AI generated music has taken a huge leap

[flageolet]

AI will make many jobs futile and only a small percentage will really benefit.
The ones who will loose their job will be called parasites.

We will not rethink a 5 day workweek as being the default standard.

History and repetition

 

[Jason Scott]

I honestly think many will get same if not better results and higher number of views of they put up something like this with AI voice only and put Drake in the title, yes.
I mean I'd rather listen to Finneas generating Drake than Ai or Drake himself. I don't mean to be rude or anything here, just my pov on this. I have nothing again Drake, not at all, just can't listen to his music and enjoy it.

I agree that using Drake's name in the title of a video is potentially likely to result in more views, but does that really explain why the fake Drake video went viral? If so, that would imply that you're suggesting anyone can create a fake Drake song and go viral simply by attaching Drake's name to it. Am I misinterpreting your position?

 

[Chromatizm]

Am I misinterpreting your position?

Just a little!
Not just anyone - a person who understands what he's doing and has a good ear to select a good take out of (no doubt) tons of garbage AI has generated before he found proper prompts and got decent bass groove.

 

[Joshua_L]

The following is just the very narrow view of a hobby bedroom producer. I see also the many problems which come with AI generated music, but I wouldn't mind to have a MIDI AI Tool where you throw in a baseline or a melody or a basic chord progression and the Tool generates a beautiful customizable Rock/ProgRock/Fusion or whatever MIDI arrangement out of this. I play mainly to more or less self produced backing tracks. I still want to be able to play as a human being my guitar to those backing tracks. It would be rather absurd if I would just sit in front of the computer and let the AI do everything including the guitar playing, but it can be very time consuming to find the right sound for an instrument, the right drum/bass pattern for a certain track etc. if you don't want or are not able to do everything on your own. I don't know where all this will lead to. On the one hand it seems scary that in not such a distant future a person who has only very basic music knowledge will be able to produce with AI a complete soundtrack for a film, on the other if AI helps you to be a more creative person...

No offense but it’s exactly what’s is killing music.

That’s what I said before, you want AI tools to sound more « pro » but you want it quick without the learning curve.

No problem, I can understand it.

But younger people than you would want more pro and quicker and then just push enter after a prompt.

Honestly, few years back AI was a kind of « sci-fi/dystopian » thing.

Who really needs AI in their life?
For what purpose?
To achieve what exactly ?

 

[Stratman68]

The first example-the vocals, bass and drums sound ok, kind of like VSTS that I use often. But it ends there. The rest sounds like garbage imho.
Sorry but id NOT think it's a good thing MAINLY because it is and will continue to be MIS-USED (sp).
Why? Because the world, especially America is all about greed and $$$. Talent and expertise are irrelevant.

 

[Stratman68]

It's over for musicians. Unless you're really original and creative (could be over for them too), but as far as the standard pop 123 abc stuff , it's over.

Well I am no Taylor Swift fan trust me, but NO WAY is AI going to hurt her sales and popularity...............In general, yes it will hurt many.

 

[Chromatizm]

Well I am no Taylor Swift fan trust me, but NO WAY is AI going to hurt her sales and popularity

No doubt they will monetize the hell out of it
Interactive chatbots in your phone "trained to think and talk by Taylor herself" - chat with your personal Taylor all day long
Interactive services like "generate targeted birthday song using authorized/licensed/approved by Taylor AI composer" - let her sing you a lullaby (new one each day, created specifically for you!)
And lawyers will feast on corpses of those who tried to do the same using "unauthorized" tools and authors of those tools alike

 

[Will Chen]

Well I am no Taylor Swift fan trust me, but NO WAY is AI going to hurt her sales and popularity...............In general, yes it will hurt many.

You're missing the forrest for the trees. It's not about (insert huge pop star) making less money, it's creating an environment where the next (insert huge pop star) would never exist and making it even more difficult for (insert your fav non huge pop star artist here) to make a living as a musician.

 

[Jason Scott]

Just a little!
Not just anyone - a person who understands what he's doing and has a good ear to select a good take out of (no doubt) tons of garbage AI has generated before he found proper prompts and got decent bass groove.

Even some of Drake's own songs on YouTube haven't gone viral by comparison. For example, Ratchet Happy Birthday only garnered 148K views compared to the AI generated Drake content. So, why didn't that song go viral? It stands to reason that Drake knows what he's doing and has a good ear,

 

[NY Guitarist]

AI generated content is essentially just scraped from sources found on the internet and then plagiarized.

 

[Chromatizm]

So, why didn't that song go viral?

My money is that since the moment it was revealed that the song is AI-generated, everyone and their mother went to listen to it to see if it worth the hype
I'm personally responsible for three hits, guilty as charged
There is absolutely no way someone could think that the recording of such a low quality could be actual studio-recorded Drake

 

[Jason Scott]

AI generated content is essentially just scraped from sources found on the internet and then plagiarized.

I'd only consider it plagiarism if the output were a copy of the source music that was used in the data set that the model was trained on.

 

[Jason Scott]

My money is that since the moment it was revealed that the song is AI-generated, everyone and their mother went to listen to it to see if it worth the hype
I'm personally responsible for three hits, guilty as charged

My understanding is that the media reported on it as a result of it going viral, thus most people likely weren't aware that it was AI generated initially.

There is absolutely no way someone could think that the recording of such a low quality could be actual studio-recorded Drake

In my opinion, the average listener probably isn't the best judge of audio quality, so I tend to doubt that was a red flag for the vast majority of fans, but that's just me.

 

[Chromatizm]

My understanding is that the media reported on the song as a result of it going viral, thus most people likely weren't aware that it was AI generated initially.

It has human-generated lyrics, it has distinct parts, etc.
It's far from being "AI-generated" as many titles misleadingly say

according to Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. in an interview with The New York Times, “it’s absolutely eligible because it was written by a human.”

And it is - written and curated
AI seem to be a simple version of some commercially available sound library in this case
How come millions of other tracks don't get hundreds thousands streams within couple of days?
Yes, it is this simple - because of "Drake"
Not because this song is actually good or anything

 

[Jason Scott]

It has human-generated lyrics, it has distinct parts, etc.
It's far from being "AI-generated" as many titles misleadingly say

If you felt that way, then why didn't you point it out in your reply four posts above? You wrote, "My money is that since the moment it was revealed that the song is AI-generated".

If you don't think it's AI generated, then the point in trying to explain how an AI generated song went viral is moot, in my opinion.

 

[Joe Bfstplk]

AI generated content is essentially just scraped from sources found on the internet and then plagiarized.

Theft, with extra steps....

 

[NY Guitarist]

I'd only consider it plagiarism if the output were a copy of the source music that was used in the data set that the model was trained on.

Well, let me put it this way.

AI doesn't 'generate' content, it does a veiled 'mash-up' of other people's content. This is the sampling debate all over again except under the guise of artificial intelligence.

I know mine is a highly simplistic POV, but the word generate is doing a lot of lifting.

AI tools are a whole other, and IMO, powerful and valuable category, whether used by artists, or for science, business etc.

 

[Chromatizm]

If you felt that way, then why didn't you point it out in your reply four posts above? You wrote, "My money is that since the moment it was revealed that the song is AI-generated".

I did Sorry I didn't make it clear enough but I don't know how to word it differently:

a person who understands what he's doing and has a good ear to select a good take out of (no doubt) tons of garbage AI has generated before he found proper prompts and got decent bass groove.

Or

But yes, there is no doubt SOMEONE will need to sort everything AI generates to find actual jems here.

Or

So there will be jobs for people to listen to all this shit and try to find diamonds within an insanely huge pile, given how much AI can generate within a split second.

I mentioned in more than a few posts in the thread that someone HAD TO select this. And he did, there is absolutely no doubt he did. I'm not ready to believe that this song was the first try based on the prompt like "create me a song which would pass as a Drake song". It is not possible today. Maybe in a few years. Right now it is someone painstakingly repeating same shit again and again changing his prompt until the results are semi-good.

And in the article @Will Chen shared with us it was also made very clear from the very top that the song is NOT fully AI-generated. It's literally in the first page repeated a few times.
I'm sorry, I didn't know you probably didn't read the article because maybe you were aware of this song already, and so we discussed this based on very different understanding. I was always (I think) clear on this: this version of the song went viral only because of "Drake" voice, and fans confusing it was his new song, but it was undoubtedly curated by person and not fully "AI-generated".

 

[Jason Scott]

I did Sorry I didn't make it clear enough but I don't know how to word it differently:

Or

Or

I mentioned in more than a few posts in the thread that someone HAD TO select this. And he did, there is absolutely no doubt he did. I'm not ready to believe that this song was the first try based on the prompt like "create me a song which would pass as a Drake song". It is not possible today. Maybe in a few years. Right now it is someone painstakingly repeating same shit again and again changing his prompt until the results are semi-good.

All of the quotes you referenced in your post refer to the concept of selecting 'jems' from a potentially vast array of garbage, though that doesn't really imply that the output isn't AI generated, given that users who generate AI music using Suno, for example, also have the opportunity to pick what they consider 'jems' from multiple versions of the same prompt.

And in the article @Will Chen shared with us it was also made very clear from the very top that the song is NOT fully AI-generated. It's literally in the first page repeated a few times.
I'm sorry, I didn't know you probably didn't read the article because maybe you were aware of this song already, and so we discussed this based on very different understanding.

I didn't read the article because Chen's reply wasn't directed at me. However, after perusing the article, it mentions:

"The lyrics were written by Ghostwriter, despite the computer-generated vocal performances."

I may have missed it, so can you show or point me to the portion that mentions that the music wasn't AI generated?

 

[Chromatizm]

I may have missed it, so can you show or point me to the portion that mentions that the music wasn't AI generated?

Ok, I see where my wording was bad - I should've said something like "not 100% generated" maybe.
Language issue this is.
I get what you saying, I do, but I think I'll stick with my view anyway.