?How could it have composed Chopin before Chopin, how could it have thought of those melodies, how could it have known that his melodies evoked such emotions?By having an omniscient understanding of how the human brain works, and of the way in which all the possibilities of music affect it? that doesn’t seem realistic
>>130886809>I believe it will discover and ruthlessly optimize "superstimulus"-type brain hacks that exploit the underlying aural processing in the brain, not unlike those brain-exploit images in BLIT.I also believe this.
>>130886809Why do jeets love AI so much?
OP is obviously baiting you retards but if I'm going to throw my hat into the ring I'm going to say that using AI to generate art doesn't make any sense. Ignoring the fact you can't even copyright AI art, it wouldn't be relevant to people anyways, people make art for people, they do it because they want to. If you don't want to make art so badly that you'd rather have a machine generate it for you then why even bother?
>>130888106>OP is obviously baiting you retardsPoe's law.
>>130888106>Ignoring the fact you can't even copyright AI artyou are quite so very wrong. the companies making the models copyright it. is that fair? no but they do anyway and judges alive in federal appellate courts are too old and decrepit to understand why. hopefully that new york times/openAI case ends in a favorable ruling
>>130887311>isreal has the least trust in aiwell that confirms it ai is for broke niggas
>>130886809oh saar your music is so good how do you prompt such music saar can I show you bob and vagene?
>>130886809/mu/ is my safe space and I come here to get away from the discourse and be normalmy brother in AGI, we're all going to die
>>130886809I always use comedy as a gauge to rate the other popular art form, music, off of.And comedy is so dependent on the persona of the performer, it's hard to imagine how AI would replace that. Shane Gillis is a popular comedian and I imagine AI could suss out why his comedy works and perfect jokes based on that. But AI independently telling more perfected jokes in the Shane Gillis style still wouldn't be able to replace the actual person doing the bits. So I imagine in comedy, as in music, performers will use AI to streamline their material, but the art will still revolve around people establishing fresh or unique personas that an audience finds novel and engaging.
>>130887374Show me those diminishing returns on the METR time horizons benchmark. They use a log scale btw
>>130886809You already see AI music charting because it gets put into random playlists on purpose to legitimize it and then they can feed people music without paying artists. Which overtime may save Spotify MILLIONS WOW ... :/One thing people don't think about is music discovery as a spiritual connection. Say I discovered the next RHCP, they are The New Spirit of California. That thrill only happens because its human beings. You can teach an AI to be the next RHCP but the objectively understood fact is the music is developed to ensnare your mind perfect music, perfect lyrics. Like your OP there is something like what rat behavior would be to just consume something just because its "perfect". Like push button and food pellet comes out. Soon yeah we'll probably make a brain chip that just shoots nothing but dopamine all day its probably just energy you have to stimulate a piece of brain and you feel pleasure. Those people will never do anything else except sit in a chair and push dopamine buttons.I digress but it doesn't really satisfy you to get your perfect RHCP copy band when you know its not real. When you find real artists it comes from an imperfect, human, place that can only speak of what it can perceive from its own unique experiences.I think using The Matrix example, Agent Smiths are basically AI Fans, they hate humans because they refuse to do what should work mathematically or enjoy The Matrix as its programmed to be the best place for them. If there are AI Fans who try to build all this mathematically perfect stuff they will be furious if it doesn't make them money.I think this post was incoherent sorry.
based pro-human anons showing up and BTFOing the stinky jeet OP into oblivion. he's clearly fucked off from the thread in shame. hopefully he's re-evaluating his life and why he decided to hitch his wagon to soulless monkey-see monkey-do machines
AI is not music. if humans didn't make it then its not music
>>130887235>Just by being on /mu/ I am already in the top decile of music listeners and enjoyers, anon.Hilarious joke to say about a board that's now mostly full of k-slop listeners, Taylor Swift shills and Drake shills.
>>130886809how can anyone enjoy music made by an algorithm
>>130886809cat food is real tho
AI generators can only produce muzak or meme shit. I've fucked around with them. It can't stick with a theme for too long and goes off track quickly, or there's something wrong with it like the voice being distorted, weird jump cuts, things that don't make sense, strange enunciations/emphasis, generic melodies, jumbled up soup due to bad mixing. If you listen to AI music playlists you find the people who use these things usually use it as a crutch for lack of talent, so AI outputs are unedited and the lyrics are terrible normie slop like "I love my dog he's the best I love my teacher Ms Brett she is so awesome I love my wife and kids blablabla". There's a reason the most notable AI songs are memes like BBL Drizzy, We Are Charlie Kirk, "I Shit On Company Time" etc
>>130887047Based fleshoid
>>130888594kek, thanks
>>130886809You talk like a fag.
>>130892387Nobody actually does. AI fags "make" music just so they can "make" it. Nobody actually listens to that crap. It's the opposite of music, which is a collective and cultural thing. It's like taking a shit in your toilet; private and stinky.
>>130888519you can copyright the models themselves, not what the models produce, because they aren't made by people, so legally there is nobody to even grant copyright protections to
>>130888106>>130888519>>130894845>AI fag doesn't understand lawNothing new.
>>130894842>AI music is like taking a shit in the toiletIndians make AI music and OP is most def Indian
>>130894842AIjeets make music in the sense that they order a custom dish at a restaurant. they came up with the idea but had 0 involvement in actually making it.
>>130886809This is already better than any radio hit of the last 10 yearshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRnE9AJhMZk
>>130887032>why yes, people on the other side of the political spectrum are dumber than me>how lucky i am to have the correct opinions
