Pet Shop Boys Community

Greetings,

Dog wrote: Thu 27 Feb 2025, 7:37 am Isn’t what AI does closer to sampling, though, rather than simply “inspiring”?

Well, if it does actually sample, that's a copyright strike.

For example, if it chops and twists and changes a vocal line like Utah Saints did with Kate Bush, that would be a copyright violation, if licensing hadn't been granted. If it learned about cool ways to pitch bend from Something Good, and it learned some interesting and appealing tonal resonances from Kate Bush's vocals (lol good luck), then there is nothing here that the human process of observing, learning, and emulation could not do, albeit possibly not as well as AI could do in the future, and it seems that's the real grievance here.

The whole project reeks of privileged Luddites who want to protect their income streams a little longer, rather than see the potential in new technology as it unfolds.

Retro.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Dog wrote: Thu 27 Feb 2025, 7:37 am Isn’t what AI does closer to sampling, though, rather than simply “inspiring”?

Well, if it does actually sample, that's a copyright strike.

For example, if it chops and twists and changes a vocal line like Utah Saints did with Kate Bush, that would be a copyright violation, if licensing hadn't been granted. If it learned about cool ways to pitch bend from Something Good, and it learned some interesting and appealing tonal resonances from Kate Bush's vocals (lol good luck), then there is nothing here that the human process of observing, learning, and emulation could not do, albeit possibly not as well as AI could do in the future, and it seems that's the real grievance here.

The whole project reeks of privileged Luddites who want to protect their income streams a little longer, rather than see the potential in new technology as it unfolds.

Retro.

I guess it probably comes down to what actually happens in the process of “skimming” - if AI is extracting music as digital information and incorporating it into another track without sufficiently developing it, then that feels like an issue and I can see why artists would be concerned. If AI is simply listening and learning, as you suggest, then I can see that that is unproblematic. But I think it’s the former that artists are concerned about. And the latter feels like far more of a human, analogue process. I’m not sure that’s how AI operates.

Greetings Dog,

I more or less agree with what you've said in terms of the key issues, although I think AI is already more advanced than you're giving it credit for.

For example, I was using Grok 3 the other day and it has these new "deep search" and a "think" modes, each of which actually shares with you its thinking in real-time as it goes. It was fascinating to see its research logic, hypotheses and conclusions play out before my eyes in real-time. In terms of performance (and personality!) it's light years ahead of Grok 2. One can only imagine how it will evolve from here. One thing is for sure, though... singularity is inevitable, and this project will do nothing to stop it.

Retro.

retrofuturist wrote:
The whole project reeks of privileged Luddites who want to protect their income streams a little longer, rather than see the potential in new technology as it unfolds.

In this debate - and in terms of protecting income streams - I would rather back the notion of The Artist than the Elon Musks of this world. If you have the original work, and nine other versions that only exist because they have extracted digital information from the source (not just listened to), I think it is reasonable for the originator to feel under attack and want to protect their work.

Greetings Dog,

Dog wrote: Thu 27 Feb 2025, 8:37 am I think it is reasonable for the originator to feel under attack and want to protect their work.

Understandable, but if you can't copyright a bass-line, a drum pattern, or a chord progression, and sound reproduction (i.e. sampling) already requires licensing, then it's hard to see what any new legislation is going to actually pick up beyond the existing copyright laws. A few artists "opting out" will just be a mere speed hump in the evolution of AI and its potential re: music.

Retro.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Dog,

Dog wrote: Thu 27 Feb 2025, 8:37 am I think it is reasonable for the originator to feel under attack and want to protect their work.

Understandable, but if you can't copyright a bass-line, a drum pattern, or a chord progression, and sound reproduction (i.e. sampling) already requires licensing, then it's hard to see what any new legislation is going to actually pick up beyond the existing copyright laws. A few artists "opting out" will just be a mere speed hump in the evolution of AI and its potential re: music.

Retro.

I think it’s just a case of trying to make sure the record companies get paid along the way, rather than just the tech companies.

Well, if it does actually sample, that's a copyright strike.

Currently. The change in the law being proposed would change that… if it was the Ai companies basing music on ‘samples’.

It’s pretty clear that the like of Musk, Zuch etc aren’t in this to further the arts, they’re in it to grab, resample, and profit off the work of artists. To change the law to remove existing copyright protection to help them do so… well, it’s entirely valid to question that change.

‘Ai’ itself isn’t a problem. If a choir want to feed their material into machine learning, to create a tool that enables others to mimic their performances in their own work… that’s great, and all power to them. But changing the law so that a company can come along, scrape and train that choir’s performances, without permission, to create their own marketable products, and without any intention of reimbursement for the original artists… that will have a huge negative effect on artists’ ability to make a living from their work.

If they want to preserve something, encapsulating themselves image wise inside a TOTP-performance from 1986, they can be number 1 again.

https://newsocialist.org.uk/transmissio ... f-fascism/

And I say this as someone working in the domain of AI. It can be used in rather useful or educational ways, but as an expensive tool to ape and rape other people's art? Inexcusable.

glennjridge wrote: Thu 27 Feb 2025, 1:42 am

NotInvisible wrote: Tue 25 Feb 2025, 10:34 pm

markus wrote: Tue 25 Feb 2025, 1:20 pm All the dinosaurs are trembling, young artists may be already experimenting with AI's possibilities.

Yes, AI is a great tool for those who lack the talent to compose.

Markus is right...lack of talent is neither her nor there with AI. its the future. its a tool and its going to be incorporated into every area of life. young people who have zero singing ability and cant play an instrument will have top 10 hits and we sounding like the old people we are will say, "they lack the talent to compose", and they will just say "yep" as the money flows in.

This is also true in my job; translation and interpretation. Today, those in an international company who do not speak a foreign language can be quite successful in their communication with their counterparts in foreign countries thanks to AI-backed translation programs. This started with Google Translate and is on full track with many AI programs on the way.

Those foreign counterparts feel that it is a translation program's job (sentence structures, word choices, etc.) but as long as there is not a huge mistake or misunderstanding, they accept it and everything goes smoothly because "the business goes on and money comes in". No one inquires whether the one whom they are communicating with speaks English (or any other foreign language) or if he uses a machine program (and yes that's even true for legal texts etc. unless there is an irreversible mistake).

Just three or four years ago, it was unimaginable that a white-collar employee with zero foreign language would remain in his office as he would be instantly fired in the case of a failed attempt to talk to foreigners. Now even the companies themselves use those AI programs, let alone complaining about their employees.

A few years later, there will be no need for translators etc. to be replaced by machine language. Yes, people will understand that it is an AI translation because it lacks human touch (cultural nuances are lost in the process, for example) but no one will care.

I was playing around with the AI voice tech, I made some George Michael Ai's of him singing songs like "My cherie Amour" and you literally cant tell its not George.

there was an explosion of AI's on the net of people having all their fav stars singing this or that song....now its all pretty much died out. it wasnt legislated away, people just got bored of it. I suspect down the road AI will burn itself out in some facets of life and people will crave the realness again.

Was at a concert last night and there's one thing I am pretty confident AI cannot do. The live experience - people, instruments, action, getting the audience's attention and participation.

Sure, there's the ABBA experience but even that relies on musicians and live performance.

Even if AI COULD pull it off, it could never "pretend" to be someone else without that other person knowing.

glennjridge wrote: Thu 27 Feb 2025, 1:42 amMarkus is right...lack of talent is neither her nor there with AI.

If you can’t do it without AI you lack talent.

its the future.

I don’t doubt that - exploitation, enshittification and the rise of the talentless is the apogee of our cultural devolution.

Many famous composers admitted they copy and steal, just do it without getting caught is their code of honor. I doubt AI will ever give artists any serious competition, just more of the generic disposable noise we've had to live with anyway. True talent will be always be recogized.

Will songs become increasingly indistinguishable as creators use AI to optimise the hit? If so, no real difference from the state of the industry today. If not, and we’re gifted greater variety, that’s a plus.