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

201–210 of 361 posts

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

#201

Post by ethbr1 »

hurryer wrote: post #198
hulitu wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The kids will embrace 100% AI generated music, Of course, because, just like in advertising, they are the main target. One really has to love those companies protecting children. Marquis de Sade would have been proud of those companies.

Nirvana, pink floyd, metallica were also listened mainly by kids. Same with Beatles, and Elvis before that. It's always the kids who listen to what later will be called "great music".

Counterpoint: kids have generally trended towards music that expresses strong youth-centric viewpoints (rock, punk, rap, etc).

Even with AI generation, I expect the most popular music will still have a human viewpoint behind it.

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

#202

Post by voidhorse »

moss2 wrote: post #200
KaiserPro wrote: post #134

To quote from 1984: > The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator. But the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound. He could hea…

[flagged]

I agree with your aesthetic principles. I think the difficulties and reservations, for me at least, arise when you consider the economic framework and the possible shifts that will happen. I can't see adoption of these tools doing anything other than giving these giant conglomerates yet more capital, yet more power.

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

#203

Post by darkerside »

phatskat wrote: post #175
darkerside wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That true? Haven't heard that story

Quick google and found this[0] - fun little read so far [0] https://www.theringer.com/2021/11/17/22785868/radiohead-cree...

Ha! Great article, thanks

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

#204

Post by cmur »

moss2 wrote: post #200
KaiserPro wrote: post #134

To quote from 1984: > The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator. But the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound. He could hea…

[flagged]

Looking beyond your sophomoric tone, I understand where you’re at, but I think these arguments on both sides are silly. OP makes a valid point in regard to the sentimentality behind creating art. You’re right in that no art “should” be a a particular thing or shape, but I am with OP that asking the question “what will happen to us culturally” is necessary every time a new tool arrives. The maximalist “all things are tools for artists” works in theory, but tools have changed cultures drastically, and that is very easy to point out throughout history.

I also find it comical that you thrust your opinion on what art is upon OP and say they are a “conformist hypocrite.” Both of you just hold an opinion on art and culture that differ, nothing more. To use your words, it’s personal and you have no say in how they should interact with or interpret art. When it comes to art, neither of your opinions, or Google’s, matters.

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

#205

Post by euroderf »

phatskat wrote: post #170
KaiserPro wrote: post #134

To quote from 1984: > The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator. But the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound. He could hea…

> I also frankly worry about how my kids are going to make money. Then seriously start thinking about which politicians are going to support a future where fewer and fewer jobs are being done by humans. UBI, healthcare for everyone, access to housing etc are all things that can and should be done already. The more that work is automated away, the more crucial these become. We should be striving for a “Jetsons future”…

> UBI, healthcare for everyone, access to housing etc are all things that can and should be done already. The more that work is automated away, the more crucial these become.

This is going to require taxation. Maybe a wealth tax ? Maybe fed-level Georgism ?

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

#206

Post by richrichardsson »

kmfrk wrote: post #172

> SynthID embeds a watermark into AI-generated audio content that’s inaudible to the human ear and doesn’t compromise the listening experience. It does this by converting the audio wave into a two-dimensional visualization that shows how the spectrum of frequencies in a sound evolves over time. This novel method is unlike anything that exists today, especially in the context of audio. Is this a unique or boolean wate…

This whole section made me laugh. Maybe it was AI generated, because "converting the audio wave into a two-dimensional visualization that shows how the spectrum of frequencies in a sound evolves over time" is far from a "novel method (is) unlike anything that exists today, especially in the context of audio". Perhaps they're talking about the actual watermarking method, but it's a terrible pair of sentences if so.

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

#207

Post by UncleMeat »

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?

Being a professional musician is already a fraught career with low rates of success. This is even more true if you exclude people that are working with modern digital systems. Not a lot of jobs available for orchestral musicians, for example.

But there still are people making art with older techniques. There is a greater variety of art being made today than ever before in history. The development of new techniques has made art richer rather than poorer. Yes, the most commercially focused art chooses techniques based on price (far cheaper for a single person to stack synths than to pay a full orchestra) but that's okay.

Hip hop and electronic music have been creating totally new things for decades without ever touching a physical instrument. Music didn't die, it flourished.

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

#208

Post by carlosjobim »

progbits wrote: post #105
chpatrick wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Plenty of people make music for fun while having other careers. A lot of the masterpiece painters did it for passion and lived in poverty (I'm not saying that is good, but clearly a career is not necessary for great results).

You can never reach a high proficiency of playing a musical instrument if you have another career. It takes an insane amount of practice.

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

#209

Post by UncleMeat »

jacquesm wrote: post #94
bambax wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But effort itself is also a quality. The fact that a human took out a substantial fraction of their time on planet earth to create something is already a sign that at least one individual cared about the work: the creator. If art is like vomit then that initial round of validation is absent.

One of my very favorite pieces of visual art is just some text painted on a canvas taken from a review of some of the artist's other work. It probably took her maybe ten minutes to put together.

You have to care to put in effort, but effort isn't the core of art.

So what if humans make a lot of not especially interesting art. More art is good! You can choose what you connect with.

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

#210

Post by wisty »

hurryer wrote: post #189
KaiserPro wrote: post #134

To quote from 1984: > The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator. But the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound. He could hea…

Most of today's popular music is heavily computer based. Previous musicians said the same things, electric guitars are not musical instruments, synthesizers have no soul, music made on computer DAWs is artificial and of no value, .... The kids will embrace 100% AI generated music, the parents will be "they don't make music like they used to", forgetting that their parents said the same things about their music.

I think Max Tegmark said there's 3 main camps of people talking about AI:

1. The people who think AI won't really work (at least in some fundamental way - it might make some stochastic melody but it won't have any creative spark to it).

2. The people who think AI will be able to do everything better than humans (in every possible way, at least as far as a mere human can tell) and that this will be great.

3. The people who think AI will be able to do everything better than humans (in every possible way, at least as far as a mere human can tell) and that this will be terrible.

Post reply on HN