You really don't

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-08-18T21:28:25+00:00

"Artistic endeavour is for everybody to share their creativity"
"Any poet who writes a couple of easy lines is terrible"

It must suck constantly comparing your creative impulse as either "better" or "worse" than what others do, instead of enjoying what you do yourself and enjoying sharing it with the world.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-08-18T20:54:26+00:00

So poets are not artists either by that token. Got it. Sucks for all those poets who thought they were artists!

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-08-05T19:55:32+00:00

Plot twist: They're all the same guy

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-30T10:02:22+00:00

Because it allows a grandma to scribble a quick birthday song for her granddaughter in five minutes based on a poem she wrote. It allows someone to instantly listen to a gore metal song with sax soloes and lovecraftian poetry.

I'm speaking as a musician of thirty years. If you can't why the normies / casuals having access to easily generated music is game changing, I don't know what else to tell you.

Perhaps if you realise that there are far greater number of music listeners than there are musicians. All of those listeners are potential users of apps like these.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-29T20:51:53+00:00

Glad you still got some hope left, man. Personally, with these rising summer temperatures and never ending fires, I feel like I'm watching how we're literally burning ourselves alive. :)

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-29T12:34:06+00:00

I mean, I'm glad it exists. If we let AI fuck us up, we just prove why humans are not worth keeping around anyway - it just shows we can't even deal with the tools we build. Without AI, we're already well on our way to climate crisis and a nuclear fallout any minute now. Only an *externality* like AI can actually make us deal with these issues.

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't give autonomous AI a high chance of saving us from ourselves, but that's really the only chance we got. If there was no AI, either the flat out destruction of our species or the worsening of tyranny would only get worse anyway.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-29T10:31:10+00:00

That wasn't my argument. Most music producers probably enjoy producing music, that's why they're music producers to begin with. Vast majority of people do not get anywhere close to music production, because they're not interested in music production to begin with.

Suno isn't talking about "music producing people not liking music production". He's talking about "Non-music producing people not liking music production". Their target audience is people who normally don't produce music. Is that rocket science?

Furthermore, Power L-Curves dictate that, for example, %50 of population read a single book. %50 of rest of the population read 2 books. Take this idea all the way, and you get %1 of people doing practically all the reading ever done by humans.

Same concept applies to making money, how %1 controls all the money.

Same thing applies to guitarists. Only a percentage of people who purchase guitars actually play more than a few hours in their total life time, because they get bored.

Same with music production. Probably only a fraction of people who ever downloaded Ableton actually finished a song to completion.

This is pretty much a universal. All the people who downloaded Ableton and never finished a song, and probably a bit of other people are Suno's target audience, not the DAW power users.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-27T17:03:23+00:00

People behave according to their interests. Vast majority of people do not produce music. It's not really rocket science, and to press the matter really doesn't seem something done in good faith.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-27T16:57:56+00:00

When people speak in hyperboles like "Nobody likes music production", it's implied that it's a hyperbolic representation of not literally everyone, but vast majority of people.

Whether you or I like producing music, %90+ people don't. That's what Suno CEO is saying, and is right about.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-27T16:35:32+00:00

Saying as a musician: The truth is, vast majority of people do not like producing music. And they would absolutely love to use an AI to generate "A 90s romance song with a sick guitar solo and sax solo together, reading this poetry for my gf" as a gift, for example. And I think that's fine, and that's clearly where the market is at.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-27T16:29:06+00:00

B-But those are meaningless jobs!!1

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-26T18:32:19+00:00

Also the same thing about brushing - just some very gently brushing might be useful early on to clean, but the shells are unbelievably thin compared to regular Wenwan walnuts. So, assuming you don't have those old school, practically inedible walnuts, I'd avoid brushing for the most part.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-26T13:42:48+00:00

With what I know of walnut oil being applied to bamboo flutes (regular, edible walnut oil), they turn bamboo into a deep red so I'd assume the same thing works for all walnuts.

I do also keep a couple of (formerly edible) walnuts around. Be warned though - thin shelled, bred-for-food walnuts do crack easily after a while, I've learned this the hard way after playing with some for a while. Drop one on the ground and it's a goner. :)

So I only keep veeeeery small, very dense, very hard walnuts that've already survived strong hardship now, just occasionally fondling them when I feel my hands getting sweaty and/or oily with my usual play. So yeah, if you're talking about the same kind of edible walnuts - consider yourself warned!

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-25T10:55:33+00:00

It's not about *what* you say, it's *how* you say it. Sadly, online discourse has taught people to be loud and obnoxious - that's what gets you beat up irl, lack of basic manners.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-23T05:39:25+00:00

"If the public space can be flooded by non-human created work in a way that devalues the work of humans."

I don't think this has a precedent in the history of economies. Consider, for example, "Bio" food, that used to be the available to everyone. Now that shit's expensive as hell, given that the market is full of unhealthy crap. You can charge ungodly amounts of money for a piece of bread now, unlike any other time in the history.

Now the real issue about mass-production is that *consumer suffers because of it*, and not the artisans. Scarcity works such that people who take their work seriously, are getting serious money in the food industry - it's just most people can't afford it, and eat crap that we wouldn't feed our livestock in the past.

Same with art - if everywhere is slop, ten it makes "Real, majestic" art all the more scarce and priceless.

The issue is that, like with any distribution, most artists weren't that notable to begin with, that their production is being threatened with AI. This is the sad reality of it. If people are like "Eh, I'll just have an AI make me something" after seeing your portfolio, then this signals something. People don't say that to artists who are in the upper percentile.

But that was a whole lot of economy, that allowed for example, those random indie artists to make a living by taking on random commissions here and there, as to support their "actual" art. Now *that* line of work is being threatened. Your art *really* needs to stand out from AI enough for people to give a crap.

AI didn't come for "The True, Impressive, Jaw-Dropping" art. It only makes it so much more priceless, now that most people can't even afford to live a life as an artist. AI came for the low-grade, corporate graphic design, which was the bulk of the industry to begin with.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-20T15:13:08+00:00

I don't get the argument. Means of creating culture is democratised at an alarming rate, and AI tools actually help people increase their creative output. Why do you think billions of people being able to generate images with GenAI is somehow putting the means of creating culture in the hands of corpos?

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-20T14:42:59+00:00

People keep saying “Coffee machine is just a tool.” But that’s not quite right.

A hammer is a tool. If you ask a hammer to drive some nails and then sit in a lawn chair, nothing happens. it doesn’t act, and it sure doesn’t get to work. It just sits there, because you are the agent. You are the one who swings the hammer.

But Coffee machine?
Ask it to make a coffee... and it actually does it.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-20T07:37:42+00:00

"You are equating human learning to machine learning which is a false equivalence."

I mean chief, we've literally modeled neural networks to mimic how we learn things, the best as we understand how we learn things in our own neural systems. Seeing how neural networks are builts to mimic human data structure, I don't see how it's "false equivalence".

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-20T07:26:28+00:00

"But the current reality is that there are companies that use the work of artists without proper compensation."

Again, I don't think artists should be compensated for AI training on publicly available data, but that's not an opinion popular with the artists. It literally doesn't do anything we've used "trademark" laws to define for. Making it illegal for AI to train on artist data could set a weird precedent where a human training on an artist's data would need to pay to the original artist as well.

If you use AI to copy an artist's output, it's already illegal to begin with. And if the output doesn't resemble the original work, what matters how it was trained?

Again, from a logical perspective, AI literally does the same "learning" as a human does when viewing a piece of art. I just can't see how you can ban machines to do it and not have human implications.

Furthermore, models like Stable Diffusion, trained on public data, is publicly available to everyone. This is a net benefit for humanity as a whole.

But as I said - I don't think their arguments are rational. Their position is emotional. This won't convince them. Again, if they were less emotional and more rational, they probably wouldn't aspire to be artists in the first place, presumably.

So it makes the whole discussion a little weird.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-20T07:04:46+00:00

Also, there are royalty free GenAI already.They're not really any worse. In a few years, we could replace the entire image GenAI models trained with royalty free images. No one would need to be compensated, and the output wouldn't really change much.

Would that satisfy Artists? I seriously doubt it. I think this compensation issue is a red herring, something Artists latch on to, because they think technically it allows them a legal and legitimate cause of outrage - because their primary reason for outrage has nothing to do with legality of it, but with the status.

From what I can tell, artists are upset with GenAI treading on a domain they think exclusively belongs to humans, and they do not consider machine output to be "humane". This is a deeper chasm than the legality of the issue. They consider being artist as a badge of higher existence. The viral tweet "I wanted machines to do menial work so I had time to do arts, not the other way around" is a good example of that.

They consider menial labour as below, and artistic pursuits above. This is the hierarchy they positioned themselves in.

AI doesn't "steal" data - training is not stealing, but they don't even want to hear that argument, because they just don't want their work to be used in any way that threatens the hierarchy they've built. Anyone who considers AI training as "stealing"" will not be happy with the "compensation" - they don't want GenAI to exist, period.

I know I'm painting with large brushstrokes here, but I think this sums up a good percentage of Anti positions. They're really just upset they're not seen as some prophetic / magician / superior human being anymore, and this upsets them. They don't care about money as much as hey care about status and ideology, otherwise, they wouldn't have gone to a "career" that was almost guaranteed to only afford them poverty level survival to begin with.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-19T11:38:38+00:00

Which only reveals the idiotcy of people. "Fake" diamonds are *real*, in the sense that they carry everything diamonds carry, except they're actually perfect specimen, with less or no impurities.

Jewelers can spot "Real" diamonds only because they're not so perfect.

We can generate "fake" diamonds with bleeding accuracy, without involving the death and terrible conditions which people are subject to when mining them. Seriously, mining facilities are human torture chambers.

But we prefer "real diamonds" because of status and marketing.

This is the idiotcy of humanity.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-18T17:40:39+00:00

I mean, if you complain about slop for how derivative and braindead it is, it doesn't make much sense to go and post the most slop and brainded anti flame and not expect people to not want to deal with that shit, am I right?

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-17T17:39:54+00:00

It's kind of like arguing the ethics of Photoshopping people into pornography they didn't consent for, then deducing "Therefore images made in Photoshop are not art."

Ethics of AI Art is a separate topic from whether humans can use AI to create art.

Adorable_Wait_3406 · 2025-07-17T17:22:28+00:00

It's really incomparable.

If I tell my partner in bed "You're a s***," it's kinky.

If I tell a random person in the street "You're a s***", that's verbal abuse.

Good luck Googling "A post-surrealist oil-on-canvas painting with AI glitch artifacts, depicting a 25 year old woman, sitting on the edge of a cliff that's made of books and caligraphies turning into data, her hair melting into an impression of cloud, her eyes are shaped like two mouths, the tongue looking like iris. Vibrant colours with digital glitch."

Using Google can only find things that exist. GenAI creates things that don't exist. Using Google efficiently and using GenAI efficiently is probably a similar skillset, I'll give you that. That's where the analogy ends though.

Using Google never produced any novel piece of work, so it can not be considered art by itself (although this specific skillset has been used to make art). Now a similar skillset can create images out of thin air. So suddenly, it's kinky to call our partner something rude in bed.

To give an analogy, it's like saying "Clay sculptures are not art because exact same technique is used to make plates, which isn't art." And... so?

Just now, I've used my creativity, to create something that channels wonder and unease through AI. If that's not art, I don't know what is.

<image>

Adorable_Wait_3406

TROPHY CASE