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

AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

suno.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 389 posts

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#91

Post by lemoncookiechip »

viraptor wrote: post #27

While almost everything sounded really good and well put together, the voice itself has a constant... phaser? robotic vibrato? applied the whole time, which I found surprising. We've got better voice synthesis available already and other instruments don't suffer the same effect. I've not heard that before - does anyone know if that's specific to this model, or a more generic voice issue?

That static is present in most generations, but how bad it is depends on the generation itself (you get 2 variations of the same song every generation). I've had some amazingly crisp sounding generations in vastly different genres and languages, such as Opera tenor, UK rap, reggae, metal, country, Broadway musical, rock n' roll, Japanese, Italian, Swedish, various English accents/dialects, etc... Suno is a technical masterpiece, I understand why some people dislike the idea, but the point stands that we are HERE now and we started with most people not even imagining it possible, and those who did saying it wouldn't be this good.

Like many people have said, this tech will only get better.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#92

Post by macns »

Madmallard wrote: post #29
louwrentius wrote: post #20

We can now replace more humans for shareholder value. Edit: Remember 1984 where Orwell described machines composing music for the masses?

music seemed really low quality to me as a musician. I wouldn't pay to listen to it

I bet there's plenty of other non-AI tracks you wouldn't pay to listen to

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#94

Post by Shrezzing »

comboy wrote: post #74
CrLf wrote: post #54

If this was an actual person performing, I would have smiled all the way to the end. Since this is AI-generated, I feel no emotion towards this, and just listened for a few seconds. It's technically interesting.

What if you didn't know? You wouldn't know whether you like it until you've learned more about the artist?

AI Audio isn't far enough along to be convincing in song (at least in this song, anyway).

This song sounds like a disturbing uncanny-valley rendition of a slow Phoebe Bridges song performed by Taylor Swift using a broken auto tuner.

While I think it's technically impressive that this exists at all, I think this tune is still at the stage of "Pope in a puffer jacket".

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#95

Post by michaelt »

Nursie wrote: post #34
cedws wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I can endure much more AI slop seeping its way into my life.

AI slop (to me) would be to pass this off as a song or something meritorious to listen to. IMHO this and things like it are basically a sub-class of comedy or satire, so I have time for this sort of thing. It's a joke, and should (can?) only be appreciated as artistic as someone saying "Wouldn't it be funny if ... ?" because now that casual thought can be turned into a pretty instant "well here it is! LOL!". I don't…

In my experience, there's less of a distinction than you might think.

A lot of satirical songs are absolute bangers, because (for example) to do a send-up of the tropes of X music, you must know all the tropes of X music, and be able to perform them. So a lot of satirical music is actually done by people with a lot of skill and passion for the thing being satirised.

And because satirists don't have to worry about being predictable or unoriginal, they can put in more crowd-pleasing cliches per minute than 'serious' artists, giving them the most intense X of all X artists.

(Not saying the MIT license is a banger though - just that some satirical songs are)

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#96

Post by hobofan »

weregiraffe wrote: post #23
cedws wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I can endure much more AI slop seeping its way into my life.

Art will realign to put more value on live performances. Don't worry, people who push AI art don't understand that art is a form of communication between humans. They might learn when the bubble pops and they are left with a trillion shiny "art" objects that are worth nothing, because nobody wants to look at them.

"Art" already puts more value on live performances and scarcity. Popular music consumption is largely removed from that.

Yeah, the last two live mega tours (Taylor Swift and Beyoncé) have a tad more personality than the average artist, but the usual stuff that you would hear on the radio might as well be AI generated and live-performed by animatronics and a significant chunk of the audience wouldn't care or even notice.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#97

Post by rootlocus »

HeartStrings wrote: post #57
CrLf wrote: post #54

If this was an actual person performing, I would have smiled all the way to the end. Since this is AI-generated, I feel no emotion towards this, and just listened for a few seconds. It's technically interesting.

This. AI production loses “soul” as human empathy is a crucial component.

Art is like a lossy compression algorithm. If there is a soul of any form the only reason you think you're observing it in human-produced art is because your decompression algorithm is adding it.

While I don't disagree there's a "human touch" to art, I'm not convinced it can't be synthesized to some degree. It may not be innovative, but I think since AI is extrapolating from learned data, it can at least mimic the current pop culture.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#98

Post by weregiraffe »

comboy wrote: post #74
CrLf wrote: post #54

If this was an actual person performing, I would have smiled all the way to the end. Since this is AI-generated, I feel no emotion towards this, and just listened for a few seconds. It's technically interesting.

What if you didn't know? You wouldn't know whether you like it until you've learned more about the artist?

Yes, that's how communication between humans works. It is context dependent.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#99

Post by int_19h »

n4r9 wrote: post #87
svantana wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reminds me of CGI in the 90's. Everyone was so astounded over the quality of jurassic park and toy story, the rate of improvements was mindboggling. Predictions were made that in a few years, actors and movie studios would be obsolete. But in the meantime, audiences started to notice artifacts that were not apparent to the untrained eye - CGI was actually ugly! And here we are 30 years later - actors are still on…

I had a similar reaction. We can still detect AI-generated images after years of progress; I think it's hasty to say they'll be indistinguishable any time soon.

Thing is, they don't have to be indistinguishable. They just have to be "good enough" to be a major disruption to that market. And it's not a particularly high bar.

Re: AI-generated sad girl with piano performs the text of the MIT License

#100

Post by mrtksn »

CrLf wrote: post #54

If this was an actual person performing, I would have smiled all the way to the end. Since this is AI-generated, I feel no emotion towards this, and just listened for a few seconds. It's technically interesting.

Seriously, the "creatives are screwed" narrative has fallen apart for me because the stuff made in AI has proven to be worthless.

Why is it worthless? Because the point of art was to communicate or convey something with other people and the AI has no idea because its not human.

A few words or a sequence of sounds can be enough to transfer great deal of feeling and meaning because we run about the same software and as a result we can generate the same output with a little bit of input. This is all done by looking inside and externalise it, that is someone feels something and makes a song from it and that song can be used to regenerate feelings in other people.

The current AI tech doesn't have a way to do that because doesn't have a way to look inside. At best, it can imitate things within some context but the output doesn't have any meaning at all. The most successful AI content was maybe the "Pope wearing Balenciaga" image but that wasn't because the AI thought it mean something but because someone looked inside and thought this can be interesting.

So no, AI isn't taking over the creative process. AI is taking over the mechanical part of it only, that is the part where the artist traditionally had to master a method of production or an instrument.

The AI evangelists keep pushing short videos or drawings that look "professional" and claiming that Hollywood is done, artists are screwed etc but those are worthless outside of the context that AI made it. No one is interested in paying or even spending time to consume this content, its extremely dull.

Post reply on HN