Live data from Hacker News

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

suno.com

361–370 of 389 posts

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

#361
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's way more human input in the training data than in the prompt is my point, many orders of magnitude more. Of course there needs to be something to start some chain, but that's like saying a human needs to press "deploy" or "start", it applies to any tool. Even a perpetual motion machine needs someone to start it.

And your brain also has way more training data (all the knowledge you gained, all the art you've seen) than what you yourself produce as "art".

Not really unless you have perfect memory. What people do is learning rules and breaking them. The rules exist outside of your mind, you're just trying to conform in some ways and distort them in others. You do not blindly copy what came before. When drawing a portrait, there are the rules of anatomy, perspective, colors and light, and your medium of choice. A style is a particular combination that you know works, but you still have to know the rules in the first place. You study masters to learn what is and what is not important in those rules, not to recreate their works in details. I've not heard of any art classes that train you by copying everything that has been produced.

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

#362

The site is full of gems. I like capybara: https://suno.com/song/b27c29f6-8ab4-47eb-81fd-efb85c848ada/

How do they make songs that long? I only got 53 seconds.

You can extend the song, and then combine the different parts to create one, long song.

This video explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMKGWSiXW8A

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

#363
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…

> These songs don't have any hooks. Melodies don't get repeated. They all just meander along. I've been playing around with it for a few days now. While I agree that it seems impossible to create songs with a more "sophisticated structure" (for lack of a better word off the top of my head), you still can get better results by fine-tuning, as is always the case. If you just request "rock music" or "jazz", you get very…

Oh wow, that worked pretty well: https://suno.com/song/a82f064a-54e3-4317-b331-f0993726d702

The melody of the instrumental pre-chorus is repeated consistently, and it's even used as the hook in the chorus; the pre-chorus is actually building up to the chorus. I'm impressed.

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

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sloppy drums" != "Unskilled drummer". Maybe sloppy isn't the best term here. More like not being beat-perfect. E.g. using slightly off-beat hits or slight tempo variation as a way to emphasize other instruments or lyrics. Pre drum computers these changes would more likely have been considered to be sloppy drumming, whereas these are more likely to signal authenticity these days.

Don Henley was sloppy. Always a fraction of a beat behind. It turned out to be something of a hook in Eagles songs

"Always" implies not sloppy; sloppy playing would be sometimes ahead, sometimes behind, but unpredictable amounts.

I should know, I'm a sloppy drummer ;)

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

#366
post #227
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If taping a banana to the wall, or eating said banana is art, then I feel like making a machine sadly sing the MIT license to you has to qualify. The idea to do this is wonderful to me.

I would consider that the whole act of making the a machine that can generate music and then making it generate a song of the MIT license could be considered 'art'. That doesn't make the end result 'art' in isolation art. Like the banana. The bananas isn't art, taping a random banana to a random wall and eating a banana isn't art. A particular person taping a banana to a particular wall for a particular reason is wha…

Why look at the end result in isolation? Isn't that just ignoring the human element then complaining there isn't one?

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

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your brain also has way more training data (all the knowledge you gained, all the art you've seen) than what you yourself produce as "art".

Not really unless you have perfect memory. What people do is learning rules and breaking them. The rules exist outside of your mind, you're just trying to conform in some ways and distort them in others. You do not blindly copy what came before. When drawing a portrait, there are the rules of anatomy, perspective, colors and light, and your medium of choice. A style is a particular combination that you know works, bu…

Generative AIs don't remember the original media, they just detect/extract patterns out of them. They aren't able to recreate pixel perfect anything. Ask it to give you a Mona Lisa and the result would just kinda resemble the original. (kinda what a mediocre artist would be able to produce going by their memory)

> I've not heard of any art classes that train you by copying everything that has been produced.

You don't have to learn it, because it's the second nature for humans. We learn by imitation. Babies learn to talk by imitating sounds from parents. Artists learn by imitating style by masters. That's what generative AI does as well.

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

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure I follow your argument, because neither synthesizers nor recordings write music. The argument is that each technology advance accompanied resistance followed by adaptation. "Recorded music" was arguably as paradigmatically disruptive over "live music" as "AI generated music" will be.

The two are fundamentally incomparable beyond the surface level fact that "things will be different". Recorded music changed the way we experience music. AI tools may change the way we make music. From my perspective the implications of this are dire. AI can completely remove the human element. The skill, creativity, and collaboration required to produce music is a big part of my appreciation for it. Once that's gone…

This was implicit as an intent in the public statement of Ek, Spotifys CEO, when he said that they're not gonna ban AI-generated music per se (and there already is plenty on Spotify).

Somehow this nudged me a bit when I switched to YTM, although the bundle with YT background playback on iOS was probably the bigger nudge. There's plenty of AI-generated music on YouTube as well, but for the moment their recommendation algorithm and catalogue is just better for me.

For now, it also doesn't seem to suggest me any AI-generated music whenever I use autoplay or suggestions.

I'm not falling for the illusion that this won't change though.

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

#369
post #333
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that just like with meme generators, many people are able to express themselves through "rudimentary" artistic means. A tool like this will open up a lot of possibilities. No, they won't turn into the next Hans Zimmer.

My comment was a reply to someone talking about being expressive with AI music generators like these. The points you are making have nothing to do with what me or the person I was replying to said.

They are connected but you aren't seeing it. The average person can't create baroque music based on a bunch of words they like. That's a lot of musical expressivity for someone who doesn't even know guitar chords.

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

#370
post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the whole problem of inference: it's just wrong outside of the trivial cases. Humans are not limited to inference-based reasoning.

Some humans aren't even up to the standard of inference-based reasoning; it's quite a spectrum. But there's little reason to believe that carbon based reasoning, is fundamentally superior to silicon based reasoning, in the long term.

We'd had computers before we started making them out of silicon semiconductors.

Computer Science still puts the same restrictions on what we can compute.

Post reply on HN