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

Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

deepmind.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 361 posts

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#81

Post by lynx23 »

halflings wrote: post #34
nervousvarun wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What “privilege” is required to learn to play guitar? Was Jimmy Hendrix privileged? Robert Johnson?

How about "AI will further democratize music"? Anyone can make music today, but ask any musician and they'll be mindblown by the idea that they can hum a melody and immediately generate a sax/percussion track matching it. You can learn to play the guitar, and buy a guitar, but it's very hard and expensive to also learn the 3-4 other instruments you need to make a full song. (my brother learned both the guitar and per…

I learnt to play 3 (serious) instruments during my lifetime. Guitar, traverse flute and piano. While I dont play any of them actively today, I would still miss the overall skills I gained from learning them. Motor coordination, memory, just to name two. If I had this AI thing back then, I probably wouldn't have learnt any of them, and missed out on a lot of side effects.

Learning something difficult is rewarding on several levels. To boil it down to just the intended outcome is a rather narrow view of the matter.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#82

Post by seydor »

Wonder where the human fits in this new landscape. Composer? no. Performer? no. Music artist is more like a conductor now. Thankfully audience doesn't care because they need to worship a human in the end, so she 'll be receiving all the money anyway.

The problem with these new BigTech companies is that they are accustomed to subjugating everyone. They deal with users and content, not with artists and creations. This is starkly different from the past. Yamaha and other synth makers would go out of their way to satisfy capricious artists, now it's the other way around, the tech dictates to artists what is possible, including the limits of what they are allowed to make/say and sell.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#83

Post by helboi4 »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #7

Yet another tool from Google that's closed. No model, no code, no real details. You can't even run the model today. Google continues to live in the darkest timeline when it comes to ai and ml.

Yet another reason why we should be skeptical about AI and stop these companies from accelerating their monopoly of markets using it. The only way that AI can be good is if we all have equal opportunity to participate in the revolution. Otherwise, we will come to reside in an increasingly technofuedalist state where all smaller businesses are required to pay a tax to exist to the large companies who have their super secret AI models on massive servers that nobody with less capital can compete with, and the average worker will become totally obsolete and destitute.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#84

Post by helboi4 »

codedokode wrote: post #51

> 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?

Because it undermines all human achievement to allow one company with their close source AI model to devalue all other products in the market at a speed previously unprecedented to man and honestly incomprehensible (could take literally less than hours), without us being able to monitor it.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#85

Post by seydor »

sirwitti wrote: post #20
atleastoptimal wrote: post #8

The 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.

Hm. It was before the 20th century maybe. People knew of artists by name, not by their social life and sex tapes. The pop culture paraphilia is a very recent thing.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#86

Post by helboi4 »

vjerancrnjak wrote: post #35
vouaobrasil wrote: post #11

From 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…

But isn't music more than just the music track? People like to listen to the same music, go to concerts, share it with others, share the experience of audience/artist performance. Moments where music is truly important in one's life will never be replaced by meaningless bit fiddling. I cannot imagine people caring about books, music, art created by bit fiddling. They will always care about things created by other peo…

I do think music is slightly more immune to this than some other forms of art because music is usually so tied to a personality and a physical presence that there will be ways for artists to overcome this to some extent.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#87

Post by helboi4 »

lynx23 wrote: post #76
huijzer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earning money by making music is a power law, that is, only a few people will make a lot of money while many will earn almost nothing. This is partially due to the required skills. If a system could lower the barrier to entry, then you could also make an argument that a music AI makes it a more level playing field.

Looking at EDM, the sheer amount of bedroom musicians capable of producing that poped up since the 90s is part of the reason why it has become so hard to make any money from your art. There is simply too much music out there to actually be able to find the gems you like. Lowering the barrier for entry will only worsen this effect.

Very real and pertinent example. Being big in EDM now is 100% about being a constant networker. You have to go to every party, know every person and have a massively professional social media presence and a conisistent flashy image to have any success. This will be accelerated in AI, actually turning being a musician into a ridiculously demanding amalgamation of many many different jobs... or just a game of having enough money to know people already and have employ a PR army.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#88

Post by mnd999 »

stefanos82 wrote: post #61

After a lot of thinking, I have come to a conclusion that expresses me personally, so feel free to disagree if you like: The human being was not created to be deprived of the right to express his feelings through fine arts. From the moment you deprive me of the right to express myself as I feel through external as well as internal stimuli and you want to replace me with an insensitive mechanism that neither feels nor…

Totally agree. Fuck off google.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#89

Post by seydor »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #11

From 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's clear that the ultimate goal is to create a system whereby people pay for AI generated music

The goal is to create background music for youtube videos without paying artists anymore at all. Youtube videos feel sterile because they lack music with emotion and are all recycling the same audio library tracks. It's a way to allow some pop culture to youtubers who are scared to death of copyright claims.

Re: Google's advanced music generation model and two new AI experiments

#90

Post by criddell »

bambax wrote: post #52
sirwitti wrote: post #20

Earlier 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…

> But quality has always been a very important aspect

But what is quality? I used to think it was just degree of goodness, then I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and now I have no idea what it is (or what it isn’t).

Post reply on HN