Miscellaneous ChatGPT BS in ebay adverts

View on Social Feed
They'll probably delete the "not as described" return option. After all, Fakebook has cancelled fact-checking. I better get the shovels and sandbags out, I can see that a re-routing to clean the Augean stables is impending.
 
I posted again on this old thread because the description created by the eBay AI moron about 'a secure strap for hands-free playing' was so ridiculous that it was funny. But what motivated me to start this thread, over a year ago, wasn't so much that the descriptions are crap (although they are). It was that for a used item, where condition is everything, by definition the AI generator has never seen, handled or played the item, so the 'description' offers no service whatsoever to a potential purchaser.
 
jonf said:
I have recently noticed a couple of examples of what is obviously chatbot-written garbage being used as a description of an instrument on eBay. It's particularly striking when the AI rubbish mis-describes a sax with a specific market or intended use. I was looking at an ad for a Trevor James Alphasax, an instrument carefully designed for a very specific use-case (kids taking up the sax at an earlier age than would normally be feasible with a standard alto). Somebody reading the blurb and expecting to get a standard sax could find themselves getting something not suitable for their needs, as the Alphasax, by design, doesn't play the full range of notes. In this case it really didn't help that the title said it was a TJ The Horn, which it clearly wasn't.

The question is, should this crap be banned? Leaving aside, that is, how to do so. I can see a couple of problems. Firstly, eBay don't really care if someone is misled by a sale, they just want their commission. Then there's also the fact that eBay staff know nothing at all about musical instruments, so how would they know whether the AI garbage actually mis-describes an item for sale? I wonder if it's possible to create some AI to spot and filter out AI generated content?
Read more…
This is a problem with the "cart leading the horse", IMO. AI is a good servant but a poor master. Thus, human intervention or supervision is necessary prior to publication. But, the masters of these companies will do what they do, only when sales drop is when they take notice. Emphasis has been to push products, reduce staff, and as long as money is saved is more important regardless of what the customer thinks.

I did software earlier in my career and I think it was a different breed of software engineers raised then, who in their youth learned from the more primative home computers, which were bundled with BASIC. There were books available to assist, the more aggressive learned how to do more with machine language. They had a better sense of practicality, learning from the grass roots up.

PCs basically did away with that, the programming tools and languages became extra cost items, converting most people to users. Also I have noticed that the user interfaces of today are not as well written as prior. Even professionals like doctors have screens packed with much non-impertinent data that could be better nested and easier to navigate. This goes against the purpose of office automation, to reduce the workload. But someone gained much profit in marketing this stuff.

Even vendor search engines compared with yesteryear are poorly written. How often does one type in key words to search for a particular item say, in a home improvements centre and get nothing but "garbage" in their search?

Time is now wasted in simply finding what one intended to do, finding ways to cleverly "trick the system" to get the desired results.

It is what it is, as a bobby would say, "Nothing to see, move along."

I know it is a pet peeve and similarly and I too have ranted about such in the past. I've just learned that it is what it is, to get what I want or need, and focus on the finer things of life, if you know what I mean. Some things are beyond our ability to change.
 
Unfortunately, AI has become the new marketing label, in the way that 'digital' and 'i-something' has done previously. Various news organisations, including the BBC, have complained to Apple that their AI new summary service is in effect creating fake news and labelling it BBC or WSJ etc. The news this morning says that Apple, having previously said 'nothing to see here' Apple has now deactivated the news summary mechanism.

As someone who has worked in IT for financial services for 40 years I recognise this all too well. The majority of software vendors are snake oil merchants promising miracles will be performed by their latest "Instant IT Success" product.

I have yet to see any real evidence that anything is a replacement for solid analysis of data and systems and building IT system properly. Yes, new tools do come along and they can make the process quicker and better, but they are not a replacement for properly understanding what is going on.

I can tell various stories of significant IT systems either ending up in the bin, or have had to be significantly redeveloped because an idiot in a shiny suit believed the snake oil merchant and didn't go and talk to the people who understand the data or the systems.

AI is the latest brand of snake oil. There are some aspects, with proper algorithms and suitable data, that can turn repetitive complex tasks into the click of a button. Examples where this is working is the ability to analyse images for tumours. That works because the requirements are tightly defined. "Create marketing fluff" is not tightly defined and that's why gibberish is created.

Just because the technology exists, does not mean it is useful or useable - certainly not in all cases.
 
Tenor Viol said:
Unfortunately, AI has become the new marketing label, in the way that 'digital' and 'i-something' has done previously. Various news organisations, including the BBC, have complained to Apple that their AI new summary service is in effect creating fake news and labelling it BBC or WSJ etc. The news this morning says that Apple, having previously said 'nothing to see here' Apple has now deactivated the news summary mechanism.

As someone who has worked in IT for financial services for 40 years I recognise this all too well. The majority of software vendors are snake oil merchants promising miracles will be performed by their latest "Instant IT Success" product.

I have yet to see any real evidence that anything is a replacement for solid analysis of data and systems and building IT system properly. Yes, new tools do come along and they can make the process quicker and better, but they are not a replacement for properly understanding what is going on.

I can tell various stories of significant IT systems either ending up in the bin, or have had to be significantly redeveloped because an idiot in a shiny suit believed the snake oil merchant and didn't go and talk to the people who understand the data or the systems.

AI is the latest brand of snake oil. There are some aspects, with proper algorithms and suitable data, that can turn repetitive complex tasks into the click of a button. Examples where this is working is the ability to analyse images for tumours. That works because the requirements are tightly defined. "Create marketing fluff" is not tightly defined and that's why gibberish is created.

Just because the technology exists, does not mean it is useful or useable - certainly not in all cases.
Read more…
Why get so frothed up over this. Wait until most of the music on the radio is AI written and produced. Let’s get frothed up then.
 
Pete Effamy said:
Why get so frothed up over this. Wait until most of the music on the radio is AI written and produced
Read more…
Do you know if there are statistics on how much there currently is on the radio (or streaming channels)?

It may well be that there is a lot that on there that is identified as such. There is no legal obligation I’m aware of to declare whether a trac is written, performed, or produced by AI
 
Well, the current crop of various AI systems have accomplished amazing things. Protein folding, the collapse of the Turin test, speeding up animated graphics...
.... And what's out there now is at the Model T-Ford level (And they're damaging the environment like cars!) - the first mass production.
Beyond doubt the criminal mind (and I included capitalists in that) is much better at exploiting the technology than in the "good old days".
 
Pete Thomas said:
Do you know if there are statistics on how much there currently is on the radio (or streaming channels)?

It may well be that there is a lot that on there that is identified as such. There is no legal obligation I’m aware of to declare whether a trac is written, performed, or produced by AI
Read more…
I don’t know Pete. I do know that AI is advancing in leaps and bounds. If used as a tool to create I don’t mind, but if it’s BiaB-like with no musical human input then I’m against going that far. Unless it’s loads better 🙄🤣
 
Many of us use orchestral libraries for writing, and they are very good indeed. A great way to learn for the non-natural genius. And used for much film and TV of course.

Difficult argument about putting musicians (players) out of jobs, as mostly all the work goes to a very few. With midi libraries lots more composers have come forth.

Maybe it has diluted the pay too, but seeing as the rest of the business has gone south with pay for gigs, travel (days away and unable to take other work), buy-outs etc - it’s not alone.

What’s your feeling being active in that field?
 
mizmar said:
Well, the current crop of various AI systems have accomplished amazing things. Protein folding, the collapse of the Turin test, speeding up animated graphics...
.... And what's out there now is at the Model T-Ford level (And they're damaging the environment like cars!) - the first mass production.
Beyond doubt the criminal mind (and I included capitalists in that) is much better at exploiting the technology than in the "good old days".
Read more…
I don't think the Turing test has collapsed, it's still easy to tell whether you are are 'conversing' with a human or 'robot'.
 
Pete Effamy said:
Many of us use orchestral libraries for writing, and they are very good indeed. A great way to learn for the non-natural genius. And used for much film and TV of course.
Read more…
When sampling first became widespread I remember a huge backlash against it, from musicians and the unions worldwide. They were unable to stop it or even contain or regulate it except in very specific circumstances.

So that issue has been and gone. I can hear an orchestra on a recording and suspect it is partly or fully synthesized or sampled, but it’s usually so well done these days you can often never be 100% sure.

But I see it as more or less the same thing as AI involved in the actual creation which we now have. People will in many cases be unable to tell where it is AI or not and nobody will be able to to effectively regulate.
 
In a movie made of Michael Jackson's last rehearsals for his European tour just prior to his passing in 2009, his band in places sounded like a full orchestra. However, it consisted of 4 keyboardists, drummer, bass player, rythm and solist guitarists, and lead doubling musicians on various string, woodwind and brasswind instruments, maybe a total of a dozen or less. (It's been a while since I watched it.)

Back in the late 1980's, I remember during a lunch break, Andy, our drummer with the military reserve band I was in the LA area, discussing writing whole drum tracks on a drum machine for songs for a recording studio. They paid him for the work. This meant that a drummer did not have to present for the recording. It was money, he needed the cash, but it did not pay as well as being live during the recordings. They would simply dub in his track through their drum machine as many times as needed to get a good take. I imagine it is the same with a keyboardist.

I've listened to the backing of today's pop music singers. At times, I can recognise that it is not a real live band. An even greater surprise was listening to various recordings of songs sung in Spanish from Latin America. I was surprised to hear and it was very obvious, the backing band was actually a full midi orchestration done on earlier or less expensive keyboard workstations.

IMO, a woodwind player who writes midi tracks can make a digitised sax, trumpet, trombone, etc. convincingly sound like these instruments with proper attack of notes, separation of notes, and dynamics versus someone who is only a keyboardist or pianist. I know this from my playing the keyboard and listening to various midi renditions.

Me thinks that modern midi technology is more and more dispensing with musicians.
 
Ghr9204 said:
In a movie made of Michael Jackson's last rehearsals for his European tour just prior to his passing in 2009, his band in places sounded like a full orchestra. However, it consisted of 4 keyboardists, drummer, bass player, rythm and solist guitarists, and lead doubling musicians on various string, woodwind and brasswind instruments, maybe a total of a dozen or less. (It's been a while since I watched it.)

Back in the late 1980's, I remember during a lunch break, Andy, our drummer with the military reserve band I was in the LA area, discussing writing whole drum tracks on a drum machine for songs for a recording studio. They paid him for the work. This meant that a drummer did not have to present for the recording. It was money, he needed the cash, but it did not pay as well as being live during the recordings. They would simply dub in his track through their drum machine as many times as needed to get a good take. I imagine it is the same with a keyboardist.

I've listened to the backing of today's pop music singers. At times, I can recognise that it is not a real live band. An even greater surprise was listening to various recordings of songs sung in Spanish from Latin America. I was surprised to hear and it was very obvious, the backing band was actually a full midi orchestration done on earlier or less expensive keyboard workstations.

IMO, a woodwind player who writes midi tracks can make a digitised sax, trumpet, trombone, etc. sound like these instruments with proper accenting of notes, separation of notes, and dynamics versus someone who is only a keyboardist or pianist. I know this from my playing the keyboard and listening to various midi renditions.

Me thinks that modern midi technology is more and more dispensing with musicians.
Read more…
Your drummer mate would have been programming drums for people for the thick end of a decade at that point. You can buy the sounds that Roger Nichols created for Wendell for a pittance, and they are still excellent now, if you like the drum sounds used on Gaucho and The Nightfly - many don’t, but they work extremely well in a busy mix.

Small bands using triggers and sequenced stuff to “sound like the album “ was even used by the bands that could afford using an orchestra in a gig. At least the orchestral libraries is still musicians putting fingers on keys and playing.

In a studio, even “mates rates” for a horn section will cost a fair bit. MIDI horns can be very effective as you say, depending on what you write. And adding a few real horns in too really brings it to life.
 

Join us in the Cafe!

Social

New! Social Feeds

Look out for the navigation icon:

Follow CafeSaxophone

Latest Song of the Month

Member Blogs (currently active)

Trending

Popular Discussions

Forum statistics

Topics
32,046
Messages
577,877
Members
8,113
Latest member
FelixKatJazx
Back
Top Bottom