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

AI Can Transform Anyone Into a Professional Dancer

news.developer.nvidia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 176 posts

Re: AI Can Transform Anyone Into a Professional Dancer

#41

Post by hyperpallium »

valtism wrote: post #29
cheschire wrote: post #17

I could see this being used in the same way that auto-tune type effects are added to singers voices. The editing of music videos could include a tool like this to make sure all of the dancers behind the main one are moving just right. And just like auto-tuned voices, it will come off as janky and fake.

The autotune you refer to as "janky and fake" is when autotune is used with intention to create that sound as an artistic syle. Autotune is used across most pop (and other) music, but in such a way that that you never realise it is there. It is similar to special effects. People complain about how bad and fake they look, but this is only for the effects that are bad enough that they are noticible. People don't realis…

But similarly, it could be used as a "janky and fake" artistic syle. Because no one's ever seen it before, it will look wrong in unexpected ways, and therefore somewhat fascinating.

Stylus noise, fret noise and mp3 compression artefacts are other "mistakes" deliberately introduced.

Re: AI Can Transform Anyone Into a Professional Dancer

#42

Post by djaychela »

Siemer wrote: post #39
nineteen999 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe for recorded mainstream pop music that is true, but we can tell because the performance then sounds bowdlerised and dull. It can't really help with a live performance and a for a good singer, recording multiple takes is going to be faster/more economical, punching in/out is so easy and with modern digital DAW's like ProTools (which does this by default) it keeps all your takes for you anyway - no need to waste…

Recording is not the problem. Cutting and splicing the best bits of all those recordings is very labor intensive.

.. and depending on the singer, can be nigh on impossible. Some are incredibly consistent in terms of timing and phrasing (making editing easy), while with others each one is unique, and only large sections can be used with each other.

Re: AI Can Transform Anyone Into a Professional Dancer

#43

Post by pelario »

As many other comments have said, the title is misleading; the key quotation is:

"(...) allows anyone to portray themselves as a world-class ballerina (...)"

Moreover, after AlphaGO took away Go from us, I started to wonder "what is left" for humans, and I believe that we are centuries away to have machines that achieve world class dancing level. My reasoning is than in things like Go, image or speech recognition, it is easier to "encode" the information for the ML to actually learn. On the other hand, encoding the movements of professional dancers is already quite difficult. Consider for example in the video linked here, the whole human body is mapped into ~20 points. Sure, this may be enough to portray someone as a dancer. But good luck making a dancing robot.

So, maybe I quit my programming career to become a dancer, it is less likely to be a job that the machines will take away ;-)

edit: grammar

Re: AI Can Transform Anyone Into a Professional Dancer

#45

Post by ssijak »

valtism wrote: post #29
cheschire wrote: post #17

I could see this being used in the same way that auto-tune type effects are added to singers voices. The editing of music videos could include a tool like this to make sure all of the dancers behind the main one are moving just right. And just like auto-tuned voices, it will come off as janky and fake.

The autotune you refer to as "janky and fake" is when autotune is used with intention to create that sound as an artistic syle. Autotune is used across most pop (and other) music, but in such a way that that you never realise it is there. It is similar to special effects. People complain about how bad and fake they look, but this is only for the effects that are bad enough that they are noticible. People don't realis…

There is nothing "artistic" in overusing autotune. It is just a tool to "mask" that that person can`t really sing at all and is overused in popular/commercial genres where there is an abundance of untalented musicians. I can`t imagine anyone saying that obvious autotuned songs sound good.

Re: AI Can Transform Anyone Into a Professional Dancer

#46

Post by onion2k »

mirimir wrote: post #44

No, not "transform into". It's "make look like, in a video". I mean, who cares what you look like in some video? When you actually meet people, they'll know that it's bullshit. Now, if you could manage it in meatspace, that would be cool!

who cares what you look like in some video?

Everyone who watches television, movies, YouTube, etc. I know that's only a few people, but hey, it's a start.

Re: AI Can Transform Anyone Into a Professional Dancer

#47

Post by mirimir »

onion2k wrote: post #46
mirimir wrote: post #44

No, not "transform into". It's "make look like, in a video". I mean, who cares what you look like in some video? When you actually meet people, they'll know that it's bullshit. Now, if you could manage it in meatspace, that would be cool!

who cares what you look like in some video? Everyone who watches television, movies, YouTube, etc. I know that's only a few people, but hey, it's a start.

I suppose. But then, what would be the hiring criteria? Lowest bid? Nice ass?

And the focus here is "anyone", not professionals.

Re: AI Can Transform Anyone Into a Professional Dancer

#48

Post by nineteen999 »

djaychela wrote: post #40
nineteen999 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe for recorded mainstream pop music that is true, but we can tell because the performance then sounds bowdlerised and dull. It can't really help with a live performance and a for a good singer, recording multiple takes is going to be faster/more economical, punching in/out is so easy and with modern digital DAW's like ProTools (which does this by default) it keeps all your takes for you anyway - no need to waste…

I don't think it's always the case that you -can- tell. I think it falls nearly into 'Rumsfeld classification': Known Knowns - done for the clear effect, which is audible by everyone (as popularised, but not invented by Cher, T-Pain, etc). Known Unknowns - ones where most people wouldn't notice, but if you've listened to autotune a lot you'd swear it's been done (sustained notes with vibrato added seem to be clear co…

> it can tweak an otherwise brilliant performance and make it near-perfect

That's what I'm getting at - "perfect" is something that the human voice does so infrequently on its own so when we hear the "perfect" performance, we know it's been doctored.

As a point of reference, I look back at something like the Boswell sisters. Some of their early stuff was recorded in mono direct to wax disc but they were so skilled, well rehearsed and sung as a unit so closely bonded that the resulting sound is fantastic despite the primitive technology. The three individual voices aren't even recorded to seperate tracks since multitracking wasn't invented then.

Granted you can't really draw a direct comparison between that and Robbie Williams, Cher or T-Pain, but I know which I'd rather listen to any day. There are a lot of singers I've seen live and talked to over the years who wouldn't be caught dead touching up their stuff, or letting an engineer/producer do it behind their back - even if it meant missing out on a commercial recording contract.

I do appreciate where you're coming from though. I'm a little old fashioned I guess in that sometimes the mistakes that made it through improve the performance in my mind. It reminds you that the performers are human.

Re: AI Can Transform Anyone Into a Professional Dancer

#49

Post by apengwin »

ssijak wrote: post #45
valtism wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The autotune you refer to as "janky and fake" is when autotune is used with intention to create that sound as an artistic syle. Autotune is used across most pop (and other) music, but in such a way that that you never realise it is there. It is similar to special effects. People complain about how bad and fake they look, but this is only for the effects that are bad enough that they are noticible. People don't realis…

There is nothing "artistic" in overusing autotune. It is just a tool to "mask" that that person can`t really sing at all and is overused in popular/commercial genres where there is an abundance of untalented musicians. I can`t imagine anyone saying that obvious autotuned songs sound good.

Kanye West used autotune to great effect in 808s and Heartbreak, one of the seminal albums of this century
Post reply on HN