Yes it is a separate topic (but very current, with possible implications for OSC). Would be great to have people's thoughts about it.
One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread
-
- KVRian
- 960 posts since 30 Oct, 2013 from Scarborough
https://rjsemper.wixsite.com/website
One Synth Challenge - https://sites.google.com/site/kvrosc/about
One Synth Challenge - https://sites.google.com/site/kvrosc/about
-
- KVRian
- 863 posts since 13 Jan, 2013 from United States
I've had a go with the new AI features in Logic Pro X and AI generated performances -- I.e. original parts "played" by the DAW should be prohibited. This will be almost impossible to monitor so will have to be kind of an honor system, but it will provide an unfair advantage when it comes to playing parts. Also, third party generative AI midi note programs should be prohibitive. I consider playing the parts we write to be part of the OSC experience and would hate to see that be left behind. It would open OSC to people who don't have any skills in composition or arranging.
-
- KVRian
- 863 posts since 13 Jan, 2013 from United States
Arpeggiators and other note randomizers like some of the Bitwig efx are ok because the rely on chords that you input, but if the software comes up with chords or melodies for you it should not be permitted.
-
- KVRian
- 642 posts since 31 Oct, 2019 from Wonderland
As for AI mastering tools, I think it's OK, as long as it's free and includes only modules allowed in OSC (compressors, limiters, EQ, etc.).
It's more complicated with AI composers. One of the sharp edges is that we may not find out that this happened unless the participant tells us about it himself. The other is in the degree of influence. It is unlikely that now we can forbid someone to turn to the program for a sequence of chords or a rhythmic pattern when inspiration has left someone. But determining the acceptable line between a chord sequence and a full-fledged track will be very difficult in this case. It seems to me that this will mostly remain on the conscience of each participant.
Now, under the pressure of the rapid development of AI, a mixture of the most contradictory feelings is bubbling up in me! Will (they/it?) replace us, musicians? Is the end of art near? We may get an answer to these questions in the coming years. Probably, during this time, everything will change many times and very much, so the rules in this area may also need to be flexible. Now my spirit of resistance says: give full freedom to use the AI composers and let's see if there is really something special in us, human musicians!
But also, I would like it to be written in the rules that each participant, by analogy with the effects, lists the programs / sites that he used for his track.
P.S. And yes, there is one point that I forgot about. I believe that any AI tools should be free and publicly available. This is one of our basic rules, yes, but there is an unspoken exception to it: DAW FX. Most DAWs are commercial, so the features they provide are also paid and not publicly available. Like most, I'm fine with DAW FX that satisfy the rules about the types of effects. But if in one of the paid DAWs (free ones too? I don't know...) there is an AI composer, then it is also essentially paid and not publicly available.
It's more complicated with AI composers. One of the sharp edges is that we may not find out that this happened unless the participant tells us about it himself. The other is in the degree of influence. It is unlikely that now we can forbid someone to turn to the program for a sequence of chords or a rhythmic pattern when inspiration has left someone. But determining the acceptable line between a chord sequence and a full-fledged track will be very difficult in this case. It seems to me that this will mostly remain on the conscience of each participant.
Now, under the pressure of the rapid development of AI, a mixture of the most contradictory feelings is bubbling up in me! Will (they/it?) replace us, musicians? Is the end of art near? We may get an answer to these questions in the coming years. Probably, during this time, everything will change many times and very much, so the rules in this area may also need to be flexible. Now my spirit of resistance says: give full freedom to use the AI composers and let's see if there is really something special in us, human musicians!
But also, I would like it to be written in the rules that each participant, by analogy with the effects, lists the programs / sites that he used for his track.
P.S. And yes, there is one point that I forgot about. I believe that any AI tools should be free and publicly available. This is one of our basic rules, yes, but there is an unspoken exception to it: DAW FX. Most DAWs are commercial, so the features they provide are also paid and not publicly available. Like most, I'm fine with DAW FX that satisfy the rules about the types of effects. But if in one of the paid DAWs (free ones too? I don't know...) there is an AI composer, then it is also essentially paid and not publicly available.
-
- KVRAF
- 2143 posts since 22 Sep, 2016
It's important to understand that AIs like ChatGPT are "trained" networks of probabilities. Training means, they learn from *existing* original material. ChatGPT 3 for instance has 157 billion parameters.IV! wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 2:44 pm Now, under the pressure of the rapid development of AI, a mixture of the most contradictory feelings is bubbling up in me! Will (they/it?) replace us, musicians? Is the end of art near? We may get an answer to these questions in the coming years. Probably, during this time, everything will change many times and very much, so the rules in this area may also need to be flexible. Now my spirit of resistance says: give full freedom to use the AI composers and let's see if there is really something special in us, human musicians!
But this means it can only reproduce "probabilities" for inszance of sequences of words, more or less fuzzy (temperature parameter), it might not come up with something "new" other than hallucinating ... I mean to say, we as a group of musicians (or society at all?) should start to understand the inner working of these AIs! And we should understand the crazy power privately run companies have - they can decide what content they use for training their AIs and even more disturbing, which content they exclude... like if they train only bach, an AI will be good to mimic bach... With this power they can shape truth, because many people mix up ChatGPT hallucinations with the "truth".
And I'm really pissed, because OpenAI (run by Microsoft) just took source code of Github of FOSS projects without asking ... hopefully we get many unauthorized copies of GPL code ... and people who sue them.
Sorry for the rant, I think the actuall way AI is developed, the way it's perceived, the people who hold the power ... it's dangerous!
Nevertheless I'm not opposed to AI. We all have to understand how it works, what limits it has, to be able to make good decisions. And understanding means using it.
For OSC or music making in generall - I think I will for now go #AIFree
Here's a good video that explains parts of the inner working of GPT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjZofJX0v4M
-
- KVRAF
- 2142 posts since 29 Sep, 2011
I have a bit of a differing opinion about AI, I suppose. If I could strike a gavel and say "no AI is allowed to compose your track", I might do that. But what about things like Captain Chords that have some predefined chord patterns? Not necessarily AI, but you're still getting note input from something you didn't come up with yourself. Or free MIDI packs... or heaven forbid, Niko's Midi pack! He gotchu! But I digress... the problem to me isn't whether it should be allowed or not, the problem is how would it ever be enforced? A user just drops in some MIDI or renders the output of a plugin to MIDI, and all evidence is gone - the composition for all intents and purposes is their own now. I'm as afraid as the next person that AI is going to take my job and eliminate true art -- it's happening already, isn't it? Red Lobster! :shakes fist at cloud: But if it's something we could never enforce, then I don't think it's something we should try to disallow.
