[nullpilot]

Not everyone enjoys composing music, and for a large group of people paying an artist is not an option. There's a lot to critizise about current AI tech, saying of all things this has no net benefit seems like the wrong thing to call out, and incredibly short sighted for HN.

[Juliate]

You're not composing music with an AI generator either: you're pushing a button with a few, limited instructions, and expect something that rewards your perception of what makes good music for your intention.

If you don't enjoy composing music, just don't do it, and give it to someone who does, and has the experience/knowledge/culture/practice/gut to do it.

[nullpilot]

> If you don't enjoy composing music, just don't do it

This supposes that the music is the end goal, and the very point of my comment is that it doesn't always have to be, and in those cases "just don't do it" also means not doing whatever comes after.

Just as you state below, this doesn't replace creating music for the creation's sake. I don't believe it will, or should. It merely replaces having nothing at all, or having the 100,000th video with the same upbeat stock sound.

[logicchains]

What an incredibly elitist, smug attitude. You're basically saying people only have the right to hear the music that professionals think they should hear.

[jimbokun]

> saying of all things this has no net benefit seems like the wrong thing to call out, and incredibly short sighted for HN.

Well it has the benefit of being true.

[6stringmerc]

So putting paid humans out of business is your position then? Please explain why you believe in the long sighted view AI reducing already poverty level wages to zero is beneficial.

[hexomancer]

Do you not see how your argument could be applied to steam engines putting human laborers out of work? Or computers putting (human) calculators out of work? Do you think inventing the steam machine or computers was a mistake too?

[nullpilot]

If you're trying to maximize employment, composers aren't the first, second, or tenth place to go looking. If you're trying to say artists will bleed income, they already have for decades, and will continue to. The ones that make a living out of it mostly get their income from live performances and merch, and maybe adtech on social media platforms.

By the same logic synthesizers shouldn't have been invented that allowed people to make advanced sounds without tediously learning an instrument first, consumers should remain priced out of microphones and editing software, etc.

Like I said, I am not trying to feign ignorance on the drawbacks of the tech which is very real and far from negligible. I am not a tech bro AI maximalist. I just do believe that hyperbole will not put the djinn back into the bottle, and pretending like there isn't a real market between nothing and paying or being a composer isn't adding anything to the conversation.

[risyachka]

In this particular case it is totally black and white. Prove me wrong.

Tell me one example how music gen in any way benefits anybody to the level that is worth putting out of business the last few artists that make ends meet?

[nullpilot]

The difference between today and the hypothetical case of not one artist making ends meet from their music is what, 0.1%? 0.01%?

We would be better off if the other 99.9% didn't have worry about making ends meet, than if we do whatever it takes to keep the status quo of the 0.1% intact. That does not only go for artists.