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

51–60 of 103 posts

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

#51

Post by delichon »

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 ;)

> And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications.

This feeling of being heard and understood is a driver in cult growth. And in ordinary human bonding and mating. So this seeming AI benefit carries a risk of mass movement formation and downward ratcheting social cohesion and fertility.

I worry that the most apocalyptic aspect of AI may be artificial friendship.

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

#52

Post by bulkan »

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…

I agree with you. Art needs "soul" and using AI generated "art" lacks it.

As we are all aware LLMs aren't true intelligence and iff we ever create something like Data from Start Trek than I'd be interested in that "person"'s art.

Right now LLM generated are is just highly mutated copies of what exists. I have no interest in consuming it.

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

#53

Post by dahart »

glimshe wrote: post #27
Gecko4072 wrote: post #21

Comment on the video page of the song that sparked this: “ No lol. We don’t need more over privileged musicians leading luxurious lives while the rest of us slave away. I’d rather support this if leads to less inequality. No more Rihanna’s and Guy Sebastian etc”

This is actually an insightful comment. People defending strong copyrights think they are protecting the little guy, but in fact they are defending the few winner-takes-all creatives. Banning AI music may only protect the very same people. Perhaps AI music will mostly hurt mass-market, ad-fueled artists while leaving the little guy who toils away in live bar and night club shows untouched. It could paradoxically incr…

> People defending strong copyrights think they are protecting the little guy, but in fact they are defending the few winner-takes-all creatives.

Copyrights do both, they protect all creatives, it’s not one or the other.

> Banning AI music many only protect the same people

How so? AI threatens publishers and copyrights holders the most. Don’t confuse big music with big tech, they’re not the same people. Maybe browse the list of AI lawsuits related to copyrights and note how many publishers there are https://ailawsuittracker.com/copyright/

Breaking the copyright system is very unlikely to leave independent artists unscathed, I believe AI is already doing significant damage to independent artists. Breaking big publishing system won’t help either, given the number of independent artists striving to break out and go big and land a publishing contract.

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

#54

Post by tgv »

glimshe wrote: post #27
Gecko4072 wrote: post #21

Comment on the video page of the song that sparked this: “ No lol. We don’t need more over privileged musicians leading luxurious lives while the rest of us slave away. I’d rather support this if leads to less inequality. No more Rihanna’s and Guy Sebastian etc”

This is actually an insightful comment. People defending strong copyrights think they are protecting the little guy, but in fact they are defending the few winner-takes-all creatives. Banning AI music may only protect the very same people. Perhaps AI music will mostly hurt mass-market, ad-fueled artists while leaving the little guy who toils away in live bar and night club shows untouched. It could paradoxically incr…

> It could paradoxically increase the value of human connection in music consumption.

My prediction/fear is that it will remove incentives to make music "manually", and thus lead to a decline in all aspects of the music industry, starting at spending, and then continue to teachers to instrument makers to artists. And that will make music a very elitist hobby, and stifle further development. We'll get stuck in LLM variations over All I want for Last Christmas.

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

#55

Post by glimshe »

rbwkap wrote: post #34
glimshe wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually an insightful comment. People defending strong copyrights think they are protecting the little guy, but in fact they are defending the few winner-takes-all creatives. Banning AI music may only protect the very same people. Perhaps AI music will mostly hurt mass-market, ad-fueled artists while leaving the little guy who toils away in live bar and night club shows untouched. It could paradoxically incr…

Complete bullshit. Any musician can register for copyright payouts and all musicians involved in a production get something. Instead, of course the money should go to Silicon Valley mafiosi and middlemen!

Copyright payouts (especially from streaming) are a small fraction, often negligible, of the livelihood of a professional musician. Keep in mind that in a world with free models, anyone could create AI music without silicon valley's involvement. My assumption is that "bad" music would be replaced by AI, while "good" music would not because AI simply wouldn't be able to deliver the goods.

Now, if AI could literally replace every musician, that would obviously be bad. But I don't think that banning it would solve the problem. If society as a whole is so against AI music that banning it is politically popular, it's because they don't like AI music to begin with - nothing to fear, then.

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

#58

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

paul7986 wrote: post #25

Interesting so far the majority of the comments here are for typing into a textbox (no talent needed) to create songs vs. hating AI Music. I do use Suno to turn my real human songs into polished tracks. I'm not a good singer and in earshot ppl like my AI produced songs. Though, I go in waves of listening only to my AI stuff to being uninspired & not listening to it. A weird thing happened to me on a recent date where…

Well they banned AI vocals at all too, so you can spend 6 months composing a track, add AI vocals, and your entire song is banned. Really the entire genre of edm could often switch out whatever vocals they have...

I have zero idea how much this matters since I don't really think anyone views the charts to find their next song to listen to. If a song with AI vocals is good it (might) pop off, I don't think getting on the charts at that point would matter.

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

#59

Post by Joel_Mckay »

hallgrim wrote: post #37
nl wrote: post #15

This is in response to a possibly (?) AI generated cover of "Like a Prayer" topping Australian radio play charts in July and ARIA deciding it was illegitimate. >But the track, released by Queensland-based DJ and producer Josh Fawaz, has angered some in the music industry who believe it was produced with artificial intelligence-powered audio engineering software. > ABC News has contacted Fawaz multiple times this week…

They should add labels for auto-tune as well, so I can filter it out more easily

Not going to happen, some have forgotten that "Music Business" is two words with distinct contexts. =3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFG5dk1GyRo

Post reply on HN