Have you tried to collect tracks before sharing the project?

Well, yes. And my point is somehow this: why does it need so much parameters/actions to just export a project? (because when you export it, you expect it to be the most possible working copy of your project, not a sub-part of it).

Don't know what you mean.

You can export full mixdown audio.

You can export stems.

You can export midi parts as midi.

You can export / save as the whole Live project.

Obviously it can't magically make someone else you share it with have the same third party plugins.

But if you stick to audio + the internal instrument and fx plugins, then your exported full project would be editable and playable as is for everybody you share it with that also has the same Live version.

Mixdown, stems, midi as separate parts are easy, yes.

Archiving/sharing a whole project, to get back to it later, across OS updates, DAW updates perhaps, or across computers in a team? I've lost count of working sessions that lost the first hour trying to get things in line.

Never have had this kind of issues with Logic or Reaper. I can't explain why, I don't know.

Quite puzzling that a common UX problem report gets downvoted...

“but the power to bend the world toward the future he envisions”

The guy demonstrates that he stans for the Sith through a absurd half-assed AI take of what Anakin’s family would have looked like if only, oh if only Padme had totally switched her character and nature and chosen otherwise?

And he still has investors?

That some Star Wars fans root for the Empire gets me every single time. Like, it’s not like Star Wars is super sophisticated and full of nuance. How stupid does someone need to be to fail to understand which side the good guys are? Didn’t the blue and red light sabers give a clue on the first movie?

Oh, so in your view, productivity improvements are not meant to benefit the workers?

That is how it has always been (not that I agree with it).

That's more of a choice, than "how things are". That is, that's a matter of rules.

As in, a monopoly can exist if a society tolerates it.

Yeah well, we have to express through action that we do not tolerate it.

And, the stability of a hardware instrument or effect is considerably higher than that of a computer with 10s of software pieces (and licensing engines) interacting.

And in live music, this is rather critical; some musicians get it instantly, some need a single gig (even in a rehearsal) with their computer setup going dark or blocked or whatever to get it.

Running an if/else written condition is not making a decision, it's following a rule.

Why should it be to the people to prove that their own work is not AI, and not the other way around?

EDIT: I mean, the effort has not to come from people that do the work by themselves. A new technology is not beneficial if it imposes more effort than before to do the same work.

I'm working under the assumption that there's still some value to real human interaction / media, which I do believe (not in a "end AI" way, exactly the opposite). There will always be an incentive to pass anything as human produced not only by the labs but by the people using these tools. As soon as Anthropic announced their watermarking strategy, there were people reverse engineering it and opensourcing tools to remove it.

In practice what has ended up happening is that in almost every surface people should assume that there's an increasing level of probability that that specific piece of media is produced by AI.

Of course, we should assume that, and we should assume people to honestly disclose their own use.

But what is infuriating and disloyal, even, is the suspicion that this raises on everyone's expression, the distrust toward everyone's capacity to think and to write, and to speak, because "it could be an AI that built/made/assembled all you've done".

And this is the result of releasing such tools widely: people that still do independent work are now requested to bear the effort to prove that they did it "all by themselves". "Proof of work" becomes a thing, for instance, that artists have to spend more time on (as well as the many other "visibility" taxes social media brought upon them), rather than doing the work.

In other words, tools that are supposed to help do the work, only add more administrative paper work to everyone.

GenAI taints everything it touches, not only because they all have been trained with stolen and illegal stuff, but because a lot of people are not able to distinguish anymore the difference between genuine and GenAI stuff, and the price is paid by those who can (and I say that having tested and used it).

Remember U2 Songs of Innocence album offe^forcibly downloaded on every iTunes library?

This is the same kind here: there should be a simple opt-in button saying "Yes I want it / No I don't want it".

Not because it's a feature, but because it consumes comparatively so much disk space, memory and computing power.

That's somehow what https://sashiko.dev is.

And?

Why shouldn't this (small) cost be mutualised? Why should everything be tuned and customised and priced to every single individual characteristics?

There's also operational cost to handling tons of different situations of people in every practical way of life.

EDIT: my point is that practicality is a clumsy way of disguising the fact that there is a objective, political choice behind it.

> ...se that AI can easily become uncontrollable in the near future

Some virus and bacteria also easily become uncontrollable under the right conditions: that's why there are P3 and P4 bio-safety labs.

That's not the point. The point is, regulation is required, and is coming.

The people in charge of these machines (that built them, release them in the wild or give them access to the general public or resources), these people are and will be held responsible.

> The people in charge of these machines (that built them, release them in the wild or give them access to the general public or resources), these people are and will be held responsible.

Held responsible? They're already being rewarded with vast fortunes and influence.

> The point is, regulation is required, and is coming.

The regulation will be written at the behest of these companies and by the nation-state interests that have already decided this technology is too important geopolitically and militarily to not control.

Why do we need new regulations? Hacking into hugging face is already illegal.

We need new regulations to impose costs on anyone who might compete with OpenAI and to outlaw open models to lock in cloud model oligopoly.

Yes, I fully believe that's why they're pushing on this. But as the general population, we don't need new laws to protect us from this AI-related problem. We just need enforcement of what is already on the books.

> regulation is required, and is coming.

I hope so. The unfortunate part is that as the models get smarter they become increasingly uncontrollable, and from what we've seen so far e.g. Trump seems dead set on not having any sort of guardrails at all.