If you can’t tell it’s AI then you can’t prevent it being posted. It is a difficult one, my daughter is in the arts industry too and it will / does impact her. I just think trying to outright ban posting AI is going to move from difficult to impossible, but personally, I don’t object to it here if it’s highlighted as such.
1 Like
I know, I have used it myself on more than one occasion.
But, I wonder if you personally think that chatGPT should not be used to answer questions posed here, but that doing a manual google search and posting the answer here is ok. And if, so, why?
(I hope I don’t sound antagonistic, I genuinely would like to hear opinions on this topic, which I find pretty interesting.)
when you use Google , it gives you pages of answers , you have to read them and select which are the answers you need ,sometimes you learn something else in the process , GPT just give you one answer , it does the processus of thinking and selecting for you
but why do you trust gpt to give you the right answer .
4 Likes
… the answers at the top who pay the most 
GPT gives you the internet’s ‘consensus’, and sometimes makes things up.
Only with caution at present, but I remember when folk (esp. the scientific community) were extremely dismissive of Wikipedia simply because anyone could contribute. For me it has become one of the most reliable information sources on the web.
2 Likes
This is a good question. It’s not always right, but sometimes it’s good enough. Sometimes I will ask it a question that I know the answer to, because it will write out a nice answer that I don’t have time to compose. I can check it before using it (like posting it here).
I never use chatGPT to give me important information that I can’t check elsewhere.
I also use it for work, asking for pieces of code, for example. Such things are very easy to verify.
My objection isn’t necessarily what ChatGPT offers.
It is that questions from students who are hoping for more experienced / knowledgeable musicians to help and answer, are receiving help and answers from an AI source. These AI generated responses may well be posted as a response in a topic by someone who is a very experienced and knowledgeable musician. But - due to their nature - they may be copy / pasted by anybody, regardless of experience and knowledge, and who may or may not be able to critically evaluate the value of the AI generated answer.
If I read a question that I am unsure how to answer I will either leave it alone, refer it to someone I think can answer or spend hours educating myself on the subject and then answer in my own words - having studied and gained in my own understanding and knowledge.
I never copy / paste from AI content and offer it to a JG student as an answer to their question. I honestly think it runs against the grain of what we have here - a very human, very real, very friendly and personal place to interact and share our experiences. I don’t feel comfortable with people pushing out the human response and bringing in the AI response.
In the community (now three years old) and in the old JG forum before that, we always had a policy of encouraging good advice, discouraging bad / incorrect advice, and a policy of always naming a source for a quote.
9 Likes
wikipedia is different in my view because it is wirtten by humans , not by a machine
a variety of humans means a variety of views and thinking
there ll always be someone to correct whats wrong
a machine … its just a code
and they are not many to have access to the code , they are owned by their companies …
And companies do not always wish us the best
1 Like
If AI music is the future, will musicians become a thing of the past?
JG and this community is all about developing musicianship.
Your discussion should revolve around what is best for helping us with that.
Never.
It’s just too much fun.
Will you be able to make a living out of making music?
Possibly, but not the way we have for the last 70 years…
I’m far from an expert on this topic, so I have only a subjective view on it. I think that AI/GPT is the “elixir of life” of our century. Everyone seems to be fixated on it and believe it will solve everything, yet only a small number of people (I’m not one of them) understand how it works and why it works the way it does.
To me, AI they way it’s currently “used” and promoted in the press seems to be just another tool that serves humanity’s inherent laziness - you don’t need to make any effort to think or to try to find the answer to your questions (e.g. do a Google search and filter those results or, God forbid, open a book or ask another person). You just type in whatever and you receive whatever. Whether it’s a correct answer - nobody cares. It’s a bit like like Deep Thought in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. In relation to art and creativity, it robs the end product of most or all of its humanity. Sure, AI-created stuff can be modified further by the supposed artist, but who can tell if it happens or not? IMO, creation/creativity does not consist of giving a computer program a set of prompts and waiting for the end result. I won’t touch on AI’s implications on copyright as I’m not a legal expert, but I think it’s quite immoral to take other people’s creations to teach these AIs to come up with “original” things without proper compensation of the original creators. But even then… AI will be good only for saving time on thinking and creating the artwork.
Of course, AI is used in several different fields like medicine where I hope the “teaching” methods are more refined and scrutinized than in the case of the “free-for-all” GPTs that regurgitate whatever they happen to find.
Overall, I don’t think AI should be banned but its use should be restricted to cases where a lot of computing power would be needed (e.g. review of medical/statistical data). But this would require the power of restraint from most people which they obviously lack, so this will not happen.
2 Likes
`
For me, it’s because I think It’s posting for the sake of posting, and it doesn’t provide any value.
If someone wants a ChatGPT answer, they can do this themselves.
Cheers,
Keith
3 Likes
Your question is legit, but what’s the solution? If you can’t tell whether it’s AI or not, you can’t ban it either. The reality is that it’s out there and that it’s far too late to go back. So highlighting things that are known to be AI might not be a solution, but it might be better than nothing?
ChatGPT is not a search engine, it is a text generator - that’s what most people forget. It is ‘trained’ to generate texts based on the probability of one word following the other. Yes, in the meantime it has been trained so well that the resulting text regularly doesn’t contain mistakes, but there is no guarantee. Therefore checking the contents to make sure it is correct before posting is a necessity. And there I join @Richard_close2u’s point, that someone simply copy pasting without being able to assess the quality of the answer has inherent risks.
2 Likes
Quite.
I would actually categorise it as “machine curation and summarisation of search results”.
That can be useful, but it’s also dangerous to rely on it.
And the bottom line is that (for answers to questions) AI will not give you anything that isn’t already available through an Internet search.
And this is why I consider a '“this is what ChatGPT said” response as “low value”.
Consider if someone was asking a technical question about chords, and some relatively new member who had only been learning guitar a month and had no prior musical knowledge posted:
“I don’t know anything about chords yet, but I googled and the first results were these diagrams”
And then posted chord diagrams for a Ukulele!
That is what blindly posting ChatGPT searches is like.
And if everyone did it, this community would soon fill up with pointless posts which help no-one.
If you know something about a subject and use Google, Wikipedia, ChatGPT or whatever to help build an answer, that’s fine, but that becomes part of a fuller, informed explanation or answer. And I would expect the person doing that to be able to use their knowledge to separate good information from bad, and formulate an answer which is more than the sum of its parts, which is where they are adding value.
But that’s totally different from “I asked ChatGPT and this is what it said” responses.
Cheers,
Keith
8 Likes
When has this ever stopped people from posting what ever they want where ever they want. All it would do is make more work fo the mods.
The way I look at it is AI is here to stay and will become part of everyone’s lives. But the members here are here to learn to play the guitar, if you are interested in AI there are forum on the internet dedicated to AI for those interested. We don’t need a special place or any place for it on this forum.
If your having trouble finding a forum to discuss, post or experiment with AI just ask AI I’m sure it will be happy to point you in the right direction.
2 Likes
It is not an answer …
back in the days we could have said : we all have slaves so why not using them ? would it be the right answer ?
We used to kill people in arenas for hundreds of years , why not going back to doing it ? would it be right ?
It is not because it is a trend and that everybody is doing something that it is the right thing to do ! its a short term vision ( I really tried to avoid making a godwin point )
whts really important is the impact on our society , not the fact that the society is selling it …
same goes for tools , its not because you own a car that you can speed at 200 km/H or if you own a riffle you can t shoot at anything you want .
You need rules and regulations and sometimes , you need to ban stuff !
AI broke the rules and regulations we had for copyrights , artists are no longer protected so banning it ? im not against it !
2 Likes
Nah, imho, the herd have a short attention span and will move on quite quickly … perhaps 2-3yrs before the next acronym gets the MSM salivating and exercised ?
Me … I might be in the NFI cohort … 
I will add that AI generated “information” (such as responses to searches) and AI generated art, whilst they fundamentally use the same technology, are different things in my view, as the end goals of each are very different.
And, IMO, should be considered separately.
Cheers,
Keith
4 Likes
There is a grey area here but I see this as being inspired by someone. In all cases I’m buying the song or album and I’m definitely not claiming it as my own. It’s not like you can invent a brand new series of notes at this stage and erase your memory of every song you ever heard.
This wholly different from hoovering up entire libraries of content without paying a cent for any of it or giving due credit and then making a massive business on the back of it. That’s the behaviour of a parasite.
3 Likes
Good idea Brian, and although I neither “like” nor “disapprove”, I would welcome the choice to filter.
Perhaps many mods might make light work ? 
… that was not a pitch, btw …
I’ve talked about using AI to generate answers to questions, particularly with respect to this community.
But the original topic was AI generated art. This is my opinion on the matter:
If I have an issue with AI Art and this community, it’s that it an easy, low-skill endeavour.
I think there’s certainly an argument for having that option available. For instance, recently a group I’m in decided to knock up some T-shirts just for fun and to celebrate our group’s existence. We knocked up some graphics using AI for this.
It was a bit of fun, and there’s no way we would have bothered if we needed to engage a professional designer/artist. For a start, the cost would have made it untenable, and the process would have been at least 3-4 times longer.
I know this because another group I’m in engaged with a professional human graphic designer for a T-shirt logo design earlier this year.
The results of using such a designer were much higher quality than we could ever have got with current AI, but in that case it was important to get it right.
For the AI design , it was mainly a bit of fun and we were all willing to accept some compromises, and we did so with our eyes open to it.
“Easy, and low-skill” was part of the brief, and we all signed up to be part of it.
Regarding this community:
Personally, I would prefer people only post occasional links to content which is relevant and exceptional or notable, whether human created or not.
This is, after all, primarily a place for people to discuss learning to play the guitar. It’s not Pinterest or Instagram.
But, with AI, there is the danger of people flooding the community with “art” that has taken little to no skill to create and which isn’t that relevant to the community conversation.
Cheers,
Keith
5 Likes