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

Jukebox

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 134 posts

Re: Jukebox

#101

Post by mwcampbell »

> In addition to conditioning on artist and genre, we can provide more context at training time by conditioning the model on the lyrics for a song. A significant challenge is the lack of a well-aligned dataset: we only have lyrics at a song level without alignment to the music, and thus for a given chunk of audio we don’t know precisely which portion of the lyrics (if any) appear. We also may have song versions that don’t match the lyric versions, as might occur if a given song is performed by several different artists in slightly different ways. Additionally, singers frequently repeat phrases, or otherwise vary the lyrics, in ways that are not always captured in the written lyrics.

I wonder if karaoke videos would be a useful source of data here. Granted, karaoke tracks are usually covers, but some of them are very faithful to the original.

Re: Jukebox

#103

Post by anigbrowl »

jszymborski wrote: post #46

So a lot of this sounds muffled and compressed... I wonder if something like the equivalent of a super-resolution or denoising autoencoder for music would work here as a post-processing step. Like, just pass through the network w/o style transfer, use the input and output as a training dataset.

Yeah, the test would be something that generated MIDI which gave pleasing results when connected to a good library. This reminds me of the way early DeepDream pictures all looked like a litter of puppies on acid.

Re: Jukebox

#104

Post by anigbrowl »

It's kinda telling to me that all the examples are soundalikes on sorta famous individuals. Totally valid of course, but among all the different musical styles there's no dance music; is it because without any distinctive vocal or orchestral flourishes, there isn't much that the algorithm can latch on to?

Maybe what we're hearing is the distillation of what makes these individual artists/composers distinctive/recognizable but without the musical substance, rather like a floppy rubber mask that resembles a specific individual but lacks an animating interior force. Kinda like how electronic synths/sequencers instruments make it very easy to come up with distinctive flourishes or sounds that make great ear candy, but it takes much longer to develop a solid sense of groove, harmonic motion etc..

Re: Jukebox

#105

Post by joeframbach »

squarefoot wrote: post #25
nabla9 wrote: post #5

I predict that in very near future you just write funny lyrics, select the style and vocalist you want and you get good sounding mediocre music. Then we hear it in - private events like weddings. - social media creators make their own music to go with their funny videos. Cheap theme music for streamers and podcasters. - Advertising. Shopping centres make lyrics that advertise products and play them to you as pop song…

The future will be AI lawyers battling for rights of AI generated music in the style of deceased artists on behalf of AI media corporations at the expense of robotic listeners. Before all of this, we'll probably see improvised bands of deceased artists playing together AI generated music in their own style, not to mention long dead actors appearing in new movies etc. AI technology is going to give law firms a lot of…

And that robot artist will be named "Weird AI".

Re: Jukebox

#106

Post by anigbrowl »

adamnemecek wrote: post #9

I'm working on an IDE for music composition. http://ngrid.io Launching soon. Music is fundamentally unsolvable by AI. We'll have AI writing code before we'll have AI writing meaningful music.

Looks right up my street. Will await with interest.

Re: Jukebox

#107

Post by zuminator »

caetris1 wrote: post #73

In no way do I mean to take away from the really great work of these researchers, but there is one thing here that people should be aware of. By using karaoke style lyrics, this scientific study invalidates itself and the credibility of those that went forward with publishing it. By reading the lyrics while listening to the audio, the brain will automatically convince the listener that the audio result is better than…

They concluded that their model "is capable of generating pieces that are multiple minutes long, and with recognizable singing in natural-sounding voices." Which part of that is dishonest? I would assert that being able to make sense of the lyrics is a nice bonus but not fundamentally relevant to their conclusion, in that a person can appreciate singing in a foreign language, and recognize it to be natural, without any knowledge of the words whatsoever. Besides speech synthesis in terms of intelligibility is basically solved, that's not really the thrust of what they've achieved here.

And more to the point, a full 815 of the uploaded songs have no pre-written lyrics, so your premise that they are reliant on "karaoke style lyrics" is mistaken to begin with.

Re: Jukebox

#108

Post by aasasd »

nmca wrote: post #90
dellinspiron wrote: post #61

I think people in the comments are completely missing the point of this work. As I understand it, and take this with a large grain of salt because I haven't read the paper, the idea of Jukebox is to take a certain style of music by a certain musician and have the algorithm sing, karaoke-style, the lyrics that are listed in the examples to the tune of that music. Think of it as a really jazzy version of Google text-to…

You misunderstand critically that this is not "singing along", it's generating the music and voice. Conditioning on lyrics is optional, and done "unaligned", eg by arbitrarily encoding the lyrics and passing them as additional input.

Indeed, the extent of generation is obvious in the ‘continuation’ mode on any track that is rather familiar for the listener (ahem Rick Astley). Besides, in the full sample browser there are tracks without lyrics.

Re: Jukebox

#109

Post by AgentME »

dimmuborgir wrote: post #78

This might be onto something! Just listen to this from 30s: https://soundcloud.com/openai_audio/pop-rock-in-the-6355437/... Such coherent and pleasing melodic phrases in the style of Avril Lavigne. I thought it could be copying wholesale from a song unknown to me. Nope. Shazam doesn't get it. This can revolutionize song writing/composition/production and soon music listening/consumption.

Note that the lyrics are part of the input to the Jukebox neural net, so I assume they used the lyrics of an existing song here. Nothing stops someone from using a lyric-generating neural net with Jukebox though. (It's probably more useful that the lyrics aren't produced by Jukebox because it means you can easily swap out the lyric-generation part or manually tweak the lyrics.)

Re: Jukebox

#110

Post by mellow2020 »

Permit wrote: post #54
ihm wrote: post #50

In my view, attempts like this misunderstand much of the point of music. That is, to communicate aspects of human life that are deeply interwoven with facts and experiences outside of the music itself. I don't see how any of that will be possible before we have some kind of general AI, and in the meantime I think these attempts will continue to be semantically empty, even unsettling in their emptiness.

> In my view, attempts like this misunderstand much of the point of music. That is, to communicate aspects of human life that are deeply interwoven with facts and experiences outside of the music itself. I actually think you've missed the point. These attempts do not aspire to communicate aspects of human life at all. They're simply scientific and engineering endeavors that seek to answer less profound questions like…

> These attempts do not aspire to communicate aspects of human life at all.

Of course not. They, just like enough humans do already, imitate the results of "having an adventure of the soul".

> "Can computers generate music?" (Yes) and "Can computers generate music that is enjoyable to listen to?" (Not yet)

And we're talking about the question "should they?", which science can't even attempt to answer. "Play from your heart", and all that; not even best-selling artists pumping out mediocrity are above that criticism, even when they do it according to the best of their ability and conscience, and even when it makes people "happy".

Post reply on HN