Barack Obama: “For elevator music, AI is going to work fine. Music like Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder, that’s different”::Barack Obama has weighed in on AI’s impact on music creation in a new interview, saying, “For elevator music, AI is going to work fine”.

  • BeautifulMind ♾️
    link
    fedilink
    English
    182 years ago

    But do we really need AI to generate art?

    Why can’t AI be used to automate useful work nobody wants to do, instead of being a way for capital to automate skilled labor out of high-paying jobs?

    • @notapantsday@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 years ago

      Because AI is unpredictable. Which is not a big issue for art, because you can immediately see any flaws and if you can’t, it doesn’t matter.

      But for actually useful work, you don’t want to find out that the AI programmer completely made up a few lines of code that are only causing problems when the airplane is flying with a 32° bank angle on a saturday with a prime number for a date.

    • @logicbomb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      72 years ago

      It’s virtually guaranteed that at some point, robots and/or AI will be capable of doing almost every human job. And then there will be a time when they can do every job better than any human.

      I wonder how people will react. Will they become lazy? Depressed? Just have sex all the time? Just have sex with robots all the time?

    • @interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      Why should we stifle technological progress so people can still do jobs that can be done with a machine?

      If they still want to create art, nobody is stopping them. If they want to get paid, then they need to do something useful for society.

      • BeautifulMind ♾️
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -3
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Nobody’s calling to stifle technology or progress here. We could develop AI to do anything. The question is what should that be?

        There’s a distinction to be drawn between ‘things that are profitable to do and thus there isn’t any shortage of’ and ‘things that aren’t profitable and so there’s a shortage of it’ here. Today, the de facto measure of ‘is it useful for society?’ seems to be the former, and that doesn’t mean what’s useful for society, it’s what’s usefuI for people that have money to burn.

        Fundamentally, there isn’t a shortage of art, or copy writers, or software developers, or the things they do- what there is, that AI promises to change, is the inconvenient need to deal with (and pay) artisans or laborers to do it. If the alternative is for AI vendors to be paid instead of working people, is it really the public interest we’re talking about, or the interests of corporate management that would rather pocket the difference in cost between paying labor vs. AI?

    • @Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      But do we really need AI to generate art?

      No, but we want it to. It’s probably only a matter of time untill AI can do better anything that humans can, including art. Now if there’s an option to view great art done by humans or amazing art done by AI I’ll go with the latter. It can already generate better photographs than I can capture with my camera but I couldn’t care less. Takes zero joy out of my photography hobby. I’m not doing it for money.

    • @thoughtorgan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      We don’t need it. It’s just cool tech. I’ve messed around with stable diffusion a lot and it’s a cool tool.

    • @IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 years ago

      I don’t think it’s really helpful to group a bunch of different technologies under the banner of A.I. but most people aren’t knowledgeable enough to make the distinction between software that can analyze a medical scan to tell me if I have cancer and a fancy chat bot.

      • @lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        The whole point of AI is that those systems aren’t fundamentally different. There is little to no human expertise that goes into those systems, it’s all self learned from the data. That’s why we are getting AIs that can do images, music, chess, Go, chatbots, etc. all in short order. None of them are build on decades worth of human expertise in music or art, but simply created by throwing data at the problem and letting the AI algorithms figure out the rest.

        • BeautifulMind ♾️
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          There is little to no human expertise that goes into those systems, it’s all self learned from the data.

          The human expertise is in the data. There’s no such thing as spontaneous AI generation of expertise from nothing. If you train up an AI on information that doesn’t have it, the AI won’t learn it. In a very real way, the profit margins of AI-generated content rest wholly on its ability to consume and derive output from source material developed by unpaid experts.

          Also, when the data is the output of people with biases, the AI will do the same.

          • @lloram239@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            The human expertise is in the data.

            There are no art lessons in the training data, just labeled images. How to actually draw the AI has to figure out by itself. Even the labels on the data aren’t strictly needed, they are just there so the humans can interact with the AI by text.

            Same with AlphaZero, it didn’t learn playing Go from humans, it learned that by playing against itself and not only beat humans, but previous versions that were still based on recording human Go games.

            That’s the bitter lesson of AI research: Throwing data and computation at the problem gives you much better results than human experts.

            And we have barely even begun to explore this. What ChatGPT does is still just reciting information from books and websites, it can’t interact with the real world to learn by itself. It being based on books written by human experts is not a benefit, but what’s holding it back.