Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

suno.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 389 posts

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#261

Post by raincole »

mrfinn wrote: post #35
weregiraffe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art will realign to put more value on live performances. Don't worry, people who push AI art don't understand that art is a form of communication between humans. They might learn when the bubble pops and they are left with a trillion shiny "art" objects that are worth nothing, because nobody wants to look at them.

Sorry to disagree, we already crossed the line where the "Her" movie could turn into a real story. To say it more clearly: It won't take a long to see people even having affective relationships with AIs.

Having pets improves your mood and health. In a measurable way. So people already have "effective" relationships wit their pets. What's the difference between an effective relationship and an affective one?

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#262

Post by CrLf »

jnsaff2 wrote: post #59
CrLf wrote: post #54

If this was an actual person performing, I would have smiled all the way to the end. Since this is AI-generated, I feel no emotion towards this, and just listened for a few seconds. It's technically interesting.

I'd be curious to hear your reasoning behind this? Why does this being computer generated ruin it for you? Auto-tune has been around since 1997 so it's not like computers have not been a big part of a lot of music we hear every day.

Art is primarily a means for one human to convey emotions to another human, but for something to be art, the artist must also have invested some skill/effort into the artwork(1).

AI-generated art may have a bit of the former (assuming the human had enough control over the details of the final output), but has practically none of the latter.

Hence, AI-generated output is not art. But art can be produced using AI tools somewhere in the process.

(1) When I look at art produced by one of those "artists" that commission the actual work to someone else, it's similar (I don't recognize the "artist" as the human I'm connecting to, ideas are a dime a dozen). However, it's still art because I can connect with the anonymous human which actually implemented it.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#264

Post by Voultapher »

throwaway143829 wrote: post #237
navane wrote: post #178

These songs don't have any hooks. Melodies don't get repeated. They all just meander along. I think as they get better at making these great middle of the road songs, edgy music will reemerge. Whatever AI will be good at, will immediately devalue, in the realm of arts. Just how photography gave way to non-realistic art and how drum machines made sloppy drums (or ridiculous apex twins) hip. Then, the artifacts we see…

Your comment seems to presume that AI will not get any better than it is now. Imagine an AI that understands how to create deep, impactful music better than humans do, because it understands how music works at a biochemical level. Imagine it can even predict the dynamics you're describing, about employing "unwanted artifacts" in the music as a way to evolve new genres. It would no longer need to create such obviously…

Your comment seems to presume that the line between what a human is and what an AI is will stay clear. I'm predicting that this line will be increasingly blurry. Some people see smartphones as cybernetic extensions. When I call someone across the globe, did I do that or my phone? Is that a capability I posses or my phone? Does it make sense to separate the two?

Even if AI gets way better, the one thing that I don't foresee changing is what makes things valuable and or desirable. Sparsity. If everyone has it or can create it, it's not special. I think the GP was referring to this sparsity.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#265

Post by helboi4 »

cornholio wrote: post #171
itronitron wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I think a rambling song form would have been a better fit.

I beg to differ, here's the nu metal version: https://suno.com/song/edea40ab-c41f-46e4-908f-a511b9ab311e I almost feel compelled to take action against the corruption and crookedness.

Okay that was hilarious

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#266

Post by ohwellhere »

birracerveza wrote: post #222
amelius wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elevator music ... Hmm, perhaps there is a business model there: an elevator that writes music about the people inside the elevator, and adapts as the situation changes.

Let's not. Unless you want the AI equivalent of this Family Guy sketch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZvWvfCSZ8M

That wasn’t even the Family Guy sketch I was thinking of!

“Red-headed lady, gonna eat an apple. She breathes on it first, wipes it on her bloooouuuuse…”

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#267

Post by helboi4 »

joshstrange wrote: post #252
jpalomaki wrote: post #14

Asked ChatGPT first to convert the license to poem: https://suno.com/song/bdad5f22-a1f0-42fb-a3d8-572d289687ea "Publish, distribute, let your dreams take flight, Sub-license, sell, under stars or sunlight."

Well done! I ran it through with “Europop” as the type and I’m pretty happy with the results. This is a fun tool to play with. https://suno.com/song/216c7bf7-77b1-4703-8b16-e9173c08c50b I’ve found it fun to take a coworker’s comment (like in slack, if it’s long enough) then hand-modify it into a song with “[Verse X]” and “[Chorus]” headers on blocks. Sometimes I’ll also run it through an LLM to do like what you did.…

So glad people are adding some spicier genres than ballad. This is so much more dramatic and funny. I can barely stand human ballads lol

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#269

Post by tumult »

Max-q wrote: post #113
chilmers wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the feeling of AI generated content is less "slop" and more "in-flight magazine". It can have a surface sheen of quality that you can lure you in, but you realise it's devoid of any vitality or soul.

When recorded music was invented, musicians protested. Recorded music was devoid of any vitality or soul. Recorded music still became a hit. Then we got the synthesizer. Again we got the same complaints, lifeless and without soul. The synthesizer still became a hit. Now the next step is happening, and we see the same complaints all over. Only time will show if the next step will happen anyway. My gut feeling tells me…

Humanity lost some things when it gained recorded music. It made the profession of performer less valuable, and diminished the number of performers who could make a living. But humanity got something very valuable in return — the ability to record and play back music. The same goes with the tradeoffs made for photography and motion pictures.

I see little value to humanity in tools that are able to generate an endless amount of music derived from existing music, specifically designed to neatly slot into the place of human artists. We gain little in return from that.

Some people will make an argument like, this lets people generate lots of low-quality music for use in elevators or grocery stores. Well, there is already a massive oversupply of completely free music which can do that. Do people pretend to not know this?

The other weak argument is that it lets people express themselves who haven't studied or practiced music. But, it doesn't, because the interfaces (text prompts or "upload an existing file") are designed to take the place of a human being given instructions for criteria to fill, as if they were a worker, not an expression of the person giving the instructions. If the person giving the instructions were expressing themselves, most of the AI tool would not be redundant. It's as expressive as telling another person to write a song for you with some instructions. Hardly expressive at all.

Post reply on HN