Jazz is like a safe haven

[dharma2020]

I understand your point. But real images and mass media have been doing exactly this for over a century. The problem you’re describing is not new, only the technical means are.

This is precisely what thinkers like Walter Benjamin, Walter Lippmann, Adorno, Debord, Chomsky, and Marcuse were already worried about. Benjamin argued that mechanical reproduction breaks the authority of the original and changes how truth is experienced. Lippmann showed that public opinions don’t relate to reality directly at all, but through mediated “pictures in our heads.” Adorno and Horkheimer saw mass media as producing conformity and weakening critical judgment. Debord argued that representation replaces lived reality entirely. Chomsky documented how media systems manufacture consent regardless of whether the underlying images are “real”.

None of these critiques depended on fake images. They assumed photographs, film, and broadcast media were real, and still concluded that truth would erode, propaganda would scale, and denial would become easier. AI imagery accelerates this, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the structure of the problem.

So the issue isn’t that generated images suddenly make verification impossible. It’s that modern societies already rely on trust in institutions, chains of custody, and interpretive frameworks rather than raw visual evidence. That was true long before AI, and it will remain true after it. The technology doesn’t create a new epistemological crisis from nothing.

Interesting discussion! I remember reading essays from Adorno in college on the dangers of mass media. Might have to revisit them.
Basically you are saying this AI art trend is not a new phenomenon, but just a continuation of what already existed.

I think that is a valid point.
Mass audiences probably don't care about the finer details of real art and people here in this forum are probably the exception from the rule.

I'm not even an Anti-AI person, I think it has real value, for example in education or science.

But I also see more and more fake AI musicians popping up on Spotify and other streaming services trying to pretend they are legit artists. It just becomes more annoying and difficult to identify them.
Well, looks like I will be going back to collecting records...

[CliffR]

I understand your point. But real images and mass media have been doing exactly this for over a century. The problem you’re describing is not new, only the technical means are.

....

So the issue isn’t that generated images suddenly make verification impossible. It’s that modern societies already rely on trust in institutions, chains of custody, and interpretive frameworks rather than raw visual evidence. That was true long before AI, and it will remain true after it. The technology doesn’t create a new epistemological crisis from nothing.

The fact that things are already bad is not a justification for embracing a technology that is capable of making them far far worse.

As for the art side. You said "The reality is that 99% of human-produced content (i.e. the training data) is already commodity, not art. You're not protecting Wagner, Van Gogh, Bird, you're protecting [insert mega pop star here] and buzzfeeders/bloggers/influencers/content producers."

Sounds like you're dismissing pretty much anything other than 'high' art. A consensus on what can be considered as such is usually arrived at some time after the art is produced, often after the artist can benefit from any protection. Calling 'lesser' art 'content' is just a way of dismissing it and saying it's okay to rip off. It's not. Even at the most basic level, that's depriving talented, dedicated people of work. Beyond that, it's making some arbitrary distinction about what is and isn't 'good' art. Who's making that distinction? The AI? The programmers?

[Christian Miller]

When we made our art machine-like, we made it possible for us to be replaced by machines


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[omphalopsychos]

When we made our art machine-like, we made it possible for us to be replaced by machines


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very Walter Benjamin.

[dharma2020]

When we made our art machine-like, we made it possible for us to be replaced by machines


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like it, were's that from?

[omphalopsychos]

I’m not saying “things are already bad so let’s make them worse.” I’m saying the thing people are panicking about is not new. It is just cheaper now. Real photos and mass media already broke the connection between “seeing” and “knowing” a long time ago. That was true before any model could generate a fake picture.

People keep saying these tools “democratize” fake news. We already had that. TikTok YouTube X Facebook. Anyone can reach millions with framing omission repetition and authority cues. That is the mechanism. AI does not invent it. It just lowers production cost.

On the propaganda point. States and platforms do not need fabricated images to control interpretation. They already control distribution and context. They decide what trends. What gets recommended. That is why I keep bringing up mass media as political control. It is already the system.

On the “high art” thing. I am not making that distinction. Bird is not “high art.” A lot of folk traditions are not “high art.” AP Carter is a clean example of the same structure. Someone extracts from a living culture repackages it copyrights it and monetizes distribution. The argument is about the system of production, ownership, and consumption. Not about whether something is fancy.

When I say “99% of the training data is commodity” I’m describing what it is. I’m not saying “therefore it’s fine to steel.” “Commodity” means it is made inside an attention market and a B2C pipeline. Most modern creative work is already in that pipeline. The musician displacement everyone is suddenly worried about already happend under streaming ads and platform economics. AI is another step in the same direction.

So if the goal is “protect artists” yelling at the model is not enough. You have to talk about rights enforcement and distribution. Who gets paid. Who gets visibility. Who owns the catalog. Who controls the platform. Otherwise we are just doing vibes about authenticity while embracing the same corporate pipeline that already displaced working musicians and will keep doing it, with or without AI.

[djg]

People keep saying these tools “democratize” fake news. We already had that. TikTok YouTube X Facebook. Anyone can reach millions with framing omission repetition and authority cues. That is the mechanism. AI does not invent it. It just lowers production cost and raises volume.

that is pretty much the definition of "democratize"

[omphalopsychos]

Scaling != democratizing. Power concentration through recommendation algorithms and media networks is the core issue, not whether an image is real or fake. I actually agree with all of you that AI corrupts media. But media corruption has already happened, both before AI and through earlier generations of AI (search algorithms and recommender systems). I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions; I'm disagreeing with your naive premises.


Enshittification - Wikipedia

[Christian Miller]

I like it, were's that from?

It's my go to excuse for mucking up the changes to the Christmas Song yet again.

Take that, Skynet!

[Christian Miller]

On the “high art” thing. I am not making that distinction. Bird is not “high art.” A lot of folk traditions are not “high art.” AP Carter is a clean example of the same structure. Someone extracts from a living culture repackages it copyrights it and monetizes distribution. The argument is about the system of production, ownership, and consumption. Not about whether something is fancy.

Historically high art is when posh people.

For Mozart it was another invoice.

[DawgBone]

Historically high art is when posh people.

The bar is dropping because posh is just starting to mean people who can afford real groceries, LOL.

[grahambop]

Historically high art is when posh people.

For Mozart it was another invoice.

That reminds me of an interview with Stravinsky which I was watching on youtube. He said he always tried to do a lot of conducting. When asked why, he said ‘because the earnings are so much higher than from composing!’

[Bob_Ross]

With all of the fake AI generated music (and video) appearing everywhere ...

I'm curious: Where is this "everywhere" of which you speak?
Sure, I've seen a crap-ton of AI-generated video all over my social media feed. But I have never to my knowledge heard any AI-generated music

...probably because I never listen to the music that shows up on my social media feed, unless it's something by an artist I'm familiar with, or something recommended by a friend whose tastes I know well and respect. And the radio stations I listen to almost never play anything modern enough to have been AI-generated.

[nyc chaz]

I'm curious: Where is this "everywhere" of which you speak?
Sure, I've seen a crap-ton of AI-generated video all over my social media feed. But I have never to my knowledge heard any AI-generated music

...probably because I never listen to the music that shows up on my social media feed, unless it's something by an artist I'm familiar with, or something recommended by a friend whose tastes I know well and respect. And the radio stations I listen to almost never play anything modern enough to have been AI-generated.

Here you go,number one on digital charts

[lammie200]

I think AI is great for cartoons. I am not sold on the rest.

[zephyrregent]

Here you go,number one on digital charts

They had to use AI to create a crappy redneck neo-modern country western song? The Inside Edition video had all the cloying vocal harmonies we have heard since the 60's. It's all image. Must be ruggedly handsome or pretty with a big attitude. I guess for most people music is just a little box singing lullabies to them.

AI will never be able to create jazz, even humans can't replicate the genius of the 40's and 50's. AI will never produce a Bud Powell or Monk or Bird. All it can do is make a pale imitation that might fool someone not familiar with the real thing. Jazz fans with ears can tell the phony from the real, or the level of talent vs. cliches and mediocrity.

[Christian Miller]

That reminds me of an interview with Stravinsky which I was watching on youtube. He said he always tried to do a lot of conducting. When asked why, he said ‘because the earnings are so much higher than from composing!’

Sounds like Igor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

The bar is dropping because posh is just starting to mean people who can afford real groceries, LOL.

I’ve got several dozen eggs, and that’s why I listen to Monteverdi


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dharma2020]

I'm curious: Where is this "everywhere" of which you speak?
Sure, I've seen a crap-ton of AI-generated video all over my social media feed. But I have never to my knowledge heard any AI-generated music

...probably because I never listen to the music that shows up on my social media feed, unless it's something by an artist I'm familiar with, or something recommended by a friend whose tastes I know well and respect. And the radio stations I listen to almost never play anything modern enough to have been AI-generated.

For me it's mostly youtube recommendations. But they also appear on streaming services like spotify.
Recently I got recommended a "forgotten" recording by a blues player I never heard of. And if you look at the comments of the video they also seem like comments from an AI.
I have to admit it took me a couple of seconds to realize it's AI.

[grahambop]

Sounds like Igor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair, he did go on to say it was a good idea to conduct because it teaches a composer how to write better for the orchestra (or something along those lines).

[Alter]

Suno jazz stuff is getting there, especially old time swing era. It is just a matter of time before AI art is better than human efforts. New Coltrane quartet style albums etc.. I think an era is finishing.

However, in other areas, AI is waaaay behind what's advertised. I spent a few days this month migrating websites, working with Wordpress, hosting authentication, Dns entries, doing mailing lists etc. Used ChatGpt for help and it always ended up wasting hours of my time, giving mostly wrong answers and bad advise. I ended up looking up things myself or just using youtube videos help. But music, pictures, and data collection are definitely happening.

[dharma2020]

Suno jazz stuff is getting there, especially old time swing era. It is just a matter of time before AI art is better than human efforts. New Coltrane quartet style albums etc.. I think an era is finishing.

However, in other areas, AI is waaaay behind what's advertised. I spent a few days this month migrating websites, working with Wordpress, hosting authentication, Dns entries, doing mailing lists etc. Used ChatGpt for help and it always ended up wasting hours of my time, giving mostly wrong answers and bad advise. I ended up looking up things myself or just using youtube videos help. But music, pictures, and data collection is definitely happening.

I don't think current AI technology can get better than humans, since the training data is from humans. It can only get better at imitation, but not creating something fundamentally better.

[DawgBone]

For me it's mostly youtube recommendations. But they also appear on streaming services like spotify.
Recently I got recommended a "forgotten" recording by a blues player I never heard of. And if you look at the comments of the video they also seem like comments from an AI.
I have to admit it took me a couple of seconds to realize it's AI.

Lol, I don't think six minute blues recordings existed in the 30's.

[JGinNJ]

I was recently reading in a technology magazine about digital watermarks in AI generated images- and the great success a PhD researcher was having in REMOVING them. I don't know the rationale behind that, other than it's going to be an arms race in creating and detecting fake content. There's a lot of bad actors out there.

[nyc chaz]

I think many people are underestimating AI.40 something years ago when chess computers became the the rage,i heard that they will never beat Grandmasters because the programs could not be creative like a human.Well that has been proven false as these Grandmasters get beat regularly by a computer program.

Most experts say that AI will be able to develop cures for diseases like cancer.If true,that is not just regurgitating past data but developing new ideas.If AI can be creative in a field like medicine,why can't it be in music?