Some music fans think it's great AI can make their idols "sing" anything they want

[highplainsdem]

From The Guardian:

https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2023/may/04/harry-sing-lana-del-rey-how-ai-is-making-pop-fans-fantasies-come-true

Harry, sing Lana Del Rey! How AI is making pop fans’ fantasies come true

-snip-

The problem with UMG’s statement is that it assumes fans and artists are on the same side of this debate. A report by JP Morgan in April argued that “AI music is just not very good,” and “people don’t listen to it.” But the popularity of AI covers – over 9m views on a fake collaboration between Drake and the Weeknd before it was taken down – puts this into question, and in the comments of these covers on TikTok, sentiment is overwhelmingly positive. Phoebe, 23, a Styles fan from London, says she loves “the idea of hearing Harry cover one of my favourite songs, without relying on him to sing it on stage”.

-snip-

AI covers are “linked to [Styles], but separate,” Phoebe says. “Being a fan of someone is about the community around it, and I love how AI covers give us more content to talk about.”

-snip-

But many fans see AI covers as an opportunity for collaboration and communication. “AI songs could give artists the chance to grasp what their fan bases want from them,” says Sara, who runs a Taylor Swift fan account on Twitter. Herndon believes that in the near future, it will be just as common for artists to “assume the identities of other people” as it is to use samples, and “artists will experiment with letting others perform as them, and share in the profits”. UMG and Drake might not agree – but last week, Canadian singer Grimes tweeted that she would split royalties by 50% on any successful AI song using her voice. “I like the idea of open sourcing all art and killing copyright,” she wrote.

But as AI programs advance, it will become difficult to tell the difference between real and generated music – and fans could end up horrified by what their idols are being made to sing. Grimes later wavered, writing in another tweet a few days later that she “may do copyright takedowns … don’t wanna be responsible for a Nazi anthem.”

This is grotesque.

These "fans" - and I'm putting quotes around the word because people like this give real fans a bad name - apparently believe they own the artist and can turn the artist into a puppet to do whatever they choose.

And they're greedy and want this sort of exploitation of the artists to make them money, too.
.
I was surprised Grimes ever thought this was a good idea, but she seems to be coming to her senses.

The fans who love this idea aren't, though.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

1. Ugh.

[highplainsdem]

7. I agree.

[xocetaceans]

2. Here is a video that addresses the AI issue to some extent:

I'm pessimistic. Things are never addressed proactively. Look at climate change: if complete and totally rectifying action were taken today, even in relation to such a critical matter, it would be only after about a delay of thirty years.

[highplainsdem]

5. Just watched that. It was very depressing, even though I had

heard about most of what he mentioned already, and have posted different threads about those here.

What I found most depressing was his comparing AI copies of voices to ProTools, or Auto Tune. They're not the same thing.

[xocetaceans]

9. True. They aren't. The magnitude of change will be much, much greater with AI.

I think that comparison was a throwaway point on his part. His over-arching pessimism regarding and evaluation of the way the "new" music will be received by "fans", I think is correct.

AI threatens the ability of humans to have livable jobs in any creative industry. An artist and his or her colleagues' works will be used by corporations to train AIs. With their AIs trained, the distribution-network-affiliated corporations will then discard the powerless "middleman" corporations. The human artist will have been discarded long before that.

Of course, since Mitt Romney and his ilk still think corporations are people: they will be fine with this. So, half any legislative body in the US government will automatically oppose creating any legislation to prevent this harm. (They don't like Hollywood anyway.) They will just say that this is the "creative destruction" of capitalism at work. Unfortunately, it will literally be creative destruction.

Humor me, please, when is the last time you happened to attend a symphony?

[highplainsdem]

15. Not sure why you're asking about symphonies. There is still a

lot of popular support for live classical music.

But I suppose the most famous classical musicians, and conductors, will now be copied by AI as well.

Opera stars, too.

[xocetaceans]

19. No, you're correct. It will be across the board.

I'm asking about symphonies, because I had a chance to see one at a very nice venue years ago, and it was a unique musical experience. It may have been the auditorium in addition to the orchestra, but it seemed to show me the distinction between music produced by a large ensemble without electrically aided amplification and with music given such aid as one would hear at other venues when seeing bands like Yes, etc.

I had heard live classical music before, but it was never like that, so perhaps it was principally an effect of the venue.

Essentially, it redefined for me what live music could mean but probably cannot outside of that sort of setting with that sort of ensemble.

It was a great experience, but it is not what one can experience through any sort of home or auto stereo system.

Anyway, technological progress and changes in musical styles have most people thinking that music through a stereo system or a car radio or through stacks of speakers is the experience of music. I expect AI is going to have a similar effect. Not only will it replace artists, but it is going to change genres and styles and more rapidly than collaborations ever could.

It will be devastating to have that sort of meaningful creative activity be taken away from people.

[highplainsdem]

20. Thanks for explaining! And yes, live music with ideal acoustics can't be

beat.

And thanks for posting that Rick Beato video, which I've posted in both the Music Appreciation group I host ( https://www.democraticunderground.com/103498903 ) and the Lounge (https://www.democraticunderground.com/10181815908 ), to get people's reactions. I linked back to your reply here from those threads. I probably would have spotted that video eventually, but I hadn't seen it till you posted it, and I think it's important.

[xocetaceans]

21. You're welcome. I'm glad there's discussion about this topic here. It's very important. n/t

[Baked Potato]

3. Mega-artist recent sales of catalogs look pretty prudent now. Nt

[highplainsdem]

6. Definitely.

[dchill]

4. Shakes head.

[highplainsdem]

8. I'm so disillusioned seeing what people who call themselves fans

think is okay.

[dchill]

11. There's a line from "Grease" ...

... (the song, written by the Bee Gees) :
"Their lips are lyin', only real is real..."
Sounds like AI to me.

[intrepidity]

10. I am rewatching "Black Mirror" (Netflix)

Season 2, episode 1 called "Be Right Back" about a chatbot that recreates loved ones after they pass, assuming the person had a sufficient digital archive. I remember when I first watched this a few years ago, thinking, "yeah, that'll be cool when it gets here in 20 years." But, here we are, literally actually right now. A bit mind blowing tbh.

[highplainsdem]

13. They're already using AI for that. Saw an ad for one such company

a month or two ago. Turn your loved one into an AI chatbot.

Samuel R. Delany envisioned something like that, using holograms, about 50 years ago. Can't recall which of his novels or stories it was in, though. It was just a minor detail, a main character chatting with an AI recreation of his mother.

I find that sort of thing grotesque, too.

[Kennah]

12. Wait until they find AI porn showing their spouse having sex with their neighbor

[highplainsdem]

14. That's all too likely to happen. These fans who believe the artists they like are

fair game for exploitation by AI aren't thinking of the ways their own voices and images might be used.

I've said in earlier threads that with AI being used for political smears, our favorite politicians might be defamed with AI porn videos. And QAnon crazies will be able to create AI "proof" of their insane conspiracy theories about Democrats and celebrities abusing children.

[Yavin4]

17. "Honey, that wasn't me. Must've been AI."

[highplainsdem]

22. That WILL be used as an excuse sometimes even when evidence is real. In fact, Elon Musk's

lawyers tried using it in a lawsuit against him for something he said:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/27/23700339/tesla-autopilot-lawsuit-2018-elon-musk-claims-deepfakes

Tesla presented this argument as part of its justification as to why Musk shouldn’t be interviewed under oath for a lawsuit blaming the company for the death of Apple engineer Walter Huang in a fatal crash in 2018.

-snip-

Per Reuters, Tesla’s lawyers stated that Musk could not recall details about such claims and that, “like many public figures, is the subject of many ‘deepfake’ videos and audio recordings that purport to show him saying and doing things he never actually said or did.”

But the judge in the case said this argument by Tesla’s lawyers was “deeply troubling.”

“Their position is that because Mr. Musk is famous and might be more of a target for deep fakes, his public statements are immune,” wrote Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Evette D. Pennypacker. “In other words, Mr. Musk, and others in his position, can simply say whatever they like in the public domain, then hide behind the potential for their recorded statements being a deep fake to avoid taking ownership of what they did actually say and do.”

[Kennah]

24. Why am I not surprised that Muskrat is claiming AI porn

[dalton99a]

16. Kick

[Tommy Carcetti]

18. AI is just creative laziness.

It allows you to wildly creative things, but put absolutely no thought into it.

And the end result shows. Everything AI generated just comes off slightly empty and soulless.

[highplainsdem]

23. I agree. And it's "creativity" through a machine's plagiarism.

And the people selling the AI to us are well aware it's plagiarism.

I posted a message a while back about an AI safety team analyzing image-creating AI that hadn't yet been released, and recommending that the corporation at least make it impossible for users to prompt the AI to produce images in the style of living artists, since it was plagiarism and could threaten their livelihoods. The corporation refused to make that change.

For these companies, the ability to plagiarize is a selling point, and to hell with all the artists whose work was ripped off to train the AI.