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

231–240 of 361 posts

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

#231

Post by JKCalhoun »

lesuorac wrote: post #220
euroderf wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ?

I suspect it'll mostly go the other way where UBI really means just shelter and food. UBI [1] is a pre-industrial era concept. The world inflation-adjusted GDP has grown from basically 500B to 100T [2]; like it's a pretty hard sell that you can't get UBI (as envisioned pre-telephones) to work with a 200x increase. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#16th_ce... [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/gra…

Sadly, I think UBI covering shelter and food is optimistic. If the past is any indicator UBI just means a rent increase and we hand over our UBI to the landlords.

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

#232

Post by gardenhedge »

bossyTeacher wrote: post #115
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.

Missing the point. The vast majority of uses for this will be music generation for profit: const song = generateSong() const royalties = Spotify.Publish(song) Bank.getRoyalties(royalties) You have to think of this like a typewriter or a word document. It is mostly used for profit. And profit always wins over anything else

Did you reply to me? I'm the OP of this comment tread so it's not me who is missing the point at all. In the context of my original post, AI in music will be a barrier to entry for _creation_. It is not relevant how Spotify use AI in music.

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

#233

Post by allturtles »

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…

> Part of me worries that I am just gatekeeping.

The abhorrence of "gatekeeping" may be my least favorite cultural trends of the last decade. Gatekeeping is often desirable. Expertise is a good thing. Specialization is a good thing. Communities based around shared interests and values are a good thing.

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

#234

Post by JKCalhoun »

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.

> The kids will embrace 100% AI generated music

Watching the music scene over my 50+ years has taught me that music is often as much a reaction to current music scenes as much as it is anything else.

I think it's just as likely the kids will go zydeco or jug band — start finding the equivalent of washtubs and washboards to make music.

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

#235

Post by red-iron-pine »

ethbr1 wrote: post #199
phatskat wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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”…

I wish to subscribe to your Post-Scarcity Party newsletter. It also makes me wonder about agriculture. It's difficult to envision a post-scarcity future where food production is still manual-intensive. Mandatory picking service, as a civic obligation? And there are a lot of food types that require manual picking. UBI would therefore effectively end production of those types of food. (E.g. more grain, less fruit) Also…

illegal immigration and migratant issues are already a huge problem. it's less about how good it is in modernized countries, and more about how shit it is in crappy countries. UBI may push that a little more, but it's nothing new.

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

#236

Post by gardenhedge »

bossyTeacher wrote: post #111
echelon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People get caught up in their lives. There are a million things you _wanted_ to do that you'll never get to do. And that's unfair.

How caught up can you get that somehow using your built-in and free instruments (see human voice and hands/feet for percussion) or a cheap $50 guitar/uke is a privilege but having an internet connection and a modern smartphone that can run this kind cutting edge software is not?

This comment tree is discussing how AI will provide a new way to music creation. Cheap smart phones are seen in poorer countries and communities. In the future, there will be models that run on these types of phones locally. They might not be the state of the art models at the time but they will be available.

If we assume the above to be correct then the "cheap" guitar is an additional cost whereas the AI music model isn't. In addition, guitar lessons cost money and spending time practicing is harder for some people than others due to their circumstances.

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

#237

Post by allturtles »

amarant wrote: post #49
vouaobrasil wrote: post #11

From the article: > Each participating artist has partnered with us and will have a hand in helping us test and learn to shape the future of AI in music. Let me correct that: each participating artist has been given a wad of dirty cash in return for their help in training replacements for mass music. Notice that I said "mass music" -- people will always be able to create by hand, but it's clear that the ultimate goal…

As a indie game developer, this could plausibly enable me to add decent sounding soundtrack to my games. I couldn't afford to pay a proper artist, and my musical skills are... Limited.. It _is_ just a tool, a new instrument essentially, one that is easier to play than most. People being angry that there is now a new instrument that is much easier to play than the one they spent years to learn come across as entitled…

So what do you think will happen when the indie-game-making AI is released?

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

#238

Post by Tadpole9181 »

chpatrick wrote: post #116
progbits wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Sure but most renowned artists had the time to become really skilled because they could dedicate all their time to it. If no one wants to pay humans for art any more, how will that happen?

Then become politically active and make sure we have a strong safety net with healthy labor rights that allow everyone to have ample free time. You don't ban music production software.

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

#239

Post by DannyBee »

DannyBee wrote: post #181
vouaobrasil wrote: post #11

From the article: > Each participating artist has partnered with us and will have a hand in helping us test and learn to shape the future of AI in music. Let me correct that: each participating artist has been given a wad of dirty cash in return for their help in training replacements for mass music. Notice that I said "mass music" -- people will always be able to create by hand, but it's clear that the ultimate goal…

"(3) At some point, it will be so advanced that it will hardly need anyone to create it, and Google and other big tech companies can use it to be an alternative to traditional musicians, who will not be able to compete and therefore will not be able to do what they love to survive." What is your definition of "traditional" here - historically, both music and art were not full time jobs for most. It was a thing people…

I'll also add - the times folks have spent fighting change in what jobs are needed rarely ends up well vs the time spend helping people adapt to that change.

You have to know the change is real, of course, but once you do, we've ended up with insane results when we try to fight it.

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

#240

Post by UncleMeat »

chpatrick wrote: post #219
UncleMeat wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

This is different though, because the end game of AI music isn't better music technology for musicians, but replacing musicians. I'm worried we're going to go into a dark age where society forgets how to make truly creative new art due to lack of incentives, and the AIs won't make anything new due to lack of anything creative to train on. We'll just regurgitate the pre-AI stuff forever.

Why is it different? I don't see how any of the incentives go away here.
Post reply on HN