Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 103 posts

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#41

Post by card_zero »

pwillia7 wrote: post #31
sph wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think people that use machines to generate music have the technical skills to be a cover artist? (I suppose you mean with real instruments) The only people salivating at generative AI are those that do not have the skills to create without.

yikes ... assuming you hate MIDI too

Generally people hate plagues. For instance I remember hating rock ballads in the early 90s. It all depends how much of a threat to civilization the thing is, currently, but later on in retrospect it becomes harmless and amusing.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#42

Post by alasano »

I approve of AI image and video generation but for music I can't get myself to feel the same way, except for novelty/meme songs maybe.

I think it's because it's so much sneakier, I'm usually focused on something else and listening to music and it takes me a minute to realize something's off.

AI images and videos at least, for now, I can recognize the majority of the time and they don't have that primal connection to my brain that music does.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#43

Post by apercu »

copemaxxxing wrote: post #22

AI generated music, AI generated blogs etc, is really a stupid idea. Maybe some people want it, but I really don't. I really don't care if the music is great (it's not, I'm a musician). I really don't care if the writing is great or the content is great. Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials. What if AI cures cancer? Sure, let it cure canc…

The only point I would disagree is that I do find LLM's to be useful.

I am only "forced" to use them as a matter of staying economically competitive against my competition, but I do find it like having a second opinion or a way to force myself to express my thoughts.

And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications that I work really hard to produce ;)

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#44

Post by 0x70run »

bcjdjsndon wrote: post #35
copemaxxxing wrote: post #22

AI generated music, AI generated blogs etc, is really a stupid idea. Maybe some people want it, but I really don't. I really don't care if the music is great (it's not, I'm a musician). I really don't care if the writing is great or the content is great. Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials. What if AI cures cancer? Sure, let it cure canc…

But why do I have be prohibited from it just because you have an unintelligible feeling it's bad somehow?

[dead]

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#45

Post by koolba »

copemaxxxing wrote: post #22

AI generated music, AI generated blogs etc, is really a stupid idea. Maybe some people want it, but I really don't. I really don't care if the music is great (it's not, I'm a musician). I really don't care if the writing is great or the content is great. Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials. What if AI cures cancer? Sure, let it cure canc…

> Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials.

This is great analogy when you consider the sheer deliciousness of pork and shellfish.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#46

Post by CuriouslyC »

sph wrote: post #20
perarneng wrote: post #17

Have generative AI create the music and then become a cover artist for AI generated music. No one will notice. Lots of musicians are cover artists because perhaps they are skilled in their playing instruments and or singing but have a hard time coming up with good music. So instead let AI come up with the music and just copy it and make it yours.

Do you think people that use machines to generate music have the technical skills to be a cover artist? (I suppose you mean with real instruments) The only people salivating at generative AI are those that do not have the skills to create without.

Dirty secret of the industry, lots of producers and musicians are using AI to "brainstorm" songs, then sampling from them or performing slightly shined up versions of them. Sort of like musical photobashing.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#47

Post by vintermann »

apercu wrote: post #43
copemaxxxing wrote: post #22

AI generated music, AI generated blogs etc, is really a stupid idea. Maybe some people want it, but I really don't. I really don't care if the music is great (it's not, I'm a musician). I really don't care if the writing is great or the content is great. Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials. What if AI cures cancer? Sure, let it cure canc…

The only point I would disagree is that I do find LLM's to be useful. I am only "forced" to use them as a matter of staying economically competitive against my competition, but I do find it like having a second opinion or a way to force myself to express my thoughts. And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications that I work really hard to produce ;)

I am not forced to use them in my job. In fact I would like to use them but my department kind of falls between two chairs so our "AI strategy" doesn't include me (even though I took Andrew Ng's course over a decade ago and has tried very hard to keep myself updated since... I'm pretty confident no one in this 1000+ person company has more AI experience than me)

I might have wanted to write all the code myself if I had infinite time, but I don't. And I want to code way more things than I have the time or mental stamina for. As it is I have to do it at home.

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#49

Post by inigyou »

tass wrote: post #39
copemaxxxing wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Its the people who worship Rihanna and Guy Sebastian is the problem. If you don't like those people, don't need to buy their stuffs. I am a musician but I, never in my life, have any idols whatsoever. I don't buy their stuffs. I create my own. One wonder how can the entertainment industry survives anyway if everyone is like me. But thankfully not everyone is like me, the world goes around. 2. You can support local…

I think many people believe their streaming use will only pay artists who they listen to, not realizing the streaming service actually pays artists based upon overall listener numbers (or possibly pre-negotiated amounts). So, in the old days you would "support (a) local artist" by buying their album and now people probably think they are supporting them by listening to them on spotify/whatever but they really are not…

> many people believe their streaming use will only pay artists who they listen to, not realizing the streaming service actually pays artists based upon overall listener numbers

Those are the same thing

Re: Australia Bans Generative A.I. From Official Music Charts

#50

Post by forshaper »

bcjdjsndon wrote: post #35
copemaxxxing wrote: post #22

AI generated music, AI generated blogs etc, is really a stupid idea. Maybe some people want it, but I really don't. I really don't care if the music is great (it's not, I'm a musician). I really don't care if the writing is great or the content is great. Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials. What if AI cures cancer? Sure, let it cure canc…

But why do I have be prohibited from it just because you have an unintelligible feeling it's bad somehow?

OP specifies that they would prefer opt-in to either side.
Post reply on HN