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

AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

suno.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 389 posts

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#151

Post by berkes »

piva00 wrote: post #117
Max-q wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When recorded music was invented, musicians protested. Recorded music was devoid of any vitality or soul. Recorded music still became a hit. Then we got the synthesizer. Again we got the same complaints, lifeless and without soul. The synthesizer still became a hit. Now the next step is happening, and we see the same complaints all over. Only time will show if the next step will happen anyway. My gut feeling tells me…

You are just skipping the step that all of it had the human element considered, which to all of us is a very intrinsic part of "art". When AI generates a piece of entertainment it's ok to just call it entertainment, it's not art until AI actually has something we can relate to as consciousness (aka a "soul").

I see AI as just another tool. Like Photoshop, a software mixer, electrical powertools in my wood-working shop, a 3D printer in my office.

All of these had immense impact on the way we create (or make art). And despite all this, we still use waterpaint, perform music on ancient instruments, make furniture with minimalistic tools, or use clay to make objects.

I'm not pessimistic about generative AI. If anything, It'll allow more people to create. Allow new and unprecedented art forms. It will have an effect on the way people make money with art. But so did photoshop, digital audio mixers, a table saw, and a CAD/CAM machines.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#152

Post by stanac »

orthoxerox wrote: post #128
viraptor wrote: post #27

While almost everything sounded really good and well put together, the voice itself has a constant... phaser? robotic vibrato? applied the whole time, which I found surprising. We've got better voice synthesis available already and other instruments don't suffer the same effect. I've not heard that before - does anyone know if that's specific to this model, or a more generic voice issue?

Yes, it had this GlaDOS-like timbre.

My thoughts exactly, like I just finished portal.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#155

Post by mathgorges »

komali2 wrote: post #64
jnsaff2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be curious to hear your reasoning behind this? Why does this being computer generated ruin it for you? Auto-tune has been around since 1997 so it's not like computers have not been a big part of a lot of music we hear every day.

For me all art I enjoy has some aspect of connection to someone that's sharing my human experience. If we get AGI, I could imagine feeling something towards the art such an entity creates, since a big part of the human experience that we would probably share with an AGI is inescapable death. But for today's "AI" generated music, I feel the same towards it as I would towards the random step function output of a given…

> sounds cool, now what can we do with that to make it into music?

So a human using the tools of sound production is what transforms the function output into music. (Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding you).

I think I see what you’re saying, but that’s already happened here hasn’t it? I mean, it's not as though an AI made the decision to generate this all by itself, a human had an idea to create this piece and wrote a prompt which created this output.

The order is of events is reversed from your Ableton example, but I would contend that this kind of production is no less musical than what someone could create using a DAW, simply that the tools are more accessible

(and I presume there is less direct control over what the end result is going to sound like, but the same could be said of conducting an orchestra versus playing a piano.)

Eta: For example, some people in this thread have complained that the AI generated voice falls into the uncanny valley. I agree, and I think that’s part of the art here.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#156

Post by mrtksn »

camillomiller wrote: post #147
mrtksn wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, the "creatives are screwed" narrative has fallen apart for me because the stuff made in AI has proven to be worthless. Why is it worthless? Because the point of art was to communicate or convey something with other people and the AI has no idea because its not human. A few words or a sequence of sounds can be enough to transfer great deal of feeling and meaning because we run about the same software and as…

I fully agree, but that’s not what all music is. Most commercial music is pure craft created by expensive professionals that the music corporations would be very happy to swap with expendables and cheap AI models. It boils down to the economic model and the financial and political choices like in every creative industry. Regarding potential displacement, I would apply the stock photography theory to any creative indu…

I think even people who are writing songs for cash are actually looking inside, they just perfected a method of doing it and can do it all the time. AI wouldn't be able to do that unless is designed to work like human and has human experience.

The stock photography stuff is either documenting event or displaying low effort illustration for low effort productions. I guess AI can be good at churning Apple images for low effort Apple news.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#157

Post by fragmede »

vilius wrote: post #70

I've always wanted to Billy Joel to re-release his "We Didn't Start The Fire" but with updated events. Well, here it is: https://suno.com/song/b8b33785-271f-48f2-9934-26dabb8e20ed

Fallout Boy did it better

https://youtu.be/2LkVKCWL0U4

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#158

Post by TeMPOraL »

piva00 wrote: post #117
Max-q wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When recorded music was invented, musicians protested. Recorded music was devoid of any vitality or soul. Recorded music still became a hit. Then we got the synthesizer. Again we got the same complaints, lifeless and without soul. The synthesizer still became a hit. Now the next step is happening, and we see the same complaints all over. Only time will show if the next step will happen anyway. My gut feeling tells me…

You are just skipping the step that all of it had the human element considered, which to all of us is a very intrinsic part of "art". When AI generates a piece of entertainment it's ok to just call it entertainment, it's not art until AI actually has something we can relate to as consciousness (aka a "soul").

Hard disagree. I don't think anyone considers that, unless they're an art critic, a philosopher, or a snob.

For a normal person, whether something is art or not, is a mix of 1) whether they like it, 2) whether they can, or conceivably could, enjoy it together with other people, and 3) whether they're supposed to enjoy it or call it art, because other people claim they do (social proof).

Examples:

- Pop songs are strongly 1, 2 and 3a (enjoyment), but not necessarily 3b (considered High Art). Most people don't care, or couldn't even tell, if the songs they like were written and performed by actual humans or by machines; they experience them through some machine anyway.

- Paintings. I recently visited a Van Gogh exhibition, and I can't honestly say I liked most of it. Most paintings, in general, are ugly. We call them art because we're supposed to call some paint scribbles on a canvas art, particularly when they're framed and put in a museum (as opposed to bought off the street!) and decreed Art by People In Authority Over What Is or Isn't Art. For this exhibit in particular, my ability to enjoy the paintings was proportional to how much I knew about Vincent van Gogh's life - for those paintings I had some context for, I enjoyed them even though they're otherwise pretty bad to me. But most people, most of the time, don't have any context for paintings they're viewing, and they still call them art.

Hell, arguably, the best "paintings" in that exhibit were a couple that were obviously AI-generated - like Vincent wearing VR goggles, or animated Vincent inviting the patrons to the exhibit.

Nah, what I think is death of art for regular people is quantity and personalization. The most important aspect of day-to-day art experience is that you can enjoy it together with people around you. It's a problem for TV shows and books these days, and even more with "Internet original" videos - there's just so many of them, and with everyone's getting their own personalized feed, it's getting hard to find common creative works you and your conversational partners both seen. Everyone's experience is becoming disjoint from everyone else's (except for occasional superhero or wizard movie) - at which point you eventually realize that enjoying unique art no one else has is pointless waste of life.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#159

Post by wouldbecouldbe »

erikbye wrote: post #154

So many comments here that will age poorly. Especially that AI output won't ever be indistinguishable from human. It's imminent that we will fail blind tests in most areas: text, still images, audio and video.

I feel like music will be much easier then text. Highly complicated texts will be easier to spot inconsistencies, where with songs it's pretty common to have a high margin of errors/linguistic interpertation making it a much better candidate for current approach of generative ai.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#160

Post by [deleted] »

CrLf wrote: post #136
tux1968 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you didn't know either way? Would you refuse to enjoy a song, until you were absolutely sure it was performed by a human?

That's a poignant question, but with an easy answer: If I didn't know, I'd probably enjoy it up to its imperfections. But I'd feel defrauded once I discovered. Like so many people felt defrauded when they discovered that the Milli Vanilli leads didn't actually sing, and that wasn't even AI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Vanilli Edit: I might add that I already suspect any illustration that even superficially lo…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN