Yes, but at some point you have to know where to draw the line. That line should be national security.
If China is indeed receiving data from TikTok, the future isn't going to be fun, especially with AI tech heating up.
Truth is, when China benefits, the Han Chinese people benefit. Every other ethnicity? Uncertain.
When the US benefits, a variety of ethnicities benefit. The US is now diverse enough where it must work in the interest of a variety of ethnicities in order to operate effectively.
So unless you're Han Chinese, you're more likely to benefit when the US wins.
This is true for other very effective cures: vitamin D has a similar story.
There is no money in cures that target the root cause which is often basic nutrition and using the biology as it was designed, instead drugs can be invented, patented, and when everybody takes them there isn't a control group left to notice that in aggregate they make things worse. And the doctors are indoctrinated to know nothing about nutrition, to be fearful or dismissive of supplementation (see: vitamin D) and believe there is a pharma drug for every condition.
The good news is it's rather easily fixable, but it is something that will never come from top down, it is and is going to be a bottom-up process.
I am not sure why would I care about cooking for one. If AI can recreate a video with same recipe, but I could set constraints on ingredients, time, techniques and such it likely would be preferable option for many myself included.
Human acting? Eeh, good enough AI and video could do it for me. Same goes for vlogs. Content tailored for me would trump any existing vlogger.
humans will always have contests to see which human or group of humans is the best at something and it will always be entertaining to watch the contests. op is right.
As a lifelong musician, AI music has reached a level where it's able to write absolute bangers AND soulful music with feeling. Last weekend I listened to AI music all weekend long in absolute shock.
People will still want to go to concerts, but a lot of that music will either be written by, or inspired by AI.
This is one that I generated that has me convinced anyway. I made about 100 versions in different styles, but this makes my hair stand up.
Am I stupid, or is this just AI covering Blackbird by The Beatles in a couple different styles? Is this supposed to be an example of AI writing "absolute bangers" or "soulful music with feeling" because I just don't see it.
It seems like the exact "paint-by-numbers" stuff that we always see with AI: it's capable of taking existing art and mashing it together, but there's nothing interesting or novel being created here. It's the pinnacle of carbon-copy, technically impressive but still soulless art.
If you played me either of these songs without telling me they were AI, I would think: OK, weird cover of Blackbird? Not particularly moving, but perhaps a stepping off point to something more. What would interest me more than the music itself is the story behind why the song was covered, who was performing it, what were their intended emotions in creating it? And of course, since it's a cover, if they had any original material of their own. Knowing that it's just an audio file being synthesized by an AI takes all of the enjoyment out of it for me (not that it was particularly good to begin with).
Music is not simply good because of the sound entering your ears. The story, the artist behind it, the intended emotion and artistry is part of the experience. AI does not deliver on this, and I doubt it ever will, because human connection is what underlies those extra-musical qualities. I care about the people who made the music; I will never care about the machine.
Those are two examples I thought I'd give rather than linkbombing.
Yes, I chose the lyrics to Blackbird because they are short, it generates in 2:00 chunks, and they don't have obvious meter. It's not like a limerick or something. I wanted to test the musical capabilities, I wasn't interested in generating lyrics, though that can obviously be done.
As someone who has studied and played music professionally my whole life, this isn't paint by number, at least in the way you think it is.
Most music is very similar. You can write 90% of most popular music using the 6 diatonic trichords, and 80% probably with only 4. There are also only so many ways to rearrange those.
This is not using a book of chord changes or melodies. I can promise you that after listening to 100s of versions of Blackbird, Yesterday, and the ABCs, I do not see the sort of pull the changes from a database that you're implying. In fact, I'd wager I could probably find a dozen songs that use the exact same chord changes and you wouldn't even have realized prior. I know because it's a great wedding gig trick, and we'd do it all the time.
I don't know what changes you think were carbon copied in the first link. It shows really good songwriting skills. Use of tension and surprise. "It sounds like everything else in that genre." Yes, that's what a genre is.
It also shows skill at vocal phrasing. This is really difficult and makes or breaks any song you try to write.
Explaining how difficult it is to write good melodies while putting a hard syllabic constraint on it is beyond the scope here. It's not easy or obvious and usually sounds like shit. Like, try to sing Sweet Home Alabama along with the chord changes at the end of "Layla". After doing essentially that for years (that's exactly what songwriting is) I doubt I could do it and not have it sound idiotic. This thing can do that.
If you're thinking "Oh that just sounds like the Brandenburg Concertos" YEAH. THAT'S MY POINT. This level of mimicry is brand new. I've never seen anything close to doing anything like this. If you have, I'm all ears.
Now since you think originality is important, here is a poem I wrote for a girl I dated that worked at a coffee shop. Never intended it to be a song, but I love it.
When I showed all this stuff to my musician friends this weekend (some who contract with Disney, Netflix, write scores, actively touring, etc), the reactions were actual tears, complete disbelief, shock, and existential dread.
$1000 says there's no way you could tell me whether this is a Chopin original or not played amongst others, and that's my point. And if you say "While sure, but that's not really that impressive because computers", frankly, you don't know what you're talking about and have already made your mind up.
It's certainly capable of creating technically impressive music, and mimicry at a ridiculously competent level, but it absolutely will not replace the desire for recording artists. These tools will become part of an artist's arsenal, but they will not replace the artist any more than the countless digital composition tools that already exist have. It will just be the case that these tools enable more people to be artists than previously before. Music is a form of artistic expression. As long as people still care about what other people have to say, there will be a demand for recording artists.
I think Spotify will start to fade away to personalized music, or adapt to it and become a search engine of generated music.
My mom likes the Kansas, Chicago, early Genesis, ELO, and Rush. She's babysitting her granddaughter. I made this for her tonight in the last two hours, splicing and nudging the prompt.
That makes no sense. People don't care that much about how good music or songs are. If not, why do you think the songs on the best playlists keep changing? What matters is being able to maintain the same knowledge and talk about that music or song with someone. So AI-generated music can have no value. In music, narrative isn't something supplementary. People want narratives and music is the medium for that. (But outside of Spotify, maybe this won't be the case. People aren't interested in the narrative of such music as background music or OSTs.)
The prompt was just the lyrics and "Piano singer/songwriter" for the genre. That's it. This was probably the best out of 8 tries. I bought a stupid amount of credits if you want me to run anything through it, shoot me a message.
That's the next one on the chopping block, wait till Sora and related services comes out, it's all going to be digitally generated and will look just as real so yes it will be content about humans but without human doing/creating much of it.
as both an engineer and an entertainer, perception is reality. on the one hand, a computer system could 1:1 recreate a stunt a human did and elevate it to a stunt a human couldn’t do.
people witness entertainment to trick their minds, and the disbelief and astonishment in the human condition hinges on “there’s no way _i_ could do that” and once they know they literally could not have done it, they’re not impressed. they may pay to be fooled once, but never twice.
there’s a market for what you’re talking about, but that space is b2b and not c2c, which is where entertainment money flows.
tl;dr dollar for dollar, ai vs taylor swift, taylor swift wins every time, no contest.
totally agree, but what i’m getting at is the creative core of an expression. there’s an aspect of a piece that impresses and i’m claiming that exists as something the viewer appreciates and imitates in their mind’s eye.
as a programmer, i create many things that impress people, but when i show them the methods of that creation, i can palpably feel their excitement wane as they lose interest in the nuance of my execution.
beyond the surface, there’s an aspect of being impressed that is also the desire to take part in the recreation of it all.
my claim in the first person, “i’m visually impressed by many image generators, but i’m not interested in fiddling with knobs, buttons, and strings to recreate the image in my mind’s eye”
I just think that art economy should not be beholden to critical consensus.
Art is a continuum of multimedia. At some abstraction you will be able to submit your piece into the collective and draw on increasingly precise inspo.
as an artist, i had a piece of software. in this piece of software i was able to pause and rewind time, snap to keyframes and investigate every layer, every line, every point.
macromedia flash was my childhood, the foundation of my career in technology, eventually bought by adobe and shut down.
i’m really not seeing that level of fidelity in these ai systems. i agree art shouldn’t be beholden to any form of consensus, but i’m more wary of any art supply that’s leased, not owned.
Fair enough! I appreciate your perspective on this.
My art experience was programmatic art on Godot - by implementing algorithms on Wikipedia, painting in Krita with a tablet, and some modeling in Blender; FOSS save us.
Perhaps democratized or collective compute is next. Maybe AI as art itself is the new frontier.
Really? I'd think it's the opposite, I'm expecting non-sports entertainment to be largely AI dominated within 20 years.
High budget movies already often have fully CGI characters in which the only human element is the voice, and now AI voice warping is nearly perfect it's an obvious move to eliminate the continuity risks by making voice actors fully interchangeable, or even fully synthetic.
And then even in non-Pixar style movies, many scenes use CGI body doubles for stunts, fully CGI scenes and so on. The human actors often don't appear in all their own scenes, or they're even brought back from death to keep working.
So that leaves things like music, sports, etc. Some music genres totally defocus the humans, like electronic music. They go via frequently changed pseudonyms and you never really see them perform in person. Sports I can see remaining fully human.
I was involved in this field some years ago now, in one of the first randomized trials that assessed gut microbiome changes as response to aerobic exercise (with a very small effect size). Back then i felt all the evidence for exercise changing the microbiome was quite weak.
At the time most of the evidence was observational or mice running on treadmills with very little actual randomised human evidence. The ones that were high-quality intervention studies with control groups showed very small effects. Additionally, they were always done for another primary outcome, so they never controlled for stuff like people who bike more every day will also eat more.
I think it is plausible that exercise will change the microbiome, from personal experience high-intensity running for instance will increase the transit time of feces, a major determinant of the microbiome. But i believe most of the studies are low-quality and overhyped, and a glance at this review seems to indicate that the field has not changed much.
I'll defer to your expertise on studies. And I acknowledge that may be possible.
That said, anecdotally the difference is night and day. So whether it's actually altering the microbiome or altering some other mechanism, I try to recommend it as much as possible.
If China is indeed receiving data from TikTok, the future isn't going to be fun, especially with AI tech heating up.
Truth is, when China benefits, the Han Chinese people benefit. Every other ethnicity? Uncertain.
When the US benefits, a variety of ethnicities benefit. The US is now diverse enough where it must work in the interest of a variety of ethnicities in order to operate effectively.
So unless you're Han Chinese, you're more likely to benefit when the US wins.