Copilot, with the right prompts, can be used as a source aggregator, and it often provides short bibliographies with links. So, in the right hands and with the right precautions, it is a valuable tool. Let’s end it here, and I apologize for any discomfort my citation may have caused. I understand that!
If the answer to my question is “yes” then just say “yes”, if the answer to the question is “no” then how about you just rephrase what you wrote so I understand it this time?
1 Like
I’vr followed up on some of these AI responses (posted by users here) on Google. Inevitably Google AI references this forum, Reddit (a lot), Gearspace, KVR and so on. It’s essentially AI regurgitating speculative posts by various forum users who aren’t necessarily very informed themselves.
Most interestingly, I’ve copied some of these AI posts verbatim and google AI will respond convincingly while referring to the Cubase forum post I had just quoted. So, it’s taking random stuff it picked up in response to a user query, and then referring back to it’s own response to that query as valid.
A giant, self perpetuating bucket of horse dung.
4 Likes
Are we really having this discussion? Should we also discuss what link means? I mean well, a link might be something more esoteric, a proximity of sorts if not a rigid connection. And hey, in a chain the links still retain some degree of freedom, right?
Or maybe we should run a poll to inquire whether one expects to find a project in the state they left it at before activating a second one to have a listen at something? Maybe the man that left the project is not the same man that returns to activate it again, so why should the project remain the same?
Is this Cubase or the school of Plato?
1 Like
The distinction is between the static data one saves in a CPR file and the logic Cubase applies to that data when the project is opened. The CPR file represents “It is exactly what you saved it to be,” while the logic applied to the data when the project is opened represents “You know precisely what it will be.” Questioning whether I understand the distinction, when I am the one making it, is quite misleading.
Well when you start with something as superficially obvious as “it is exactly what you saved it to be” one has to wonder if you actually mean that, because it is so obvious, or if you meant something else. Yes, whatever you save something as is what you save it as. Great. We got that out of the way.
However, the next statement “and you know precisely what it will be” is clearly wrong. People don’t know “precisely what it will be”, if they did we wouldn’t be here. Pro Tools users clearly have a different experience altogether, right?
So taking those two statements together I just had to ask if you understood the broader context.
Quite frankly I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue in this thread. Everyone gets that the system is what it is, “most people” seem to understand that the system as it is right now is counter-intuitive at the very least, and people are here arguing for a change to the system.
We hear you loud and clear, you don’t think it’s a bug. You think it should be a feature-request instead, we hear you, and here are my requests: Automation system, VCAs, Eucon - Features Request
If this thread bothers you why not start a new thread with “feature-request” as a tag and maybe that will get traction and this thread can die and nobody will think of this as a bug? Everybody wins, right?
I don’t like the use of “we” in your reply. Are you heading a club? All I was interested in, in this thread, was gaining a better understanding of how VCA faders work in Cubase and why they were designed the way they are. Let’s leave it at that. Thank you and best of luck!
I don’t like the use of “you” in yours.
Passive-aggressiveness aside, you got your reply to that long ago and you kept arguing about this. If you wanted to leave it at you understanding how it actually works then you could have bowed out long ago.
Thank you, and best of luck(!).
stop discussing AI and fix the bloody VCA bug
3 Likes
@salvattore001 , Technical debt? Too small a beta tester base? Too powerful a marketing department? Other potential explanations?
Who knows!
Even AI considers the system broken:
Q: Why do Cubase mixes sometimes change after reopening when using VCAs?
A: Cubase VCAs work as a trim layer on top of existing automation. When a session reloads, Cubase recalculates those trims against the child tracks’ breakpoints. This can shift VCA positions or slightly alter playback levels. Dense automation or stacked VCAs make the effect more noticeable. The result is a mix that can open a bit different from the one you saved.
Q: Is this considered normal or acceptable?
A: Most mixers see it as a flaw. A mix should reopen exactly as it was saved. Any drift breaks trust in the automation system.
Q: Why did Steinberg design it this way?
A: VCAs were added on top of Cubase’s older automation architecture. This avoided rewriting the entire system and preserved compatibility. But it also meant VCAs became a mathematical trim layer rather than true master faders, which leads to these quirks.
Why are you doing this?
The answer is incorrect and a nice example why several people don’t like AI answers to be posted here.
3 Likes
Just adding some levity, please don’t take this too seriously.
And if ChatGPT is getting the specifics wrong, I really don’t care; the VCA system implementation is incomprehensible to me regardless of the reason.
1 Like
I am taking this seriously. In a topic where people laid out why AI answers should not be posted you post a poor AI answer. If this is not a provocation trying to upset people what is it then? Being careless?
Not every post can be excused with the remark “don’t take it seriously”.
4 Likes
100% agreed.
No, you’re not. And it is serious. The more folk post these, the more false ‘legitimacy’ is imbued in the text.
It’s senseless and a bit disturbing to think that folk are posting AI responses, as if to give the LLM some ‘authority’ on the matter - when even Sundar Pichai (head of Alphabet, parent company of Google) himself said in a recent interview that “..no-one should blindly accept any AI generated answers.”
I know I can gloss over/ignore the post all together; others may not and ‘believe’ the information.
Re-posting those texts here is neither big nor ‘clever’ and reflects on the poster themselves as dumb and naive as to the impact it can have… (IMHO).
It has to stop.
4 Likes
If the answer is blatantly false I apologize - the AI response seemed congruent with my understanding of the problem with the VCA system as was discussed here, but again, the behavior of the existing VCA system is completely bizarre to me, and I accept no fault in mis-understanding the complexity of such an ill-conceived implementation.
Frankly, and I realize I’ll just get more flaming for saying this but people’s hair-trigger reactions to anything AI is getting extremely tiresome to me. I get people have extremely mixed feelings on the tech across multiple dimensions, but the tech is here, and as naive as it may be to take its responses at face value it is more naive to presume the tech is a flash in the pan. It’s quite clear to me it will be as ubiquitous as the internet itself in a short time.
Good.
By all means, you go off and have a whale of a time ‘chatting’ to your favoured LLM for your knowledge/answers. All I’m saying is no-one should be re-posting any of those results (verbatim) here. It’s not healthy…
2 Likes
One final word on this - if the goal is to not allow mis-information to be propagated by AI, than posting an AI generated response with a CLEAR label as being “AI generated” (as I did) is actually a better path than me taking that info and claiming authorship of it.
But, of course, if people get flamed every time they note something is AI generated, all that does is encourage people to “hide” AI’s use, in their music and everywhere else.
I’m off this thread now to let it get back to its intent, which is discussing the horrible implementation of VCAs in Cubase.
1 Like
This is FORUM, not AI Chat.
Those AI responses are the last nail in the coffin for the forums. If people will continue to spam this sh**, it will kill forums for good. It will be no different than facebook with tons of bots. Just humans acting like a bots.
1 Like
I take your point - but the better path, clearly, is currently to not post the text at all.
And yes, I also understand your other point about AI soon becoming ubiquitous… Agreed, it will happen. However it’s not there yet.! And that’s the point. It’ll be ‘useful’ when it is bang up to date and ‘correct’. In a couple/few years maybe.
Yes. Agreed.