AI-generated music answers a question nobody asked – Letter to the editor
Author : Jonathan Williams, Xerini
24 April 2023
Xerini team, with CEO Jonathan Williams, centre
AI-generated music, of the kind that streaming services are currently clamping down on, is an answer to a question nobody has asked. Furthermore, it’s an answer that violates the rights of thousands of musicians globally to own and manage their own data.
Here’s the bottom line; technology should liberate people from their problems. If there’s no problem, is developing technology to solve it wasted effort? The benefit generative AI in music has produced for humankind is limited, even when compared to the effort required to create it.
Great software optimises a process, human or otherwise, creating real value as a result. This is the value we should look for from AI. But, music is a process that’s about taking a person’s soul and translating it into sound, and, today, generative AI can’t yet do this. Is teaching it to do so worthwhile?
The creative side effects of AI-generated music may well deliver benefits beyond the constraints of the initial software. Implantable pacemakers were invented when the wrong size resistor was put into some medical instrumentation. Post-it Notes when a project to create strong adhesive resulted in a weak one. Penicillin when Fleming forgot to throw away an experiment before he went on holiday.
What’s the bottom line? Technology should liberate people from their problems but, today, AI-generated music is a fad. If the side-effect is a pacemaker or Penicillin, then perhaps it’s worth violating the right to data ownership of some global megastars.
But, what if the side-effect is ‘only’ Post-It Notes? In contrast, focussed and optimised software creation will liberate every area of endeavour, from business to personal creativity. That is worthwhile.
Best regards,
Jonathan Williams
CEO, Xerini
Contact Details and Archive...