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

DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion

aslp-lab.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion

#111

Post by jimbokun »

jononor wrote: post #84
iahds9uasd wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tools and knowledge for making music are already unbelievably accessible. Anyone with an internet connection and a decent computer can read about music theory, learn to use a DAW, and get some basic virtual instruments. The same goes for producing art, which doesn't even require anything digital. This does not augment the music making process in any way, it simply replaces it with what might as well be a gacha ga…

Sure, with several hundred hours to spare one can make some songs in a DAW. Now one can make something as good/bad in maybe 1/10x the time. Or, given the same time investment, one can possibly make something better!

That person would be making nothing. The AI does everything.

Re: DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion

#112

Post by jimbokun »

jononor wrote: post #107
iahds9uasd wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal of AI automating labor should be to give us more leisure time to pursue hobbies, not to fill our limited leisure time with low quality substitutes for those hobbies. Making an activity in which the primary limiting factors for most people are the time, knowledge, and effort required (as opposed to expensive tools) into an effortless slot machine pull is enfeebling to human creativity and agency. Who will spe…

"low quality substitute" and "effortless" are value judgements on your behalf. Many made similar judgements about DAWs and VSTs. And that is your right. But not everyone sees it in the same way - for some generative models are opening up a new world of possibilities. I agree that the slot machine pull of current models is tedious and boring. I look forward to models/systems which better facilitate more creative contr…

> "low quality substitute" and "effortless" are value judgements on your behalf.

Accurate value judgements in this case.

Re: DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion

#113

Post by jimbokun »

jononor wrote: post #83
Juliate wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're debating two different things, two different experiences Creation is a human activity, charged with emotions, efforts, which are their own rewards, as much as the end-product, which is invested of this human (sometimes collective and not instant) effort and intention and creative loopbacks. Let's call that some kind of history (because the process did happen). Generation short-circuits that entirely, as it hap…

I agree with your overall description of creation. But I do not agree that generative models are something else entirely. They are tools, and while their affordances do influence what people do with it, in the end the responsibility is on the creator. You can make "soulless shit" or "thoughtful commentary" or anything else you put your mind to, by using these tools in combination with all the existing ones. Models th…

> in the end the responsibility is on the creator.

Bullshit. These "tools" replace the creator, who now has no meaningful input to what gets created.

The composer is the AI. Not the person who spent 10 seconds typing a prompt.

Re: DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion

#114

Post by jimbokun »

nullpilot wrote: post #30
jimbokun wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Not everyone enjoys composing music, and for a large group of people paying an artist is not an option. There's a lot to critizise about current AI tech, saying of all things this has no net benefit seems like the wrong thing to call out, and incredibly short sighted for HN.

> saying of all things this has no net benefit seems like the wrong thing to call out, and incredibly short sighted for HN.

Well it has the benefit of being true.

Re: DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion

#115

Post by jimbokun »

hexomancer wrote: post #40
6stringmerc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So putting paid humans out of business is your position then? Please explain why you believe in the long sighted view AI reducing already poverty level wages to zero is beneficial.

Do you not see how your argument could be applied to steam engines putting human laborers out of work? Or computers putting (human) calculators out of work? Do you think inventing the steam machine or computers was a mistake too?

Steam engines and computers solve problems to improve human life. They more efficiently perform tasks to free up time for humans to do other things they would rather be doing.

These API composers perform a task many humans want to do. And there are roughly zero consumers of music saying "you know what's missing from the music market? music made with no human input."

This strictly serves capital. The goal is to destroy more artists livelihood to marginally increase the wealth of already wealthy people.

Re: DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion

#116

Post by jimbokun »

Jaxan wrote: post #71
jimbokun wrote: post #19

[flagged]

You can say the same about creating images, writing text and coding. Yet here we are with all kinds of AI tools to exactly that…

Yes, we've taken a wrong turn into a hellish dystopia.

We've created machines to replace humans doing things humans enjoy doing. Leaving the drudgery machines were supposed to eliminate to be done by humans.

Re: DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion

#117

Post by jimbokun »

itishappy wrote: post #50
jimbokun wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Some humans honestly enjoy automating stuff. We wouldn't want to be taking away something that humans enjoy, would we? I'm a musician myself, but I sadly suspect that most music made today "benefits humanity" very little... Is music making always a net positive? If nothing else, these tools will allow more music will be made.

> Is music making always a net positive?

Yes because the act of making music, even not very good music, is what has value. Music generated without human input has no discernible value.

> If nothing else, these tools will allow more music will be made.

By machines that, as far as we can tell, take no enjoyment from making it. And eliminates any possibility of emotional connection between the artist and the listener. Which is the entire source of music's value.

Re: DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion

#118

Post by dang »

chefandy wrote: post #102
dang wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please make your substantive points without snark or fulmination? We're really trying for something else here. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .

I get it, but the anguish of people who were paid dramatically less and treated dramatically worse than software developers whose livelihoods are being deliberately harpooned by the software business is not "sour grapes." I'd expect the software culture to be tolerant of the upper class being being indifferent to that anguish, but I see people around here all but dancing on their graves with no real push back. I thin…

I'm not disagreeing with you! We just need people to make this sort of point thoughtfully, in keeping with the site guidelines. I know that's not always easy when strong feelings are present. (It happens to me too.)

I also don't disagree with you about people's lack of consideration for others, but I think the scope is much too narrow to talk about that as a HN thing or a SV thing or even a national thing. It's present way beyond those levels and may just be a fact of human nature (though fortunately not the only fact).

Re: DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion

#119

Post by perching_aix »

chefandy wrote: post #91
perching_aix wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I only understand that you're doing your best to be hostile and strawman me. So please, do kindly explain.

I’ll get right on that

Any progress?

Re: DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion

#120

Post by perching_aix »

chefandy wrote: post #51
taylorius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's any stopping it, unfortunately. The internet is too good at "optimising" content. The future is Mr Beast, Instagram hotties and 6 pack guys, tiktok morons and onlyfans. Be happy, the market has spoken.

People that never considered the value of artistic process until it was the topic du jour unilaterally decided that it was inefficient, oppressive, complex, frivolous, and unfairly inaccessible to those that hadn't put any sustained effort into developing theirs. If you didn't understand what they don't, you'd realize that companies spending billions of dollars to create tools that make cheap simulacra of artists' wo…

I like the part where you confuse being sarcastic with being intelligent. A language model somewhere is taking notes.

> People that never considered the value of artistic process

One certainly learns of crazy things on HackerNews. Apparently people have never considered the value of artistic process, and not only that, but you also happen know that exactly.

> the topic du jour unilaterally decided

You're literally in this thread disagreeing.

> it was inefficient, oppressive, complex, frivolous, and unfairly inaccessible

Very interesting claims, too bad they were only stated in your imagination. That being said, your imagination I think is surprisingly close to my opinions! Let's discuss each point:

- it is very time-intensive to produce creative works of any kind, and indeed to perform any kind of mental work at all

- it does get pretty complex too, and because of this, some mental efforts are even shot down for being too frivolous (such as that bit of automation that is not worth making because it would never pay itself off)

- oppressive is a bit of an odd one, but if I think hard enough, I guess I can see how having to use the output of e.g. my work (software) can be oppressive

- same for unfairly inaccessible - lately there's been a trend where various services would only be available online, and the only contact you'd get is a self-service form or two. Maaaybe you'd get an AI chatbot to chat with. Certainly, to those with minimal to no tech literacy, this will be inaccessible and it will feel unfair.

> was merely the natural progression of artistic praxis

If only there was a way to disagree with this without being a dickhead!

> these tools have democratized creativity

How does one democratize an innate property of people? Surely you mean that they have democratized the production of creative works rather, and even of those only the less high-art ones, which I'm sure you never fail to point out when shown one?

> they're now broadly available to anyone willing to pay money for a subscription service that will obviously soon be a hell of a lot more expensive, or shell out a few thousands dollars for a top-tier video card that you almost certainly already have in your gaming rig, anyway.

And what happens after that? Artists will be like "oh gee, well I'm not doing this again!"?

> This is silicon valley progress

And also Hangzhou and Shenzen, China.

> and if you don't like it, you're a communist

Are you? You seem to be more of a raging idiot than anything to me at least.

Post reply on HN