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

AI singer now occupies eleven spots on iTunes singles chart

showbiz411.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 395 posts

Re: AI singer now occupies eleven spots on iTunes singles chart

#131

Post by jMyles »

chromacity wrote: post #115

I find the production and consumption of AI music to be uniquely... anti-human. You can make utilitarian arguments for most other uses of AI. For example, the code you're generating didn't exist before, and it would take serious time or money to write it. So, I get it, the economic argument is compelling enough. But music? There's basically an inexhaustible supply of human-created tracks that can be accessed for next…

> I find the production and consumption of AI music to be uniquely... anti-human.

I mean, I'm a professional musician - not sure if that gives me more credibility or less - but I don't feel slighted by folks listening to music made by others (whether those others are other humans, or birds, or whales, or AI).

As you point out, music has an infinite edge; one can spend a lifetime exploring either its niches or its closures and still have an infinity of each to continue discovering.

As moat identification goes, I do feel slightly secure in the sense that AI music (and the information age generally) seems to stoke a hunger for dirty traditionals played well on thick steel strings, and it's going to be a minute before robots can pick 'em like we can.

Re: AI singer now occupies eleven spots on iTunes singles chart

#132

Post by kranner »

echelon wrote: post #124
Gagarin1917 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But music? There's basically an inexhaustible supply of human-created tracks that can be accessed for next to nothing. Isn’t this an argument against all new music, even human made? Either we have it all already, or there’s room for new things that we haven’t heard before.

[flagged]

> As far as I'm concerned we're content scarce and I don't care what makes the music - humans, robots, netherworld demons - I just want good music.

Presumably you've already listened to every piece of music ever recorded? Otherwise it seems it would be more efficient to do that first than wait for AI to generate it and you chancing upon it.

Re: AI singer now occupies eleven spots on iTunes singles chart

#133

Post by smallerfish »

gilrain wrote: post #123
smallerfish wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is formulaic pop music produced by a corporate label that's designed to push all the right buttons more "human" than the average track you find published on Suno? I wouldn't say so. Pop music was already to some extent a commodity.

> Pop music was already to some extent a commodity. And as everyone knows, some commodification of some thing means we must go ahead and totally commodify all the things.

That's disingenuous. The point is that "human" isn't a particularly good dividing line if you want to distinguish music with value vs music without.

Re: AI singer now occupies eleven spots on iTunes singles chart

#134

Post by w00ds »

smallerfish wrote: post #120
chromacity wrote: post #115

I find the production and consumption of AI music to be uniquely... anti-human. You can make utilitarian arguments for most other uses of AI. For example, the code you're generating didn't exist before, and it would take serious time or money to write it. So, I get it, the economic argument is compelling enough. But music? There's basically an inexhaustible supply of human-created tracks that can be accessed for next…

Is formulaic pop music produced by a corporate label that's designed to push all the right buttons more "human" than the average track you find published on Suno? I wouldn't say so. Pop music was already to some extent a commodity.

Actually, it is more human, because there are humans involved at each level. Doesn't matter if you think the music sucks, it's definitionally more human than AI music.

Re: AI singer now occupies eleven spots on iTunes singles chart

#135

Post by SoftTalker »

chromacity wrote: post #115

I find the production and consumption of AI music to be uniquely... anti-human. You can make utilitarian arguments for most other uses of AI. For example, the code you're generating didn't exist before, and it would take serious time or money to write it. So, I get it, the economic argument is compelling enough. But music? There's basically an inexhaustible supply of human-created tracks that can be accessed for next…

> what's the argument for it

Record companies can sell it and don't have to pay any royalties. They only pay the artists pennies as it is, but that's too much for them.

Re: AI singer now occupies eleven spots on iTunes singles chart

#136

Post by SoftTalker »

w00ds wrote: post #134
smallerfish wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is formulaic pop music produced by a corporate label that's designed to push all the right buttons more "human" than the average track you find published on Suno? I wouldn't say so. Pop music was already to some extent a commodity.

Actually, it is more human, because there are humans involved at each level. Doesn't matter if you think the music sucks, it's definitionally more human than AI music.

It is sort of a blend now. Beats and rhythm tracks are often generated. Vocals are auto-tuned. There's still some humanity in it, but it's not what it used to be.

Re: AI singer now occupies eleven spots on iTunes singles chart

#137

Post by userbinator »

chromacity wrote: post #115

I find the production and consumption of AI music to be uniquely... anti-human. You can make utilitarian arguments for most other uses of AI. For example, the code you're generating didn't exist before, and it would take serious time or money to write it. So, I get it, the economic argument is compelling enough. But music? There's basically an inexhaustible supply of human-created tracks that can be accessed for next…

There's basically an inexhaustible supply of human-created tracks that can be accessed for next to nothing

You train an AI on that, in order to create something that combines all of the best parts that you want. If anything, I think AI music is the natural progression of innate human desire to leverage and "stand on the shoulders of giants" to create something bigger from smaller pieces.

Re: AI singer now occupies eleven spots on iTunes singles chart

#138

Post by userbinator »

w00ds wrote: post #134
smallerfish wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is formulaic pop music produced by a corporate label that's designed to push all the right buttons more "human" than the average track you find published on Suno? I wouldn't say so. Pop music was already to some extent a commodity.

Actually, it is more human, because there are humans involved at each level. Doesn't matter if you think the music sucks, it's definitionally more human than AI music.

AI music is generated from the result of training on far more human-made music than any human could ever consume in their lifetime, so there are even more humans involved in its creation.

Re: AI singer now occupies eleven spots on iTunes singles chart

#139

Post by echelon »

kranner wrote: post #132
echelon wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> As far as I'm concerned we're content scarce and I don't care what makes the music - humans, robots, netherworld demons - I just want good music. Presumably you've already listened to every piece of music ever recorded? Otherwise it seems it would be more efficient to do that first than wait for AI to generate it and you chancing upon it.

[flagged]

Re: AI singer now occupies eleven spots on iTunes singles chart

#140

Post by throwaway27448 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #135
chromacity wrote: post #115

I find the production and consumption of AI music to be uniquely... anti-human. You can make utilitarian arguments for most other uses of AI. For example, the code you're generating didn't exist before, and it would take serious time or money to write it. So, I get it, the economic argument is compelling enough. But music? There's basically an inexhaustible supply of human-created tracks that can be accessed for next…

> what's the argument for it Record companies can sell it and don't have to pay any royalties. They only pay the artists pennies as it is, but that's too much for them.

That's a dangerous game to play, though—the only value record companies have is their intellectual property, especially if they are no longer financing recording new material. Convincing people to listen to slop is a great way to completely obsolete yourself.
Post reply on HN