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

261–270 of 361 posts

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

#261

Post by butlike »

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…

tbh, in 2007 you had blog house and other borderline lo-fi electronic genres. before that you had 8-track 909-loop house music. It doesn't _necessarily_ require a studio, though I can't argue it helps.

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

#262

Post by butlike »

sesm wrote: post #127
tchaffee wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like playing video games with a computer. I also like playing music with a computer. I've learned far quicker playing chess against an AI than I would have playing against humans. And yet I still really enjoy playing against humans too. In fact the experience playing against humans is richer thanks to a deeper understanding of the game that came from AI. Your argument is along the same lines as arguing electric gui…

I have hard time believing that you can learn quicker playing chess against AI. Humans can explain ideas behind their moves, their long term plans and their position evaluation. That what chess coaches will explain you and that's what you can read in chess books. Computer has hard time explaining his moves, has no notion of long-term plan and it's position evaluation is often useless for beginner or intermediate ches…

Don't underestimate a well-timed "Eureka!" moment in terms of learning.

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

#263

Post by butlike »

porkbeer wrote: post #132
checker659 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tool will help people who're not musically trained to express themselves musically.

Its not self expression when something else does the expressing.

Case: I create a painting. When it's done I say: "yes, this represents how I feel, and I want to share it."

Case: I create a painting with a prompt and when it's done I say: "yes, this represents how I feel, and I want to share it."

What's the difference?

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

#264

Post by butlike »

jamesdhutton wrote: post #80

In "Brave New World," all the music is made by machines. We are approaching that dystopia. For me, much of the pleasure in listening to music lies in appreciating the virtuosity of the musicians. It's like watching a great tennis player or a great dancer. You admire their skill and grace and technical mastery. For me, listening to music made by machines would be like watching robots playing tennis, or robots dancing.…

Human-created and intelligence-created are not mutually-exclusive

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

#265

Post by butlike »

coldtea wrote: post #106
seydor wrote: post #82

Wonder where the human fits in this new landscape. Composer? no. Performer? no. Music artist is more like a conductor now. Thankfully audience doesn't care because they need to worship a human in the end, so she 'll be receiving all the money anyway. The problem with these new BigTech companies is that they are accustomed to subjugating everyone. They deal with users and content, not with artists and creations. This…

> Composer? no. Performer? no. Not even audience, since few care for music with any real passion anymore among the masses (not even teens). It became a niche, or something you put in the background. As for "popular" concerts and festivals, they are more like country fairs...

I think you might be applying your perspective a little globally. For lots, music is NOT something that's necessarily put in the background.

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

#266

Post by butlike »

vjerancrnjak wrote: post #35
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…

But isn't music more than just the music track? People like to listen to the same music, go to concerts, share it with others, share the experience of audience/artist performance. Moments where music is truly important in one's life will never be replaced by meaningless bit fiddling. I cannot imagine people caring about books, music, art created by bit fiddling. They will always care about things created by other peo…

Would you say a mastering engineer is "fiddling with bits?" and also: would you say there's artistic merit in bringing out the brilliance of a song with said engineering?

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

#267

Post by butlike »

mypastself wrote: post #62
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…

> traditional musicians… will not be able to compete and therefore will not be able to do what they love to survive. Why would anyone owe the musicians a job just because they enjoy doing it? I don’t expect anyone to defend my love of coding when I’m replaced by a future iteration of an LLM. > Music composed by humans could still be better but AI will compete simply because it is cheap and widely available If it’s tr…

Eh, I don't think anyone owes musicians a job, but I also don't think that jobs going anywhere. The painter is still an artist if they use the factory-produced canvas. The musician is still an artist if they use the mass-produced Fender. Or a mass-produced sample library.

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

#268

Post by KaiserPro »

allturtles wrote: post #233
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.

I think you're missing my point. I'm acutely aware that I might be wrong, and gatekeepers tend to be the type of people that belittle other people because they feel threatened by newcomers trying to join in.

> Expertise is a good thing. Specialization is a good thing

yes! that's a standard of quality. To be a good x you need to pass this quality bar. I don't think that's really gatekeeping. Gatekeeping, well the way I see it, is someone dismissing someone else based on parameters unrelated to the matter at hand. "you can't understand x if you didn't do y" Hence why me dismissing AI generated backing tracks not being "real music" because its not made by "real musicians" could be read as gatekeeping.

> Communities based around shared interests and values are a good thing.

Also yes! But thats not a reason to be hostile to newcomers.

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

#269

Post by numpad0 »

Jasper_ wrote: post #255
wisty wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 that AI will be able to do everything worse than humans, but at an acceptable enough level for executives, and it's far cheaper than even outsourcing work to other countries. The trajectory of the last 10 years has been that the quality of the human experience will go down so the people at the top can make more money, and AI fits perfectly into this narrative.

That's just either 2 or 3 except said hypothetical executive isn't so bright.

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

#270

Post by butlike »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #7

Yet another tool from Google that's closed. No model, no code, no real details. You can't even run the model today. Google continues to live in the darkest timeline when it comes to ai and ml.

They're just making headlines for shareholders. It's fine.
Post reply on HN