Well, you know Grammarly is a machine learning tool going on what, 20 years now? You’re not compromising yourself by using it. There are folks in existence who think using a DAW is a moral compromise and that your recording isn’t “real” unless you’re using only vintage analog equipment with 2-inch tape and have a recording contract. And …
Well, you know Grammarly is a machine learning tool going on what, 20 years now? You’re not compromising yourself by using it. There are folks in existence who think using a DAW is a moral compromise and that your recording isn’t “real” unless you’re using only vintage analog equipment with 2-inch tape and have a recording contract. And that you’re obligated to pay specialists every stage of the way to shepherd your music across the finish line, whatever that is. Which is, you know, nonsense. I don’t miss the old barriers to entry.
The essential element is that there is a creative human actually formulating, writing/designing/building, and producing in whatever chosen format or medium is required for the art to become a real thing.
When people go asking ChatGPT to do that same proof-reading work - folks still get antsy. I mean, there's also the fact that you can get AI to write a paragraph for you, and then you proof-read it so it doesn't sound like it was written by a committee of public relations analysts. Even by that point, people get nervous. Most people can't tell 15-year old technology from the emerging stuff and are quick to attack anything that's new to them.
I also can’t help thinking that the big AI push is not going to amount to as much as Big Tech thinks for the following reasons: 1) major issues with excess resources usage; 2) diminishing returns in quality the longer you use natural-language prompts; 3) companies throwing money at AI to remake their businesses may be starting to perceive those diminishing returns; 4) persistent violations of intellectual property combined with increasingly loud rejection of the validity of copyrights. None of these things are making them any friends. Techies could care less about creatives; to them we’re just people who don’t matter. But eventually the Big Scam becomes too obvious to ignore. Just like Web 2.0. I’ve done pretty well in stocks this year but I am definitely keeping an eye on things.
Large language models are in a hype cycle like the dot-com bubble, crypto, NFT's, metaverses, and those stupid VR goggles. There's nothing in the architecture that suggest a transformer network will ever be capable of general artificial intelligence. The companies adding chatbots to their products aren't being helped by them - they're just waving something shiny in front of feckless investors.
I think the resource consumption issues will come down with innovations like Samba, or some other iteration - but that just means that every open-source gearhead is going to want to run it on their cell-phones, which will leave nothing for big tech which mostly brings scale to the table. As for intellectual property - I wish the average consumer cared, but they probably care more about the ways the current IP regime fails them than artists, and I suspect the tech giants will try to exploit that to forge a coalition against creative workers. The fact that everyone just gives so much work away for free on social media is a chilling sign of things to come.
That being said, I think there is a revolution in AI in the works. If you know the "Think Fast and Slow" theory of the mind, our current AI is pretty good at thinking fast. When it can "think slow," then they'll have something. They're working on it.
I think Apple's involvement is really going to prove if this stuff is viable. They are also heading in the very direction you note by having much computation take place on your local devices.
As a musician, sharing my work on social media freaks me out. I consider YouTube the best of a bad lot of options.
Well, you know Grammarly is a machine learning tool going on what, 20 years now? You’re not compromising yourself by using it. There are folks in existence who think using a DAW is a moral compromise and that your recording isn’t “real” unless you’re using only vintage analog equipment with 2-inch tape and have a recording contract. And that you’re obligated to pay specialists every stage of the way to shepherd your music across the finish line, whatever that is. Which is, you know, nonsense. I don’t miss the old barriers to entry.
The essential element is that there is a creative human actually formulating, writing/designing/building, and producing in whatever chosen format or medium is required for the art to become a real thing.
When people go asking ChatGPT to do that same proof-reading work - folks still get antsy. I mean, there's also the fact that you can get AI to write a paragraph for you, and then you proof-read it so it doesn't sound like it was written by a committee of public relations analysts. Even by that point, people get nervous. Most people can't tell 15-year old technology from the emerging stuff and are quick to attack anything that's new to them.
I also can’t help thinking that the big AI push is not going to amount to as much as Big Tech thinks for the following reasons: 1) major issues with excess resources usage; 2) diminishing returns in quality the longer you use natural-language prompts; 3) companies throwing money at AI to remake their businesses may be starting to perceive those diminishing returns; 4) persistent violations of intellectual property combined with increasingly loud rejection of the validity of copyrights. None of these things are making them any friends. Techies could care less about creatives; to them we’re just people who don’t matter. But eventually the Big Scam becomes too obvious to ignore. Just like Web 2.0. I’ve done pretty well in stocks this year but I am definitely keeping an eye on things.
Large language models are in a hype cycle like the dot-com bubble, crypto, NFT's, metaverses, and those stupid VR goggles. There's nothing in the architecture that suggest a transformer network will ever be capable of general artificial intelligence. The companies adding chatbots to their products aren't being helped by them - they're just waving something shiny in front of feckless investors.
I think the resource consumption issues will come down with innovations like Samba, or some other iteration - but that just means that every open-source gearhead is going to want to run it on their cell-phones, which will leave nothing for big tech which mostly brings scale to the table. As for intellectual property - I wish the average consumer cared, but they probably care more about the ways the current IP regime fails them than artists, and I suspect the tech giants will try to exploit that to forge a coalition against creative workers. The fact that everyone just gives so much work away for free on social media is a chilling sign of things to come.
That being said, I think there is a revolution in AI in the works. If you know the "Think Fast and Slow" theory of the mind, our current AI is pretty good at thinking fast. When it can "think slow," then they'll have something. They're working on it.
♥️
I think Apple's involvement is really going to prove if this stuff is viable. They are also heading in the very direction you note by having much computation take place on your local devices.
As a musician, sharing my work on social media freaks me out. I consider YouTube the best of a bad lot of options.