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

AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 751 posts

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#721

Post by troupo »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #711
troupo wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can think of half a dozen ways to detect AI music in it's current form Can you give a few examples? For example, how to detect that the song I linked is AI compared to say, anything Taylor Swift produces, or to any overly produced pop song or an electronic beat.

My first instincts offhand were: * N-gram analysis of lyrics. Even good LLM's still exhibit some weird pattern's when analyzed at the n-gram level. * Entropy - Something like KL divergence maybe? There are a lot of ways to calculate entropy that can be informative. I would expect human music to display higher entropy. * Plain old FFT. I suspect you'll find weird statistical anomalies. * Fancy waveform analysis tricks…

Thank you!

This will likely have a lot of false positives on a lot of genres. E.g. I suspect genres like synthpop and trance (and a lot of other electronic music) will likely hit a lot of those points with regards to music and sampling.

Lyrics are also not a given (when they are likely curated by humans). E.g. compare the song I referenced (https://dumpstergrooves.bandcamp.com/track/he-talked-a-big-g...) to, say, Taylor Swift's current most listened to song: https://genius.com/Taylor-swift-the-fate-of-ophelia-lyrics I'd chose the AI one in a heart beat :)

I wonder if a combination of all of those may work for a subset of songs, but I don't think you can do it with any confidence :(

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#722

Post by gambiting »

butlike wrote: post #701
gambiting wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well let me ask you this - if you want to listen to sounds of the rain in a forest or waves crashing on the beach as you fall asleep(as many people do), do you care if someone actually sat on a beach with a microphone for 4 hours straight, or is it ok if what is effectively white noise is computer generated? It's the same with background music when I work. But like as a specific example, that's a specific track I qui…

Yes there's hold music, and yes there's noise for falling asleep (has a falloff), but in either case I personally don't think it should be on Spotify/another generic music streaming service. Put a different way, if I'm listening to music on random, and Led Zeppelin finishes, do I want there to be a chance of pink noise or elevator music playing after that song? Not really, but if "it's all on Spotify," then it could…

Sure, but if Spotify gives you that after Led Zeppelin, then that sounds like a Spotify problem, not a problem that this music is on Spotify in the first place.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#723

Post by kazinator »

anigbrowl wrote: post #362
kazinator wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't merge anything AI generated in any of my FOSS projects, unless I'm successfully deceived. In the first place, I do not regard a copyright notice and license on AI generated code to be valid in my eyes, so on those grounds alone, I cannot use it any more than I could merge a piece of proprietary, leaked source code.

The copyright office agreed with you about the non-copyrightability of AI generated media so in that sense you can safely ignore copyright claims on anything AI-generated.

You can safely ignore claims made by the operator of the AI who had the material generated, true enough.

You cannot ignore a credible/plausible claim from a third party.

It's not simply the case that the output has a public-domain-like status.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#724

Post by johnnyanmac »

Krasnol wrote: post #539
JohnFen wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Electronic music made it so you didn’t have to learn to play an instrument. Auto tune made it so you didn’t have to learn how to sing on key. Neither of those things are really true, though. They made it possible to make poor music without learning those things, I suppose, but not make good music. > Banning the new types of art Nobody is seriously talking about banning AI generated music. What you're seeing is a pl…

What is "good" music?

The eternal question.

I think in this context, the term "intentional music" or "earnest music" applies better. People who just wants "music that sounds good" already has mainstream stuff. Many who want a more niche sound deliberately look to support humans in that endeavor. Not yet another billionaire label who puts out "safe" but "boring" stuff. Except it's worse now.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#725

Post by herewulf »

maples37 wrote: post #656
WD-42 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been doing the same over the last few months. The best part for me is going to record stores again. CDs are SO cheap now, especially used ones. I’ll usually pick a few out of the dollar bin just based on vibes and the cover and rip them when I get home. I’ve found some cool stuff. It’s like a treasure hunt. Don’t miss Spotify one bit.

To anyone going down this route, there's a surprisingly deep rabbit hole when you look into "how copy the bits off the drive and into a .wav file". There are a lot of places where errors can be introduced: the quality of the CD drive, the condition of the disc itself, how fast the drive is spinning for the rip, etc. I didn't think this was a big issue until I got a load of cheap used discs, started ripping them with…

+1 for ripping with abcde

Make sure you enable its MusicBrainz support. I used to painstakingly input all the band / album / track title metadata but then discovered that people were already doing it for me.

However, then you go down the MB rabbit hole with obscure music that no one has ever inputted. Still, it's a quick and easy way to contribute and then it's available for everyone.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#726

Post by CapsAdmin »

spopejoy wrote: post #421
CapsAdmin wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly not getting the human story thing when it comes to music and maybe art in general. I mean I get what it means, but I don't think it describes why people enjoy art. To me, it seems more like people place their own meaning in art. A particular song might remind one individual of the good times they had in their teens, while the actual meaning of the song is completely different. Bachs 5th symphony (or what…

Your point echoes the "death of the author" concept in literature, where the work is independent of the creator, full stop. It's a useful concept up to a point, but if you really have no idea what it means to have a deep connection to music that is wrapped up in some idea of the creator as a human being, you should trust others when they say they do and it's important to them. For those of us with that value, AI slop…

I appreciate the honesty. I'm not saying people don't have this relationship with art, I think everyone can have some degrees of it, including me.

But my experience as an artist talking to non-artists about art, I don't think the sentiment that art without a struggling artist, purpose, story to tell, human arc, etc, is not real art is a true sentiment. First of all, because it's not true, because people apply their own meaning and form their own unique relationship with an artist. (The saying don't meet your heroes come to mind.)

Note that I'm not talking about AI at all here. I'm 100% for banning purely generated AI on soundcloud, bandcamp, spotify, etc. What I really want is to filter out art created by people who has put profit as first priority and thrown away any shred of artistic integrity.

But this is an impossible feat, because who am I to judge that someone else's favorite artist is devoid of artistic integrity?

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#727

Post by Ritewut »

nomel wrote: post #720
Ritewut wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming it's not useful because it doesn't bode well for your argument. What makes you think assuming the majority aren't mindless consumers is useful?

Again, if people enjoyed watching things they didn't like TikTok would not be eating everyone's lunch .

Tiktok is not eating everyone's lunch. Instagram Reels and Youtube Shorts have caught up to and in some metrics even beat Tiktok.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#728

Post by handoflixue »

munificent wrote: post #697
handoflixue wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am a human being who deserves to live a life of dignity Sure, but so does the homeless guy living on the streets right now because computers and the internet automated his job - and yet here you are using the very tools ("mindless automatons") that put him out of work.

A given technology may benefit some while harming others. And it may have harms and benefits that operate on different time scales. The invention of the shipping container put nearly every stevedore out of a job. But it made it radically cheaper to ship things and that improved the quality of life of nearly everyone on Earth. I suspect that for most stevedores, it was a job where the wages provided dignity and meanin…

I think it's pretty insulting to posit that artists are some special "dignified" profession and that, by implication, there is "no dignity" or no meaning to be found in being an Uber Driver. I know plenty of people who love the opportunity to be useful, socialize, and get to know a broad slice of the local populace.

Plenty of people miss taking care of their horses, but we still drive cars.

The vast majority of humans do not, in fact, think making art is "the most profoundly human" thing. They are about socializing, they care about their family, they want to go on fun vacations and have fun experiences. Most people do not spend their free time painting.

Re: AI generated music barred from Bandcamp

#730

Post by munificent »

handoflixue wrote: post #728
munificent wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A given technology may benefit some while harming others. And it may have harms and benefits that operate on different time scales. The invention of the shipping container put nearly every stevedore out of a job. But it made it radically cheaper to ship things and that improved the quality of life of nearly everyone on Earth. I suspect that for most stevedores, it was a job where the wages provided dignity and meanin…

I think it's pretty insulting to posit that artists are some special "dignified" profession and that, by implication, there is "no dignity" or no meaning to be found in being an Uber Driver. I know plenty of people who love the opportunity to be useful, socialize, and get to know a broad slice of the local populace. Plenty of people miss taking care of their horses, but we still drive cars. The vast majority of human…

Nowhere did I posit that being an Uber driver has no dignity.

I observed, which is entirely likely to be true, that on average people probably find more personal fulfillment in the work of being an artist than the work of hauling crates off a ship.

Yes, we humans are clever creatures and will extract as much upside and value as we can out of any situation. That does not at all mean that all jobs are thus equivalent in all respects.

> they want to go on fun vacations and have fun experiences.

And how many of those vacations are to places with incredible architecture and rewarding art museums? How many of those fun experiences are music, plays, and movies?

Certainly, family and socializing are important avenues of meaning as well. Those aren't mutually exclusive with wanting to live in a world full of art made by others who care about it.

Post reply on HN