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

61–70 of 134 posts

Re: Jukebox

#61

Post by dellinspiron »

I think people in the comments are completely missing the point of this work. As I understand it, and take this with a large grain of salt because I haven't read the paper, the idea of Jukebox is to take a certain style of music by a certain musician and have the algorithm sing, karaoke-style, the lyrics that are listed in the examples to the tune of that music. Think of it as a really jazzy version of Google text-to-speech. The lyrics are not written by this algorithm, it's just singing in the style of Sinatra or Lady Gaga some words that have been prewritten. It's fun to listen to and really amazing to watch it read the lyrics and decide where to put emphasis, and where not to - dragging out certain words and letting others be mumbled. Comparing this to something like IBM's rendition of a "Bicycle built for two" showcases how utterly mind-blowing this work is!

Finally, can we stop treating ever single piece of work by neural networks as a "failure" because it isn't GAI? Just because it doesn't "say something about the human experience", doesn't make it bad engineering. It's hilarious how as soon as there's some new AI work done everyone starts wailing, "where's the humanity!"

Re: Jukebox

#62

Post by ccffpphh »

Kind of disappointed with the lack of classical - no Bach? I feel like it'd be easier to achieve more successful results with classical anyways, given that it's vocal-less and more rhythmic/predictable, with slower tempo.

I actually wanted to keep listening to this one: https://jukebox.openai.com/?song=799583581

And this wasn't bad, sounds like something you'd see from some 1940s-era newsreel: https://jukebox.openai.com/?song=799583728

Re: Jukebox

#64

Post by rexpop »

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.

And this is music with a different, albeit equally valid "point": to see ourselves reflected, abstracted, and find what we can still recognize. It's like a Rorschach test, or a piece of highly abstract art. Who are we to say what was going on in the mind of the artist? So often, we are absolutely wrong about their state of mind, their intention, those experiences and beliefs.

Alternatively, here, we are still witnessing art. The artist, as ever, is human: the scientists who pieced together these techniques. Theirs is the voice, if only humans can have a voice, that we hear in the work.

They are not semantically empty: they are absorbed, semantically, in the domain of the computer scientist who, through no fault of their own, could never sing before now.

Re: Jukebox

#65

Post by judah »

andybak wrote: post #28

https://jukebox.openai.com/?song=787730953

I feel like the AI is rickrolling us, as it never quite gets to the chorus. It ends the first verse/pre-chorus at 0:30, goes into an instrumental, then repeats the pre-chorus, then babbles unintelligible until song end.

Re: Jukebox

#66

Post by empath75 »

prafullasd wrote: post #27
tmoney1818 wrote: post #10

"the top-level prior has 5 billion parameters and is trained on 512 V100s for 4 weeks" If they used on-demand AWS instances, it would cost about 1,342,623 USD to train the top-level prior. So much for reproducing this work.

We release our model weights and code here https://github.com/openai/jukebox/ , so you can directly build on top of them and don’t have to train from scratch

So, the music that I know the most about is dance music and all of your examples from that genre seems to have completely missed the four to the floor beat that characterizes those artists — any theory as to why that is? You’d think that the loop based repetitive nature of edm would make it simple for an ai to mimic.

Re: Jukebox

#67

Post by moultano »

I can imagine in a future iteration of this, writing a song, recording it with your phone, and then letting this turn it into something that sounds like a high quality production performed by a famous voice.

Re: Jukebox

#68

Post by alkibiades »

sdan wrote: post #47
apetresc wrote: post #41

Holy crap. > From dust we came with humble start; > From dirt to lipid to cell to heart. That's not just a passable lyric. I think it's downright _good_.

Just know that: much of the stuff OpenAI and other research orgs put out (including mine) are heavily cherry-picked. Most of the time its pumps out gibberish, but in the off chance it doesn't it gets used as marketing material.

monkey writing shakespeare

Re: Jukebox

#69

Post by 8jy89hui »

sdan wrote: post #47
apetresc wrote: post #41

Holy crap. > From dust we came with humble start; > From dirt to lipid to cell to heart. That's not just a passable lyric. I think it's downright _good_.

Just know that: much of the stuff OpenAI and other research orgs put out (including mine) are heavily cherry-picked. Most of the time its pumps out gibberish, but in the off chance it doesn't it gets used as marketing material.

All you have to do is click through to see all the samples and it becomes clear how incredibly cherry-picked the ones on the front page are. It is a cool project but it is very clear how much work this technology will need before it is useful in any application.
Post reply on HN