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

Jukebox

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 134 posts

Re: Jukebox

#51

Post by stanfordkid »

ihm wrote: post #50

In my view, attempts like this misunderstand much of the point of music. That is, to communicate aspects of human life that are deeply interwoven with facts and experiences outside of the music itself. I don't see how any of that will be possible before we have some kind of general AI, and in the meantime I think these attempts will continue to be semantically empty, even unsettling in their emptiness.

Agreed, The "data" being used to generate real human music is the human condition ... so anything trained on a featurized low dimensional representation of that will ultimately be derivative.

Image and sound are ultimately related to feeling ... and it is those feelings that give us humanity -- not the ability to think and manipulate symbols (though that was not apparent to me until this current AI revolution)

Re: Jukebox

#52

Post by ctoth »

stanfordkid wrote: post #51
ihm wrote: post #50

In my view, attempts like this misunderstand much of the point of music. That is, to communicate aspects of human life that are deeply interwoven with facts and experiences outside of the music itself. I don't see how any of that will be possible before we have some kind of general AI, and in the meantime I think these attempts will continue to be semantically empty, even unsettling in their emptiness.

Agreed, The "data" being used to generate real human music is the human condition ... so anything trained on a featurized low dimensional representation of that will ultimately be derivative. Image and sound are ultimately related to feeling ... and it is those feelings that give us humanity -- not the ability to think and manipulate symbols (though that was not apparent to me until this current AI revolution)

So it sounds like the old goalpost problem of AI. Once you realize an AI can do something then this something is no longer what it means to be human?

Re: Jukebox

#53

Post by ipsin »

squarefoot wrote: post #25
nabla9 wrote: post #5

I predict that in very near future you just write funny lyrics, select the style and vocalist you want and you get good sounding mediocre music. Then we hear it in - private events like weddings. - social media creators make their own music to go with their funny videos. Cheap theme music for streamers and podcasters. - Advertising. Shopping centres make lyrics that advertise products and play them to you as pop song…

The future will be AI lawyers battling for rights of AI generated music in the style of deceased artists on behalf of AI media corporations at the expense of robotic listeners. Before all of this, we'll probably see improvised bands of deceased artists playing together AI generated music in their own style, not to mention long dead actors appearing in new movies etc. AI technology is going to give law firms a lot of…

I'm thinking of characters like Captain Jack Sparrow (partially inspired by Keith Richards) or Zuse from Tron: Legacy (partially inspired by David Bowie).

When it's less "inspired by" and more literally "0.5 David Bowie", I also imagine a lot of law firms writing letters.

Re: Jukebox

#54

Post by Permit »

ihm wrote: post #50

In my view, attempts like this misunderstand much of the point of music. That is, to communicate aspects of human life that are deeply interwoven with facts and experiences outside of the music itself. I don't see how any of that will be possible before we have some kind of general AI, and in the meantime I think these attempts will continue to be semantically empty, even unsettling in their emptiness.

> In my view, attempts like this misunderstand much of the point of music. That is, to communicate aspects of human life that are deeply interwoven with facts and experiences outside of the music itself.

I actually think you've missed the point. These attempts do not aspire to communicate aspects of human life at all. They're simply scientific and engineering endeavors that seek to answer less profound questions like: "Can computers generate music?" (Yes) and "Can computers generate music that is enjoyable to listen to?" (Not yet)

To go one step further: There are glaring and obvious technical faults in many of the generated samples (this isn't a criticism, they're better than past work!). I suspect that if you are feeling unsettled by these songs it's because of those flaws and not because they are "semantically empty".

Re: Jukebox

#56

Post by krapp »

ihm wrote: post #50

In my view, attempts like this misunderstand much of the point of music. That is, to communicate aspects of human life that are deeply interwoven with facts and experiences outside of the music itself. I don't see how any of that will be possible before we have some kind of general AI, and in the meantime I think these attempts will continue to be semantically empty, even unsettling in their emptiness.

Most people don't really care about deeply interwoven aspects of the human condition or semantic meaning when they listen to music, because most popular music is shallow and derivative as it is, a catchy beat and a hook and little else. When you think about the possibilities for automating creative output, you have to consider that the lowest common denominator brings the most potential profit.

Re: Jukebox

#58

Post by [deleted] »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #37
aabhay wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My only question with OpenAI is whether they will forever-more take existing AI research, throw $100,000s of dollars at it in training, then take credit for inventing intelligence

I mean if they’re properly citing their sources I think it’s useful to have someone throw lots of compute at things and see what happens.

[deleted]

Re: Jukebox

#59

Post by ryanf »

krapp wrote: post #56
ihm wrote: post #50

In my view, attempts like this misunderstand much of the point of music. That is, to communicate aspects of human life that are deeply interwoven with facts and experiences outside of the music itself. I don't see how any of that will be possible before we have some kind of general AI, and in the meantime I think these attempts will continue to be semantically empty, even unsettling in their emptiness.

Most people don't really care about deeply interwoven aspects of the human condition or semantic meaning when they listen to music, because most popular music is shallow and derivative as it is, a catchy beat and a hook and little else. When you think about the possibilities for automating creative output, you have to consider that the lowest common denominator brings the most potential profit.

I think you're missing that even shallow popular music is fundamentally about the interplay between familiarity and unfamiliarity in a way that's informed by the broader world. Sometimes it's about knowing who the performer is and how a song fits into their life and persona, or maybe it's about the way the melody and style conform to or defy current idioms, but it's definitely not about anything simple enough to be replicated in an unguided way by an AI. Like an AI could spit out a perfect 2000-era Britney Spears song tomorrow and it wouldn't be a hit regardless of its technical merits, because that's not what anyone is actually looking for in 2020.

Re: Jukebox

#60

Post by smith-kyle »

ihm wrote: post #50

In my view, attempts like this misunderstand much of the point of music. That is, to communicate aspects of human life that are deeply interwoven with facts and experiences outside of the music itself. I don't see how any of that will be possible before we have some kind of general AI, and in the meantime I think these attempts will continue to be semantically empty, even unsettling in their emptiness.

From the article:

We chose to work on music because we want to continue to push the boundaries of generative models.

Post reply on HN