Considering the list is made up of names like Bon Jovi and Nicki Minaj, I'm not THAT concerned about their livelihoods. They could never a single penny for the rest of their lives and they'd still remain unfathomably richer than the average American.<p>It might be controversial in some circles, but I'm of the opinion that the best music being recorded these days is not being done by people seeking millions. It's being recorded by people who have something interesting and novel they'd like to express, and very, very occasionally they'll see a financial reward.<p>I say this as someone who has thousands of Spotify/Apple Music plays on my piano albums and zero motivation to ever seek any kind of reward from it.<p>Making art is different from making money, I don't think that's a bad thing.
> In the letter, the artists say that unchecked AI will set in motion a race to the bottom that will degrade the value of their work and prevent them from being fairly compensated<p>Who defines what “fairly compensated” means? It seems the music industry is <i>constantly</i> complaining about not getting paid enough (Napster, satellite radio, streaming, master rights, and now AI).
IMO there are credible arguments for and against AI generated content. But these label backed brands have no real grounds to complain about selling out art. They are big businesses incumbents that have commoditized art and are now worried that they might have some competition.<p>I’m sympathetic to the hand-crafted buggy-whip manufacturers that really take pride in their work, but we’re talking about buggy whip assembly line #1000 worrying that they might have to retool for steering wheels.
(Visual) artist, here.<p>In art school they (responsibly, I thought) told us "it's very difficult to survive as an artist", so:<p>a.) Go to grad school and become a teacher
b.) and/or, Become good at writing grants
c.) and/or Don't quit you day job<p>Seeing all the hoo-ha about (visual) artists getting all up in arms about AI, my opinion is: if are you actually creative, not just concatenating things from "inspiration" web sites, then don't worry too hard. You'll find new questions to answer and new media to answer them in.<p>wrt musicians, I'll give any music try, ai or not. I'd be less interested in buying swag or seeing live performances of ai, and know a LOT of musicians who do it for love, so don't see them drying up altogether.
with AI Platforms like <a href="https://www.suno.ai/" rel="nofollow">https://www.suno.ai/</a> -the capabilities are indeed mindblowing. - We do need protection for artists, but the tech itself is amazing and will only get better. Not sure that limiting the tech is the answer..historically that has never really worked.
""This assault on human creativity must be stopped," they write."<p>This is only relevant "if you are a human".1<p>1. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20TAkcy3aBY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20TAkcy3aBY</a><p>Why would so-called "tech" companies launch an assault on human creativity. They are intermediaries (middlemen) that sit between the artist and the audience and conduct surveillance and sell online advertising services. They produce no art or other "content" themselves. Artists like the ones in the article can sell recordings and/or concert tickets. They have something to offer that people will pay for. But what do so-called "tech" companies have to sell, except online ad services. Most people in the world have paid money for music but how many have paid money for an online ad.
Rights to virtual live shows are major stakes here.<p>Fans creating their own songs should just whet appetite to see live shows, which is where the money is shifting anyway. But live productions creating exciting virtual performances without input or permission from the artist threatens the live show revenue.<p>One potential threat from fan-generated music we haven't dealt with yet is a popular fake diverging too much from what the actual artist does. If the artist won't accommodate this, it would create an opportunity for a similar artist to perform the music. It'd be like when an artist's popular song is one they hate, and they have to decide whether to give people what they want.
Funny, how some of them have a whole lot to thank the computer for augmenting their music, but now… nope, bad bad computer. We won’t survive, with our meager millions. Right, not!
It seems their main complaint is that AI companies have used their copyrighted music to train AI.<p>>It alleges that some of the "biggest and most powerful" companies (unnamed in the letter) are using the work of artists without permission to train AI models, with the aim of replacing human artists with AI-created content.<p>How is this any different than HS kids using their music to learn to play a song, an instrument, write music? Isn't this done today on a much larger scale by humans?
Worth considering what their livelihood is that is under threat:<p><a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/billie-eilish/?sh=6da92972610c" rel="nofollow">https://www.forbes.com/profile/billie-eilish/?sh=6da92972610...</a><p><a href="https://www.thethings.com/eddie-vedder-is-the-richest-member-of-pearl-jam/" rel="nofollow">https://www.thethings.com/eddie-vedder-is-the-richest-member...</a>
> Artists say AI will "set in motion a race to the bottom that will degrade the value of our work."<p>I would argue that pop music has (mostly) been a continuous industry-sponsored race to the bottom for many decades now. So this might be just another step.
Oh no! Not the celebrities, quick someone sing "Can you imagine" /s<p>There's a level of irony that the the true problem is for smaller artists, but they buried the lede so that they could put the focus on big name celebrities.