A rant about AI art and music.

I can say for sure that within five years, 8 out of the top 10 pop songs on the charts will be generated by AI, but I'm not worried about me being replaced at all.

First of all, regarding "what AI creates will never be as good as real people's creation", I can say for sure that it will change in the future.

I've tried the beta model of Udio, asked it to generate a Hans Zimmer-style cinematic ambient track, and it did a great job. The music generated by the current version are sonically superior to more than 75% of *popular* pop music. With the development of neural networks for different models and more training, the songs generated by AI will only become better than human's in terms of mixing, mastering, etc. It will eventually be able to make new harmonies that no one has ever thought of before, and achieve the "theoretically perfect" mixing and mastering.

But I don't think this will be a bad thing. I don't like the modern music industry. All songs should be labeled as "products" rather than music. Write some rhyming lyrics, design some catchy sounds, and make it three and a half minutes. Not to mention that a lot of popular pop music has huge deficiencies in terms of mixing and mastering. The "theoretically perfect" songs produced by AI entering the market will indirectly raise the standard of the music industry.

Second, regarding "AI-generated things are soulless", I think that whether it is music, painting, film, installation, sculpture or any other art form, what makes it art is that it is a way for artists to express and convey their emotions and thoughts. Industrialised artworks are products without souls. And pop music is the most iconic example of "selling souls for numbers". It's so hard for me to feel the music of many pop artists, and if they contain any of their emotions, especially some EDM artists and rappers. Many of their works has actually no differences from products just like cars made in the factories, waiting to be sold. In that case, there is no reason for them not to be replaced by AI. However, this is exactly why I think AI could never replace real artists.

As I mentioned above, art should be a way for artists to express themselves and what they want to express, so the art they create is valuable to themselves and those who resonate with their art. Sometimes I add chromatic movements to my music, or cut off the high end of a kick, not because they are necessary, but because they are more in line with the emotions I want to express. I want to find a university and do education after getting my PhD, and to hold art exhibitions from time to time to showcase my art to the world, so I'm not worried that AI will replace me. If you really love music or your art, and really express your thoughts and feelings through your art, then you shouldn't have to worry about it at all too.

I saw this comment under the open letter of the Artist Rights Alliance:

"hello gatekeeping! do you feel threatened that creative expression is being made accessible to people who didn't have years to master an instrument? good. "

The only appropriate word i could think of is bruh. I don’t know when people will understand that even if the AI labels the generated work as "your creations", it is not your creation. It's a work created by the AI through the prompt you typed in. It is an expression of the AI, and it'll never be yours.

-- Callista Wang, 6th of June, 2024

*originally written in chinese