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

241–250 of 361 posts

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

#241

Post by suoduandao3 »

phatskat wrote: post #225
suoduandao3 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI would likely only be enough for the barest of necessities of survival. Gardening in an empty lot would be an obvious way to supplement that income, with the same benefits of a gym membership. The point of UBI is that via automation and reduction in cheap energy, opportunities for useful economic activity will be harder to find. In the best case, most people would have a mixture of reliable but marginal income (ga…

> In the best case… Why is that the best case? In my “best case”, all of everyone’s needs are met, people pick and grow more intense crops because they want to, artists just enjoy making art, and “income” from work just isn’t really a thing anymore. My best case is everyone has what they need and can access what they want.

I would say your best case requires technological advances that won't necessarily happen. In a truly postscarcity future I don't think we'd have any use for UBI. I do think UBI would help empower everyone to work on hard problems in a way that maximizes our odds of getting there, but I'm envisioning it existing alongside scarcity. We're just thinking about very different scales of time.

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

#242

Post by helboi4 »

FLT8 wrote: post #152
amarant wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First they came for the artists. And I did not speak out because I was not an artist. Then they came for the actors. And I did not speak out because I was not an actor. Then they came for the musicians. And I did not speak out because I was not a musician. ... Then they came for the Indie Game Devs. And there was nobody left to speak for them.

fr it's like this guy doesn't get that if art music and coding are all taken over by AI his whole job/hobby will be redundant

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

#243

Post by TeMPOraL »

ethbr1 wrote: post #201
hurryer wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Problem is, AI will understand/emulate human viewpoint better than any human could. It's just a matter of continuing to optimize.

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

#244

Post by helboi4 »

ristos wrote: post #145

There are still people that appreciate watching someone play a guitar or violin or piano, or make traditional art, because the character of the artist comes through. For example, with classical pieces, each musician plays the composition a little bit differently, and so their character comes through, their soul. I don't think a machine can really replace that, because there are still people that like to listen to liv…

Electronic music can involve virtuousity and high levels of knowledge and skill. If you actually learnt about electronic music production you would realise that as a whole its pretty highly technical and actually requires knowledge not only of music, but actual physics (yes I mean the science) and a great command of a computer or great skill with many digital instruments.

AI music is not a continuation of the degrading of music away from the "one true music" that is classical. All types of music up until AI music have required skill to create. Being able to have a digital audio workspace on your laptop with a few presets did make it a little easier to make trash, sure. But most electronic music requires massive technical expertise in so many more fields than playing the guitar does. I know because I've learnt both.

Electronic music production requires you to master software, multiple pieces of hardware, understand the physics of waveforms deeply, understand music theory, be a composer of an entire symphony and the performer of every part of that symphony at the same time, understand sound design (which is a whole job on its own), and then learn to dj if you hope to promote your music.

Also people go to rock gigs all the time that are performed on live guitars etc so I dunno what you're on about.

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

#245

Post by hurryer »

KaiserPro wrote: post #211
hurryer wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Most of today's popular music is heavily computer based. Hence my worry that I am gatekeeping. For example in 2007, making good sounding music required at least a studio. If you wanted to record 4 microphones at the same time, you needed expensive hardware. Doing any kind of music editing required a huge machine and expensive software with expensive plugins. Now I can mix and apply effects in real time to 24 tracks…

What you said was true about 2001. I'm not so sure about 2007 though. For $1000 you could have bought 4 decent condenser microphones and an audio interface for them. And for another $1000 a medium-high computer.

Arguably not that expensive, considering that you probably already had a computer and you could split the audio hardware costs between the 4 band members (otherwise why 4 microphones)

Software and plugins were indeed expensive, but there were plenty of free alternatives of decent quality. Reaper, FruityLoops were pretty cheap and quite good for the basics.

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

#246

Post by ilaksh »

barrkel wrote: post #40

This would be like 50x more cool if that example UI you scroll down to was real and live and embedded on the page.

Yeah. How do we use this? I assume since it's Google it's yet another announcement of a technology that they invented but only a few special people will be able to play with.

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

#247

Post by hurryer »

ethbr1 wrote: post #201
hurryer wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, AI songs will be about love and Gucci belts.

There is also dance music which arguably has no viewpoint (considering it has almost zero lyrics).

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

#248

Post by tarsinge »

wisty wrote: post #210
hurryer wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peopl…

4. The people who think AI will be able to do some things better than humans and that this will be great.

I think the point is there is no technical "better" in arts. Otherwise painting wouldn't have moved past photorealism and in music we wouldn't have got punk, grunge, lo-fi, screamed vocals... Like I can literally go in tear listening to a singer going slightly out of tune due to the emotions of connecting with another human being. The point is transmitting emotions. AI will be better when you need something generic, consensual, in the current zeitgeist, and mass produced and consumed. It will never replace a human performing by definition.

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

#249

Post by chimprich »

RugnirViking wrote: post #228
phatskat wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the best case… Why is that the best case? In my “best case”, all of everyone’s needs are met, people pick and grow more intense crops because they want to, artists just enjoy making art, and “income” from work just isn’t really a thing anymore. My best case is everyone has what they need and can access what they want.

It would require a lot of strong social structres. Because a lot of important tasks (like maintaining the floor cleaning equipment in the robot-tractor tyre factory) just really isnt that interesting but still needs to be done. I can see ways motivation can come from others. I'd argue my motivation to persist in my work isn't (directly) because of the money I am paid but rather due to social effects of my colleagues,…

> a lot of important tasks (like maintaining the floor cleaning equipment in the robot-tractor tyre factory) just really isnt that interesting but still needs to be done

In a heavily AI-oriented future, why wouldn't that be done by the floor-cleaning robot?

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

#250

Post by belter »

AI will remove the traditional 'Creator'. Now, it's a direct line from platform to consumer, with the AI as the new creator. No royalties, no middlemen, just pure, content delivery... Creators better wake up, or have something to license to the platform...A gait, a singing style, a voice tone, a guitar or piano style...
Post reply on HN