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

191–200 of 395 posts

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

#191

Post by Chaosvex »

stronglikedan wrote: post #59
notatoad wrote: post #30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHQevuohJH8 my music tastes are pretty mainstream, and this just does absolutely nothing for me. it's exactly what i'd expect AI music to sound like - completely forgettable, with nothing interesting about it. i'd be willing to believe that this music was legitimately charting if it had at least some redeeming qualities, but i can't imagine how this could honestly get eleven spots on t…

I listen to a lot of music of all different genres depending on mood, and I can honestly I don't think anyone could peg this as AI just by listening to it. It's soulless and devoid of emotion, but so are a lot of real artists. That wouldn't even be so obvious if they just added some background something, anything, like Wall of Sound style. If I played this for anyone and they said "it sounds like AI", I'd confidently…

> If I played this for anyone and they said "it sounds like AI", I'd confidently tell them they are full of shit.

Even though they'd be right? Interesting.

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

#192

Post by rosstex »

gizajob wrote: post #180
SirMaster wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if you like to listen to a specific genre? Say electo-swing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro_swing ) There isn't that much good electro-swing made by humans, and not much new coming out. One can easily consume it all and want to hear some new tunes in that genre, and maybe AI can help with that.

[flagged]

Neither does the electro-swing, probably

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

#193

Post by userbinator »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #182
userbinator wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just like AI comments are more human than any human could ever produce... /s

There's a difference between entertainment and thoughtful content.

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

#194

Post by dolebirchwood »

stephbook wrote: post #190
gizajob wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Many people just play music as background noise. Having a bland, generic, vanilla AI music playlist is a bonus.

I think that's probably the crux of where there's conflict here. There was a time in my life where I definitely much more emotionally invested in the music listened to. I thought I'd definitely kill myself if I ever went deaf. But these days, I really just have it for background noise when I'm working, exercising, doing chores. And it's all just electronic stuff – I don't like vocals (unless they're sufficiently unintelligible so they don't become a distraction to my thinking). At the end of the day, it's just some beats to me. AI or not.

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

#195

Post by paul7986 »

In high school i started to hear melodies/lyrics pop in my head and it prompted to learn instruments - pursued songwriting dream in college in Nashville (just a hobbyist since). I was initially excited about using Suno -- make the songs how they're heard in my head a reality as my rough garageband demos with me singing isnt how i hear them. Also, people arent excited by singing. Though my excitement wore off as I started to feel uninspired that it now takes zero talent/zero effort to write songs.

I took a break from Suno for many months .. attacking everyones slop including my own but my bandmates like my AI songs. Now at practice (80s & 90s music band) we listen and play along to the AI versions and have thrown in two into our setlist. Thus, for me Ive finally found an inspiring human usage of AI music! No text prompter could ever enjoy playing / performing their music in a band and to an audience and receive live human feedback. That's unless they do what millions other musicians have done .. cultivate their talent/musical interest.

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

#196

Post by spongebobstoes »

jjfoooo4 wrote: post #86
empath75 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two arguments about AI art, one of them is trivially reducible to the “is sampling/collage art”. If you are spending time expressing something using AI produced components then you are producing art, and probably the amount of time you spend working on it (either developing your skills or creating the work) roughly will correlate to how much value others see in it. It’s no different than building a hip hop…

> people might luck into something genuinely good and worth sharing from time to time. A) it would be impossible to find in a sea of AI generated slop B) even if it were to be recognized as good, it would be instantly copied by other AI’s such that it would be very shortly thereafter be also considered slop For any work to gain traction with an audience, there needs to be scarcity. Art and artists are valued because…

it's already impossible to find good music in a sea of slop. that's been the case for decades at this point

as with all art, the hardest part is discovery

artificial scarcity is indistinguishable from greed

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

#197

Post by userbinator »

zarzavat wrote: post #150
SoftTalker wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Electronic music exists but has limited commercial scope because most people don't see the point of music if they can't form an emotional connection with the artist through the music. Popular music has an intense focus on the artist. AI "music" has the same issues as electronic music but worse: because it's trying to imitate humans rather than be its own thing like electronic music, it's not only emotionally unavaila…

because most people don't see the point of music if they can't form an emotional connection with the artist through the music

Strong disagree on "most"; most people listen to music simply because it sounds good. For that, AI serves the purpose very well.

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

#198

Post by mckn1ght »

gizajob wrote: post #184
echelon wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You’re not a machine. I’m also tired of hearing that ontological take spouted by AI enthusiasts.

I think humans are machines, they are just vastly more advanced than any machine invented by humans. This is something I thought long before the current AI hype cycle.

What do you think are some important differences between machines and humans?

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

#199

Post by fooker »

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…

You can repeat your argument with photos, poems, code??, and just about anything else that humans produce.

Not that you're wrong, but human creativity doesn't mean what it used to.

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

#200

Post by RiverCrochet »

dotancohen wrote: post #147
RiverCrochet wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Red herring. The Puritan work ethic that seems to always resolve to "human value=human income" (regardless of the ethic's stated intentions) is what causes this, not creatives in and of themselves.

I get that there is a strong online movement to destroy the traditional American Dream value of "work hard, and become rich" but that does not apply in fields where money is not the motivator. No single astronaut has ever expressed financial gain as a motivator for moving into that profession. Quite the opposite, many have given up fortunes and prosperous businesses to move into spaceflight.

You misunderstand the movements, they exist precisely because of a perception that "work hard" doesn't seem to always mean "become rich", many see rich (correctly or incorrectly) as a product of luck, connections, or other factors unrelated to work. The price of everything constantly going up makes "work hard" work less. They actually would like the dream to work.

Anyway, someone may not want to pursue spaceflight for the money, but everything involved in spaceflight still costs a lot of money, which has to be justified. So I think the phenomenon is still there; people still want to appear to be proving themselves through appearing to work hard and appearing to be needed.

Post reply on HN