Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Impressive but kind of creepy


Recommended Posts



Quote

 “Audio is not a discrete thing like words,” Shulman says. “It’s a wave. It’s a continuous signal.” High-quality audio’s sampling rate is generally 44khz or 48hz, which means “48,000 tokens a second,” he adds. “That’s a big problem, right? And so you need to figure out how to kind of smoosh that down to something more reasonable.” How, though? “A lot of work, a lot of heuristics, a lot of other kinds of tricks and models and stuff like that. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to done.” Eventually, Suno wants to find alternatives to the text-to-music interface, adding more advanced and intuitive inputs — generating songs based on users’ own singing is one idea..


As with all new tools, we will take time to integrate and personalize its use without really understanding it.

 

As humans, we have been playing with electricity while not truly understanding it, but simply describing its contours of usability for our goals.

 

 

PEACE

_
_
_

When musical machines communicate, we had better listen…

http://youtube.com/@ecoutezpourentendre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eventually with the millions of users as they are suggesting, you are going to end up with a lot of people sueing each other over the fact user B's AI music device seems to have copied user A's AI music device and well be back to where we started. Copywrite infringement.

 

With millions of users using AI to design a song the chance of there being similar songs is high i reckon. The way people get sued now for some seemingly vague likeness is going to give the lawyers more money than to the AI inventers.

 

The world is fcked and "frankly my dear, I dont give a damn"

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AUSSIEKEYS said:

With millions of users using AI to design a song the chance of there being similar songs is high i reckon. The way people get sued now for some seemingly vague likeness is going to give the lawyers more money than to the AI inventers.

 

The world is fcked and "frankly my dear, I dont give a damn"

 

 

 There is nothing original with AI every decision it make is based on prior work of a human.  With AI the larger the data banks of prior work and faster processors to scan through more data than other computer with AI programs gets the more human-like results.   Same way chess computers work storing thousands of moves and sequences and it's own moves and sequences the better it will be at beating humans, all about speed and size of data bank of the computer.    Humans work the same way building up data in their brain of their favorite or work topics then like a computer their subconscious scans that data to make instantaneous decisions.   The only difference  a human can it can through some chas and randomness into the process to be unique.   

 

Now being computers are all based on prior work everything it does is a copyright violation, so to me anything AI generated should never be copyrightable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Docbop said:

Now being computers are all based on prior work everything it does is a copyright violation, so to me anything AI generated should never be copyrightable. 

 

I wrote about the implications this last year in one of my Open Channel columns for Mixonline - Does "AI" Stand for "Attorneys Incoming"?  You might find it interesting.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This feels exactly like the GMO conversation. If you ask people in health food stores, they say it's an abomination against the natural order of things. If you ask geneticists, they explain that, on the exact contrary, it is the natural order of things. It is no different from how life on earth has always proceeded.

AI does what we've all done: taken the existing state of something and fashioned something from it. It is how art has always proceeded and culture has always progressed. If you don't think that what AI is making is new, then you also don't think that what you are making is new.

 

If you're worried about AI replacing you and your work, you are either selling yourself short or not doing good enough work.

In a few years, these alarmist hysterias will sound as quaint to us as those who thought the first records were the devil stealing people's souls.

We're gonna be ok...


 

  • Like 1
  • Dislike 1

Now out! "Mind the Gap," a 24-song album of new material.
www.joshweinstein.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell I already don't go due to tracks.  I sure as **** won't go to see "AI".    First question when I see a post about someone touring is, do they run tracks?  Apparently Hans Zimmer will be touring and that would be a cool show, and apparently it's all live--but holy hell is it expensive.  And if you get up into the "cheap" seats (which ain't at all "cheap") then the sound tends to suck.

I think the last show I saw was in 2010, not counting a few local bands...and I won't stick to watch them if they run tracks, which most do.

I'm far from alarmist about AI, but partly because I'm close to retirement.  I think nobody knows just how many jobs across all the variety of fields may be on the replacement block from AI (and 3d printing, automation) but I think "a lot" is very possible.   That will be an issue for my kids.   Not like you can stop it, because companies will save tons of $$.   I worry far more about things that we have very solid data and projections for, like climate change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

Agreed, I hate tracks. I'd 100% rather see AI write something in real time, than live musicians playing along to something recorded in advance. 

Playback gets used for more than band parts, there are strings, horns, percussion,  more BGV, sound design, foley, and so on to bring the record to a live setting which is what people today want.    Today people want more than a few musicians on stage can provide.  Today's audience if they aren't going to get the music video live they are more than happy with a good DJ and why DJ's are starting to get paid as much as a band would of.    Video killed the radio star and now actual musicians playing too. 

 

I just watched last night a bar that had three acts for the night.   The three acts were all one synth based person doing EDMish stuff.  The first couple had a fair amount of gear including modular, but the headler had just a Roland 404 and a small synth fed into the 404.    The world is going digital, going be awhile and humans playing will be the hot new thing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have absolutely no problem with laptop-based production, looping, Ableton Live or anything else. Those are all just instruments, and I'm exactly as happy watching people play that way as any other way. 

But I hate tracks...UNLESS they are tempo-locked to the live drummer, and not vice versa. Then I can just think of it as any other sequence.

FWIW, DJ's make SO much more than live musicians, in orders that would kill your soul if you knew. Some of the higher-profile guys are making high-multiple-tens of thousands a night. It's sobering...

Now out! "Mind the Gap," a 24-song album of new material.
www.joshweinstein.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would I use a robot in my band for live shows?  Sure, they don’t complain, they work for cheap, they don’t make mistakes.  Feed them the right algorithm, they can rock pretty hard too!  Moreover, you can dress ‘em up to look good, downright sexy.

 

Even more, they can double as security.  if you get a robot musician that has the optional military chip, they can attack hecklers, render them unconscious in seconds and get right back on stage and continue the show.

Some music I've recorded and played over the years with a few different bands

Tommy Rude Soundcloud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TommyRude said:

they can attack hecklers, render them unconscious in seconds and get right back on stage and continue the show.

I worked with a guitar player that did that with a Les Paul. Never missed a beat and played a hell of a "bloody" solo.

True story.

What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TommyRude said:

Would I use a robot in my band for live shows?  Sure, they don’t complain, they work for cheap, they don’t make mistakes. 

 

Moreover, you can dress ‘em up to look good, downright sexy.

 

 

Ahhh finally a use for all those excess Robot Groupies they seemed to have invented for the "lonely ones"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, AUSSIEKEYS said:

 

 

Ahhh finally a use for all those excess Robot Groupies they seemed to have invented for the "lonely ones"

 

We're not lonely, we're just really busy!!!! Eh hem. I mean, don't you think you're being far fetched?

 

20 hours ago, AUSSIEKEYS said:

Eventually with the millions of users as they are suggesting, you are going to end up with a lot of people sueing each other over the fact user B's AI music device seems to have copied user A's AI music device and well be back to where we started. Copywrite infringement.

 

With millions of users using AI to design a song the chance of there being similar songs is high i reckon. The way people get sued now for some seemingly vague likeness is going to give the lawyers more money than to the AI inventers.

 

The world is fcked and "frankly my dear, I dont give a damn"

 

 

 

 Last fall a very prominent YouTuber made a very popular and impactful video about plagiarism, after which a floodgate opened up for all kinds of plagiarism claims to come forth. Obviously it's pretty easy usually to ascertain if something is ultimately plagiarized, once you have the "source" to compare to, and when these claims were verified, there was a mass wave of sympathy and support, with some people even asking what they can do to financially support them since they enjoyed their work while unknowingly attributing to the thief.

 

In the afterwave of this, a guy on Twitter tried to raise a huge stink over their AI generated art being plagiarized by someone using a similar AI prompt, obviously trying to create that same wave of support...let's say it completely backfired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2024 at 12:51 PM, MathOfInsects said:

If you're worried about AI replacing you and your work, you are either selling yourself short or not doing good enough work.

 

Or working in an industry where cost is prioritized over quality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, CHarrell said:

In the afterwave of this, a guy on Twitter tried to raise a huge stink over their AI generated art being plagiarized by someone using a similar AI prompt, obviously trying to create that same wave of support...let's say it completely backfired.

algorithms ‘can’ be extremely valuable.  In the case a particular alogrithm is considered to be the crown jewel of a company/brand, they are usually heavily protected.

 

So in the new AI world, the prompt will be considered just as important as the song, or equivalent to the song.  What came first, the prompt or the song?

 

Starting now, I will be registering my prompts with the Smithsonian.

Some music I've recorded and played over the years with a few different bands

Tommy Rude Soundcloud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...