Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/04/24/artists-against-ai.html
…
6 Likes
can’t stop progress. sorry.
1 Like
Don’t think you’ll be able to stop AI generated music so label your work as created by people and let the listeners decide. One place AI would definitely help creatives is managing all the logistics and tasks that labels do in order to remove the corporate BS that artists are subjected to in order to make music.
Enshittification ≠ Progress
18 Likes
The apocalypse is well on its way. This song sucks.
Nick Cave
2 Likes
I’m unclear what you mean by that. By “logistics and tasks” do you mean dealing with the actual artists? Because yes, cutting artists out of the loop would simply things. But it’s a bit of a stretch to call the remaining folks at the record label “creatives.”
1 Like
You beat me to it.
11 Likes
It sounds so much better than saying “can’t stop rich people from pillaging everything they can to add to their already obscene wealth” though. Then we might consider if we can stop it, and indeed have to stop it.
11 Likes
Too much like right, thinking that some problems are NOT inevitable, if we work together to fix them.
10 Likes
Guillotine the tech-bros for the sake of progress!
10 Likes
Progress? It’s just tech thalidomide. Asbestos. Scientology. DDT.
At least as applied to human creative endeavors.
13 Likes
Thalidomide eventually ended up having some legit uses. But before it was understood, caused a lot of damage. I guess your metaphor still stands.
1 Like
Yeah, avoiding lots more damage to an already crumbling society would probably be a good thing.
7 Likes
Capitalism is fond of AI, because it sees AI as a way to cut costs and increase profits by replacing workers… but it all depends on whether or not the public is willing to accept it. There are quite a few people (myself included) who aren’t willing to accept it. AI might be useful as another tool used by creatives, but I don’t consider it a sufficient replacement, especially when so much AI output is based on stolen data, without approval of, or recompense to, the original artists who got “sampled.”
13 Likes
Yoink!
8 Likes
I second that ‘yoinkage.’
7 Likes
So much money to eliminate artists and workers in general. Not a cent to eliminate billionaires.
9 Likes
Can’t get to be a billionaire without exploiting workers (except via inheritance or the lottery, I suppose, and even then you have to consider where the money came from.)
This hit my skyline recently (and yes, it’s visual artists as opposed to musicians, but i’d argue it’s still relevant):
(Top left is Victo Ngai; their name got cut off by formatting.)
There are an awful lot of ethical and legal issues in AI that need to be resolved ASAP, including authorization of sources included, crediting for source work, and compensation. If those were addressed, I’d be more inclined to accept AI (as a tool for artists, not a replacement for them.)
12 Likes
I concur that I see MML art as a tool for artists to use, NOT any kind of replacement.
Quality over quantity commodity.
6 Likes
AI is NOT progress. It’s a technology that has yet to prove itself remotely useful for… well, anything at all… This a debate we’ve been having since literally the early 19th century, over automation. Brian Merchant’s recent book covers this pretty well…
Ah, yes… the famously astute average consumer. /s
The labels would rather replace the creatives, and force them to do the drudgery.
9 Likes
