Support NeoGAF

[DragoonKain]

I've been listening to some AI generated songs and some of them are kinda catchy. And it had me thinking that it kinda feels icky to say that it's good music. It's not real people singing it or playing the instruments. And there are real artists out there who grind away practicing and putting in work to create "real music" and it feels like a slap in the face to them.

But then I thought, what makes something "real music"? Someone created the software, the code, or put the effort into making these AI songs. Sure, it may have not be the same route that traditional musicians create their music. But if it's good enough to not tell the difference, then does it make it any less good or interesting?

And then that made me think about things like AI generated art and eventually movies as well and the same debate applies.

How do you view it? Do you view it as fake art that is a mockery to real artists and you'll never be a fan of it? Or do you view it as just another form of media and if it's good it's good, regardless of how it got made?

 

[PSYGN]

Most of the time, no... the vocals have a touch of dial-up era raspiness to them still that I can easily pick out. But some things are done well and catchy like



I think a lot of AI will just be filler content e.g. background noise whether working, working out, or just needing it to sleep. But real music will resonate with people to where they want to connect with others at the concert, online, etc. There is a sense of community that is lost with AI stuff. AI is junk food. Gets the job done quick and sometimes surprisingly good like flaming hot cheetos in my sandwich.

 

[AJUMP23]

Ai stuff can be fun but I don't know that I would invest money into it.

 

[p_xavier]

Electronic music is pattern recognition. So yeah sorry for the artists.

 

[DragoonKain]

Most of the time, no... the vocals have a touch of dial-up era raspiness to them still that I can easily pick out. But some things are done well and catchy like



I think a lot of AI will just be filler content e.g. background noise whether working, working out, or just needing it to sleep. But real music will resonate with people to where they want to connect with others at the concert, online, etc. There is a sense of community that is lost with AI stuff. AI is junk food. Gets the job done quick and sometimes surprisingly good like flaming hot cheetos in my sandwich.

I think it will come down to how people appreciate media.

Is it something someone just consumes as pure entertainment? ie... it sounds good to me and it's all I care about. Or a movie is fun to me and it's all I care about. Or do you consume it thinking about the work that went into it and the effort it took to make it. If you're the latter I think those people will always have trouble warming up to AI generated media. If you're the former you'll probably be much more receptive toward it.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

For sure. When you got beauty YT sites like this ragging on pro athletes, it's hilarious.

DangerousAI

✅ AI Parody Content 📩 BUSINESS EMAIL: TheDangerousAi@gmail.com ✅ I create my content by writing original scripts and I use AI for the voiceover. ✅ Edited by me to add that extra flair and ensure you get the best entertainment possible. I ensure all my videos are transformative, featuring...

www.youtube.com

 

[poppabk]

Isn't there a band that has been blowing up that people think might be AI but no-one is really sure. I imagine that will become more common to the point that you won't really know and we will have a Milli Vanilli episode fairly soon where we have humans pretending to be a group that is really just AI.
Edit:
It was a 'band' called Velvet Sundown and the AI search told me that they have been confirmed to be AI - probably detected with AI.

 

[Vaquilla]

No, it's meaningless slop.

 

[GateofD]

No, it's good for stupid meme YouTube videos, but would never financially support it out of my own pocket

 

[rm082e]

Isn't there a band that has been blowing up that people think might be AI but no-one is really sure. I imagine that will become more common to the point that you won't really know and we will have a Milli Vanilli episode fairly soon where we have humans pretending to be a group that is really just AI.
Edit:
It was a 'band' called Velvet Sundown and the AI search till me that they have been confirmed to be AI - probably detected with AI.

It sounds like boring generic shit:

 

[Lord Panda]

Not yet, but I imagine one day it will be a robust and amazing tool for storytelling.

 

[poppabk]

It sounds like boring generic shit:

Yeah but it is/was also a commercially succesful 'band'.

 

[ReBurn]

AI doesn't really sit around generating stuff on its own. It's a tool. If someone uses it to create something I think is interesting I'm not going to care how they created it.

 

[rm082e]

Yeah but it is/was also a commercially succesful 'band'.

So are Nickelback. Look at this photograph.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The first person to perfectly personally customized AI generated porn will become the richest person on Earth

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

I LOVE AI!!!

 

[calico]

Everyone will be, unless they restrict themselves to art/media they have seen created right in front of them.

I suspect it's already being leaned on heavily in writing music, books, scripts etc.

 

[IDKFA]

I've been listening to some AI generated songs and some of them are kinda catchy. And it had me thinking that it kinda feels icky to say that it's good music. It's not real people singing it or playing the instruments. And there are real artists out there who grind away practicing and putting in work to create "real music" and it feels like a slap in the face to them.

But then I thought, what makes something "real music"? Someone created the software, the code, or put the effort into making these AI songs. Sure, it may have not be the same route that traditional musicians create their music. But if it's good enough to not tell the difference, then does it make it any less good or interesting?

And then that made me think about things like AI generated art and eventually movies as well and the same debate applies.

How do you view it? Do you view it as fake art that is a mockery to real artists and you'll never be a fan of it? Or do you view it as just another form of media and if it's good it's good, regardless of how it got made?

My answer is no because I don't consider it art.

For me, Art is more than just output. it's an expression of consciousness, emotion, struggle, and intention. Art is connected to meaning, suffering, cultural context, and personal stories. These are things AI doesn't truly experience and never will experience.

In addition to this, do we really want AI to take over human creativity? Art is part of the human experience. It is unique to us as a species. I don't want humanity to be just consuming whatever fake art the AI gods feed us. I want art created by humans.

 

[IAmRei]

no, i don't like AI, and there is no art in AI, never will.

 

[Dr.D00p]

It's just the latest 'tech bros' grift and the latest way for the scum on Wall St to make money for doing fuck all and contributing nothing of value to society.

 

[calico]

For me, Art is more than just output.

But the 'output' is the only part you are exposed to in most cases. Any deeper meaning or expression you believe you see in it is discerned from that output.

What will you do once it is impossible to tell whether a given output is human or AI created? Will meta knowledge of the creation of the output become a prerequisite before you allow yourself to discern meaning or expression from a given output?

 

[IDKFA]

But the 'output' is the only part you are exposed to in most cases. Any deeper meaning or expression you believe you see in it is discerned from that output.

What will you do once it is impossible to tell whether a given output is human or AI created? Will meta knowledge of the creation of the output become a prerequisite before you allow yourself to discern meaning or expression from a given output?

You make a good point and this forms the core of the philosophical argument.

I agree that the output is often the only thing we directly experience in art, but that doesn't mean it's the only thing that matters. Context, authorship, and intention have played a central role in how we understand and value artistic works. Art has never just been about what's on the canvas or the page, but about the human being behind it and truth they chose to express.

The suggestion that we should only judge art by its output assumes that deception doesn't matter, but it does. If I find out that something I found moving was created by AI with no feelings, no experiences, and no inner life, that realisation changes how I relate to it. It feels more like manipulation than expression. An illusion rather than a connection. Authenticity, in this case, isn't just a romantic ideal. It's what makes art a bridge between people and culture.

For me, meaning in art comes from the human experience. If I read a poem about grief written by someone who has lost a loved one, I connect not just with the words, but with the fact that someone felt those things and turned them into art. AI can simulate the structure and tone of a sad poem, but it doesn't feel sadness, nor does it choose to express anything. It never will. What it generates is hollow imitation which might look convincing, but is emotionally empty.

Personally - and I hope I'm not alone here - I've always valued authenticity: hand-written letters, signed artworks, live performances, original paintings. These things matter because of the person behind them. So, meta-knowledge — knowing who made the work and why — will become more important, not less.

Art should not be just about what pleases the senses. It should be about what connects us to one another. Only humans can offer that. AI can imitate the outer shape of art, but it's a forgery. A deception of the human experience.

This all links to a deeper concern I have. AI and robotics are currently replacing humans in the workplace. Soon they'll replace us with creating art. If we lose work and creation to AI, what becomes of humanity? Are we just living to consume what AI feeds us? To become like the humans in Wall-E? That's not a future I want to be part of.

 

[Wildebeest]

It depends. If someone has the position that all AI content is "bad" or "slop" then as time goes on their position is likely going to get weaker and weaker. If their position is that it uses too much water or resources or something then okay but humans and other things also use a lot of resources.

There are other issues like AI can produce styles but it can't produce taste or culture. But those things are already deprecated by the corporate art that we consume today. Games are like the vanguard of that sort of corporate art where taste and culture are not valued and all that matters are things like production standards, amount of content, profit and engagement.

 

[_Idea_of_Evil_]

Maybe someday (soon). Some 80's dark fantasy AI stuff I've seen is cool. When AI gets even better it's likely we'll see some good/significantly better stuff generated.

 

[xrnzaaas]

I will always avoid AI-generated content, no matter how much the final quality will improve over the years. I understand it as a tool to assist real work, but not when it's created something independently.

And sure, it will become more difficult to distinguish real person vs. AI work, but that's where doing research comes in. I'm already verifying my planned purchases to avoid potential fails and giving money to someone I wouldn't want to (like a russian game developer).