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

Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

deepmind.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 361 posts

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#121

Post by Mashimo »

Juliate wrote: post #58
gardenhedge wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're looking at this wrong. If I have an idea for a song I my head, I could record myself humming or sining it. While it might represent a thought, feeling or experience it's not going to be very pleasant. With AI, I will be able to transform it into something enjoyable. That is creation and not just generation.

Between someone that generated music from ideas, and someone that spent time and thinking and practicing to refine and these ideas, each will not relate the same to the end result. If only because the latter will know which happy/sad accidents made it to the end, and which did not, based on a specific judgement, or moment. I've already done both. Generators are only good to produce specific ideas to integrate sometim…

But you can use AI and still refine these ideas. The entry is just easier.

On a walk -> Idea -> hum melody into website -> listen if that is something that floats your goat. And then you can follow the traditional way of midi keyboard + daw or however you produce.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#122

Post by KaiserPro »

nervousvarun wrote: post #26
gardenhedge wrote: post #6

Wow, AI really will democratize music creating. This is an awesome way for people to translate their ideas to music without needing to be privileged enough to get violin or guitar lessons. I see a future where we all make our own music and share it freely with family and friends. This means less listening to manufactured pop songs written by suits with the sole aim of making a profit. This will still happen of course…

What “privilege” is required to learn to play guitar? Was Jimmy Hendrix privileged? Robert Johnson?

You need free time and money to learn to play. You then need commercial support to make it full time.

let us side step the binary "privileged" argument which is disruptive here.

The issue for us now is given that level of talent, would Hendrix, Johnson or anyone else be able to make a career in 2028? Or will it be the preserve of people with free time and money?

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#123

Post by InCityDreams »

Musikstueck wrote: post #108

What we do as humans is to push against a wall of mist of a unlimited search space. Doesn't matter if it is music, drawing or scientific discoveries. What an Artist does is pushing the boundaries. Having tools like ths allows much more people to push and not 'just' the artists who mastered certain skills. I can write very good software, do i care if my family suddenly can also write softwre thanks to ai? Honestly no.…

>Doesn't matter if it is music, drawing or scientific discoveries.

#oxford comma blues.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#124

Post by Mashimo »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #21
Mashimo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think this will lower the barrier of entry for music creation?

NO, it will lower the barrier for music generation, which is different from CREATION, which implies a creative act.

Why is it creative to

hum a melody -> match in daw -> work on it creative

but hum -> AI generation -> work on it in daw is not?

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#125

Post by ppsreejith »

Juliate wrote: post #110
ppsreejith wrote: post #99

Not sure I agree with the negative opinions in this thread. Surely, having an additional option to listen to the song you want to is a good thing? It's not like the choice to listen to human artists is taken away. Furthermore, a lot more people can now express themselves through music that were previously unable to.

It's not that the choice is taken away. It's that it is going to be even more buried under an avalanche of industry-normalised, generated crap (crap because generated and industry-normalised). And second, you express yourself, you said it. If a generator produces something, it's not _your_ expression, per definition. You may still have "constrained" it among myriad of possibilities through your prompt, it is still th…

Regarding the first point of being buried under an avalanche of crap, we can solve this problem through many ways. We can still filter by human music. Or we can use better recommendation systems (automated or p2p/word-of-mouth).

Regarding whether it is "my" expression or not, I consider expression as a way of making my feelings or thoughts known. This grants me an additional way of making my feelings or thoughts known. Perhaps of lower fidelity than if I learn to play an instrument but maybe that will improve with time. Either way, since I now have an additional choice of expressing my thoughts and _I_ decide if it's "good enough" to publish, I consider it as allowing me to express more.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#126

Post by Ferret7446 »

chpatrick wrote: post #101
jillesvangurp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not being deprived of any rights. You just don't have them exclusively. Make music, or don't. Up to you. Either way, there will be machines also making music. So, what?

How are people going to become professional musicians if it stops being a career?

Becoming a professional musician isn't a "right" of any kind. You don't have a "right" to be paid to do anything you want. You're certainly allowed to do it (barring outright criminal activity), but don't expect to be entitled to monetary compensation.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#127

Post by sesm »

tchaffee wrote: post #107
stefanos82 wrote: post #61

After a lot of thinking, I have come to a conclusion that expresses me personally, so feel free to disagree if you like: The human being was not created to be deprived of the right to express his feelings through fine arts. From the moment you deprive me of the right to express myself as I feel through external as well as internal stimuli and you want to replace me with an insensitive mechanism that neither feels nor…

I like playing video games with a computer. I also like playing music with a computer. I've learned far quicker playing chess against an AI than I would have playing against humans. And yet I still really enjoy playing against humans too. In fact the experience playing against humans is richer thanks to a deeper understanding of the game that came from AI. Your argument is along the same lines as arguing electric gui…

I have hard time believing that you can learn quicker playing chess against AI. Humans can explain ideas behind their moves, their long term plans and their position evaluation. That what chess coaches will explain you and that's what you can read in chess books. Computer has hard time explaining his moves, has no notion of long-term plan and it's position evaluation is often useless for beginner or intermediate chess players (like evaluating position as a draw while one side has to do a series of very precise moves to achieve equality, which is a clearly lost position for a non-grandmaster player).

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#128

Post by tchaffee »

bambax wrote: post #52
sirwitti wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality never was the only or even the most important aspect of popularity in music and probably art in general. So I'm not sure your projection is valid.

You're right that pure formal perfection is not the only component in art; art has to mean something. But quality has always been a very important aspect of popularity in art as well as in music (see: Renaissance sculptors & painters, Baroque and Classical composers, etc.) Great art is when a unique, profound emotion or insight is expressed with great execution. AI helps with the last part; real artists should still…

Now you need to define what a unique, profound emotion is.

And you need to define great execution.

And you need to explain why intentionally having poor execution couldn't express a unique, profound emotion. On Radiohead's biggest hit Creep "That's the sound of Jonny trying to fuck the song up. He really didn't like it the first time we played it, so he tried spoiling it. And it made the song."

At the end of the day it's always going to seem all subjective and a matter of opinion. Because it's too hard to pinpoint the objective part of what we are doing when we decide what's great and what's garbage. If there even is an objective part.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#129

Post by netrus »

InCityDreams wrote: post #123
Musikstueck wrote: post #108

What we do as humans is to push against a wall of mist of a unlimited search space. Doesn't matter if it is music, drawing or scientific discoveries. What an Artist does is pushing the boundaries. Having tools like ths allows much more people to push and not 'just' the artists who mastered certain skills. I can write very good software, do i care if my family suddenly can also write softwre thanks to ai? Honestly no.…

>Doesn't matter if it is music, drawing or scientific discoveries. #oxford comma blues.

As drawing discoveries are hardly a thing, I see no ambiguity here.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#130

Post by ppsreejith »

wildrhythms wrote: post #114
ppsreejith wrote: post #99

Not sure I agree with the negative opinions in this thread. Surely, having an additional option to listen to the song you want to is a good thing? It's not like the choice to listen to human artists is taken away. Furthermore, a lot more people can now express themselves through music that were previously unable to.

...and for the people whose hard work this was trained on without permission or compensation?

Agree that training without permission and compensation is wrong. My argument is more that this tool is a net good. If suppose in the future, Someone releases a similar model trained on purely licensed data (Eg: Like Meta did with their Cm3leon model[0]), my arguments still stand that it gives people more choice and allows them to express more.

[0] https://ai.meta.com/blog/generative-ai-text-images-cm3leon/

> As such, and as described in our paper, we’ve trained CM3leon using a licensed dataset.

Post reply on HN