> Any content published by our Lyria model will be watermarked
What is the purpose of marking AI content? I don't really understand. Should we mark content edited in GIMP or Audacity as well?
Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments
51–60 of 361 posts
Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments
#52The moment quality in art becomes commodified, what is popular will select on something other than quality. Look what happened to visual art in the earliest 20th century. Any art academy graduate could give you a beautiful painting, but nobody remembers any artists from the 20th century who simply made "beautiful paintings"
Quality never was the only or even the most important aspect of popularity in music and probably art in general. So I'm not sure your projection is valid.
You're right that pure formal perfection is not the only component in art; art has to mean something.
But quality has always been a very important aspect of popularity in art as well as in music (see: Renaissance sculptors & painters, Baroque and Classical composers, etc.)
Great art is when a unique, profound emotion or insight is expressed with great execution.
AI helps with the last part; real artists should still provide the emotional seed.
Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments
#53The moment quality in art becomes commodified, what is popular will select on something other than quality. Look what happened to visual art in the earliest 20th century. Any art academy graduate could give you a beautiful painting, but nobody remembers any artists from the 20th century who simply made "beautiful paintings"
What does it mean "becoming commodified"? And how it relates to art?
I think it differentiates "uniquely created by a single soul" vs "mass-produced standardized item"
Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quality never was the only or even the most important aspect of popularity in music and probably art in general. So I'm not sure your projection is valid.
You're right that pure formal perfection is not the only component in art; art has to mean something. But quality has always been a very important aspect of popularity in art as well as in music (see: Renaissance sculptors & painters, Baroque and Classical composers, etc.) Great art is when a unique, profound emotion or insight is expressed with great execution. AI helps with the last part; real artists should still…
> Great art is when a unique, profound emotion or insight is expressed with great execution.
Emphasis on unique
Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
People get caught up in their lives. There are a million things you _wanted_ to do that you'll never get to do. And that's unfair.
This gives me the eerie feeling of a future in which we let AI do all fun, creative things, thereby freeing up spare time in which we don't need to learn to play guitar anymore, giving us more hours to spend on work. Shouldn't we aim for a future that is the exact opposite of this?
> giving us more hours to spend on work
What work?
Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
His projection is valid because it's not a qualitative problem, it's a quantitative one. Music may already have been turned into a commodity selected by traits other than quality, but tools like this bring the effect up to a whole new level, a whole new order of magnitude.
Every tool that makes it easier to create art is good in my book. In years past you had to actually have the instruments and had to know how to work them. Now you can much easier learn to use simpler tools to get even better results, which just increases the amount of people that can actually realize their creativity.
But part of the whole point of listening to music is enjoying the expression of the people playing the instrument. Music is much more than just the final output of a machine, it's an expression of the soul. You may be able to create music more easily with this tool, but I guarantee it will be soulless, just like Google.
The results certainly will not be better. They will be a hideous amalgam from a computer. Just listen to real music created by real people (preferably live) and you will know how hideous these results really are.
Everything, even EFFICIENCY, has its limits to how much we should have.
Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments
#57Will be great for people who have studied composition, for everyone else it will just increase exponentially the amount of garbage circulating around
There is so much garbage already on video sharing apps, I don't think anything will change.
Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
NO, it will lower the barrier for music generation, which is different from CREATION, which implies a creative act.
I think you're looking at this wrong. If I have an idea for a song I my head, I could record myself humming or sining it. While it might represent a thought, feeling or experience it's not going to be very pleasant. With AI, I will be able to transform it into something enjoyable. That is creation and not just generation.
Between someone that generated music from ideas, and someone that spent time and thinking and practicing to refine and these ideas, each will not relate the same to the end result. If only because the latter will know which happy/sad accidents made it to the end, and which did not, based on a specific judgement, or moment.
I've already done both. Generators are only good to produce specific ideas to integrate sometimes, at most.
It's exactly the same difference between writing your own novel, and getting it written by a text generator. You don't relate to the story, and to the characters, the same way. You may not even _explain_ them the same way.
Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments
#59From 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…
As a indie game developer, this could plausibly enable me to add decent sounding soundtrack to my games. I couldn't afford to pay a proper artist, and my musical skills are... Limited.. It _is_ just a tool, a new instrument essentially, one that is easier to play than most. People being angry that there is now a new instrument that is much easier to play than the one they spent years to learn come across as entitled…
Have you considered something like https://www.indiegamemusic.com/, where a lot of artists have their music available free or super cheaply?
Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments
#60From 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…
> It creates a new standard where music is no longer about human expression but about creating a basic layer of entertainment to go along with advertising. The most music we (humans collectively, not you and me specifically) hear are made for one single purpose: profit. It's not an AI problem. It's nothing new. Actually it's older than you and me.
You are ignoring the fact that there's a new problem: the ability to milk it with an extreme level of efficiency.
Imagine a burglar who robs houses. He might rob 1-2 per month. Now imagine the same burglar being given a technology that allows him to rob 1000 houses a month. Wouldn't you say that's much worse, even though it essentially arises from the same problem?