7 ms·

As one of the meatsacks whose job you're about to kill... eh, I got nothin, it's damn impressive. It's gonna hit electronic music like a nuclear bomb, I'd wager

by jtode 4y ago

As one of the meatsacks whose job you're about to kill... eh, I got nothin, it's damn impressive. It's gonna hit electronic music like a nuclear bomb, I'd wager.

spoiler 4y ago
As a listener, I think you're probably still safe. Can you use this to help you though? Maybe. It's impressive what it produces, but I think it probably lacks substance in the same way the visual AI art stuff does. For the most part, it passes what I call the at-a-glanceness test. It's little better than apophenia (the same thing that makes you see shapes in clouds, faces in rocks, or think you've recognised a familiar word in a foreign language; the last one can happen more often though). So, I think these tools will be used to do background work (ie for visuals maybe help with background tasks in CGI or faraway textures in games). I know less about audio, but I assume it could maybe help a DJ create a transition between two segments they want to combine, as opposed make the whole composition for them, but idk if that example makes sense. Now, onto a more human point: I think that people often listen to music because it means something to them. Similar for people who appreciate visual art. I also love interactive and light art, and I love talking to other artists at light festivals who make them because of the stories and journeys behind their art too. Humans and art are a package deal, IMO. Edit: typos and to add: Also, I think prompt authorship is an art unto itself. I'm amazed what people can craft with it, but I'm more impressed by the craft itself than the outputs. Don't get me wrong, the outputs are darn cool, but not if you look closer. And it's impossible to look beneath the surface altogether, as there is nothing in the output but the pixels.
- api 4y ago
  In general all this stuff is chopping the bottom off the market. AI art, code, writing, music, etc. can all generate passable "filler" content, which will decimate all human employment generating same. I don't think this stuff is a threat to genuinely innovative, thoughtful, meaningful work, but that's the top of the market. That being said the bottom of the market is how a lot of artists make their living, so this is going to deeply impact all forms of art as a profession. It might soon impact programming too because while GPT-type systems can't do advanced high level reasoning they will chop the bottom off the market and create a glut of employees that will drive wages down across the board. Basic income or revolution. That's going to be our choice.
  - gummydogg 4y ago
    The top of the market started at the bottom. Entry level is requiring higher and higher skills and capabilities.
  - astrange 4y ago
    The only thing that affects whether you have a job is the Federal Reserve, not how good productivity tools are. You always have comparative advantage vs an AI, so you always have the qualifications for an entry level job. There will never be a revolution and there's no such thing as late capitalism. Well, not if the Fed does their job.
    - halkony 4y ago
      I see a lot of AI naysayers neglecting the comparative advantage part. If AI completely eliminates low skill art labour from the job pool, it's not like those affected by it are gonna disintegrate, riot, and restructure society. They have the choice of filling an art niche an AI can't or they can spend that time learning other, more in-demand skills. This also ignores that fact that some companies would rather reallocate you to more profitable projects even if your art skills don't change. Selling a product with relative value like a painting or a sculpture will always be an uphill battle. Now that there's more competition from AI, it just gives artists/businesses incentive to find what people want that an AI can't deliver. Worst case scenario, employment rates in this sector are rough while the market recalibrates. Interested to see how these technologies develop.
      - Archipelagia 4y ago
        That seems a bit like wishful thinking. People don't have unlimited ability to learn new skills. Training takes time, and someone who spent several years honoring their craft won't be able to pick up a new skill overnight. On top of that, people have preferences regarding their work – even if someone has the ability to do a different work, they might find it less meaningful and less satysfing. Finally, don't ignore the speed at which AI capabilities improve. Compare GPT-1 with the current model, and how quickly we got here. Eventually we'll get to a point where humans just won't be able to catch up quickly enough.
- ArmandTanzarian 4y ago
  As a musician and listener i'm inclined to agree. There were a couple cool examples i bumped into, but some prompts generate results that don't represent any single word or combination of words that were presented to the AI. What this means for the future is maybe a little more unsettling however.
- hahajk 4y ago
  I think this type of generative stuff opens up entirely new possibilities. For the longest time I've wanted to host a rowing or treadmill competition, where contestants submit a music track. The tracks are mashed up with weighting based on who is in the lead and by how much. I don't know of existing tech that can generate actual good mashups in realtime given arbitrary mp3s, but this has promise!
  - refulgentis 4y ago
    no, because is a function ("AI") that generates an image of a spectogram given text. neither a set of MP3 nor a set of spectrograms from MP3s supplies the function arguments or a connection to a path that uses that function
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - astrange 4y ago
      It says all StableDiffusion capabilities work, so you can prompt it with an image (either "img2img" or "textual inversion"). Their UI just doesn't expose it.
  - marktolson 4y ago
    It's not too hard these days with open source BPM detection and stem separation libraries: https://github.com/deezer/spleeter https://github.com/deezer/spleeter
- sycren 4y ago
  Potentially it could be used as temporary atmospherical music for pre-viz video shots
- rob74 4y ago
  I fully agree with what you wrote. This AI-generated music, while a great achievement, still sounds soulless. It's one thing to look at AI-generated pictures for a few seconds, but listening to this music with its gibberish "lyrics" for minutes really creeps me out - it's the "uncanny valley" all over again, I guess. Regarding "can you use this to help you through?" - yeah, you could probably use it as a source of inspiration, but at the risk of getting sued by someone whos music you didn't even know you were copying...
  - neuronic 4y ago
    Yea, it's uncanney valley, sure. For now. With Stable Diffusion and similar generative systems we have seen a leap in generative art/media, partially with significant improvements within a few months. What makes you think this was the last or only leap in the next 5 to 10 years? As if progress would just stop here? Huh?! Do you think we hit a ceiling were progress is only tangential? A line which is impossible to cross? Otherwise I dont get this mindset in the face of these modern generative AI systems popping up left and right.
- rhelsing 4y ago
  I think this is a good point. To make this useful for music creators, and to make music creation more generally accessible, the output needs to be more useful. We are working on that at https://neptunely.com https://neptunely.com
gravelc 4y ago
I love simple generative approaches to get ideas, and go from there. This seems like an extension of that (well, it's what I'm going to try - sample the output, make stems, pull MIDI etc). Will make the creative process more interesting for me, not less. Having said that, it's not my job, and I can see where the issues lay there.
godelski 4y ago
Why do you think this will kill your job? To me this looks like an extension of the hip-hop genre.
- jtode 4y ago
  I am an active musician, but I don't actually make money at it, I was mostly joking, but: I believe that we are (one determined smart person + six months) away from bots on Youtube and other streaming platforms that generate endless "new" music that follows those simple formulas (beat, bass, sample = loop, several loops connected up = song) 24/7. Raves that have no human DJs and never stop. Good? Bad? Not for me to say, really, the most I make at it is a couple hundred bucks for two nights in a bar playing FM radio hits, and there's lots of people younger than me who like that music, so obviously I'm doing it for different reasons and I don't anticipate losing access to as many bar gigs as I want for the rest of my life. But certain genres are very tolerant of low-effort music, and I think the people who are monetizing low-effort music are gonna lose their income streams. I do different things than those people, but I still consider them compatriots, even if I don't care for their art.
WheelsAtLarge 4y ago
These are tools. Don't think of them as replacements, they aren't. But as tools that will help us be creative. As smart as these apps seem, they will still need a human to decide where and how to use them. They won't replace us but we need to adapt to a new reality.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >As smart as these apps seem, they will still need a human to decide where and how to use them. They won't replace us Well, they will, if the AI plus 1 human deciding "where and how to use them" can replace producers and musicians playing...
- atleta 4y ago
  I hear this a lot (in relation to various jobs) and I still don't get it. Yes, it is a tool. Yes, if it can, it will replace humans. That's the whole point. For some reason people tend to think that these tools/AI/ML systems will never be good enough to do their job (or a specific job). This argument can take different forms, sometimes stating that it will just do the boring part of the work (e.g. with programming) or that it will still need human creativity (maybe, but not necessarily and that's not the point) or that it will just replace low level, unskilled or mediocre professionals. And somehow everyone thinks they are not mediocre (i.e. average). But even these assumptions are unfounded. Why would anyone think that these systems will top out below their skill levels? Why would anyone think that they can't become superhuman? They did in chess, go, I think poker too. Not to mention protein folding. And without much of a hitch between mediocre/good enough and superhuman. Because that difference is just interesting for us, but doesn't necessarily mean that there is huge step, that the system needs to undergo serious development and that it would take a long time. (Like decades or so.) People thought that was the case when AlphaGo beat Fan Hui saying that Lee Sedol was a completely different level. Which, of course, he is. Still, it just took DeepMind half a year to improve alphago to that level. So yeah, you can be pretty sure that if this track (no pun intended), if this solution is good enough then it will quickly evolve into something that will replace some music creators.
- cmsonger 4y ago
  Kurt Vonnegut and Player Piano has a message for you.
greenhearth 4y ago
Isn't this just a sampler with extra steps?
trynewideas 4y ago
I can't think of a genre that would embrace it faster. The pay-for-knock-off rap beat market will feel more pressure from this kind of tool, especially as loop-oriented as it already is.

by jtode 4y ago

As one of the meatsacks whose job you're about to kill... eh, I got nothin, it's damn impressive. It's gonna hit electronic music like a nuclear bomb, I'd wager.

spoiler 4y ago

As a listener, I think you're probably still safe. Can you use this to help you though? Maybe. It's impressive what it produces, but I think it probably lacks substance in the same way the visual AI art stuff does. For the most part, it passes what I call the at-a-glanceness test. It's little better than apophenia (the same thing that makes you see shapes in clouds, faces in rocks, or think you've recognised a familiar word in a foreign language; the last one can happen more often though). So, I think these tools will be used to do background work (ie for visuals maybe help with background tasks in CGI or faraway textures in games). I know less about audio, but I assume it could maybe help a DJ create a transition between two segments they want to combine, as opposed make the whole composition for them, but idk if that example makes sense. Now, onto a more human point: I think that people often listen to music because it means something to them. Similar for people who appreciate visual art. I also love interactive and light art, and I love talking to other artists at light festivals who make them because of the stories and journeys behind their art too. Humans and art are a package deal, IMO. Edit: typos and to add: Also, I think prompt authorship is an art unto itself. I'm amazed what people can craft with it, but I'm more impressed by the craft itself than the outputs. Don't get me wrong, the outputs are darn cool, but not if you look closer. And it's impossible to look beneath the surface altogether, as there is nothing in the output but the pixels.

api 4y ago
In general all this stuff is chopping the bottom off the market. AI art, code, writing, music, etc. can all generate passable "filler" content, which will decimate all human employment generating same. I don't think this stuff is a threat to genuinely innovative, thoughtful, meaningful work, but that's the top of the market. That being said the bottom of the market is how a lot of artists make their living, so this is going to deeply impact all forms of art as a profession. It might soon impact programming too because while GPT-type systems can't do advanced high level reasoning they will chop the bottom off the market and create a glut of employees that will drive wages down across the board. Basic income or revolution. That's going to be our choice.
- gummydogg 4y ago
  The top of the market started at the bottom. Entry level is requiring higher and higher skills and capabilities.
- astrange 4y ago
  The only thing that affects whether you have a job is the Federal Reserve, not how good productivity tools are. You always have comparative advantage vs an AI, so you always have the qualifications for an entry level job. There will never be a revolution and there's no such thing as late capitalism. Well, not if the Fed does their job.
  - halkony 4y ago
    I see a lot of AI naysayers neglecting the comparative advantage part. If AI completely eliminates low skill art labour from the job pool, it's not like those affected by it are gonna disintegrate, riot, and restructure society. They have the choice of filling an art niche an AI can't or they can spend that time learning other, more in-demand skills. This also ignores that fact that some companies would rather reallocate you to more profitable projects even if your art skills don't change. Selling a product with relative value like a painting or a sculpture will always be an uphill battle. Now that there's more competition from AI, it just gives artists/businesses incentive to find what people want that an AI can't deliver. Worst case scenario, employment rates in this sector are rough while the market recalibrates. Interested to see how these technologies develop.
    - Archipelagia 4y ago
      That seems a bit like wishful thinking. People don't have unlimited ability to learn new skills. Training takes time, and someone who spent several years honoring their craft won't be able to pick up a new skill overnight. On top of that, people have preferences regarding their work – even if someone has the ability to do a different work, they might find it less meaningful and less satysfing. Finally, don't ignore the speed at which AI capabilities improve. Compare GPT-1 with the current model, and how quickly we got here. Eventually we'll get to a point where humans just won't be able to catch up quickly enough.
ArmandTanzarian 4y ago
As a musician and listener i'm inclined to agree. There were a couple cool examples i bumped into, but some prompts generate results that don't represent any single word or combination of words that were presented to the AI. What this means for the future is maybe a little more unsettling however.
hahajk 4y ago
I think this type of generative stuff opens up entirely new possibilities. For the longest time I've wanted to host a rowing or treadmill competition, where contestants submit a music track. The tracks are mashed up with weighting based on who is in the lead and by how much. I don't know of existing tech that can generate actual good mashups in realtime given arbitrary mp3s, but this has promise!
- refulgentis 4y ago
  no, because is a function ("AI") that generates an image of a spectogram given text. neither a set of MP3 nor a set of spectrograms from MP3s supplies the function arguments or a connection to a path that uses that function
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - astrange 4y ago
    It says all StableDiffusion capabilities work, so you can prompt it with an image (either "img2img" or "textual inversion"). Their UI just doesn't expose it.
- marktolson 4y ago
  It's not too hard these days with open source BPM detection and stem separation libraries: https://github.com/deezer/spleeter https://github.com/deezer/spleeter
sycren 4y ago
Potentially it could be used as temporary atmospherical music for pre-viz video shots
rob74 4y ago
I fully agree with what you wrote. This AI-generated music, while a great achievement, still sounds soulless. It's one thing to look at AI-generated pictures for a few seconds, but listening to this music with its gibberish "lyrics" for minutes really creeps me out - it's the "uncanny valley" all over again, I guess. Regarding "can you use this to help you through?" - yeah, you could probably use it as a source of inspiration, but at the risk of getting sued by someone whos music you didn't even know you were copying...
- neuronic 4y ago
  Yea, it's uncanney valley, sure. For now. With Stable Diffusion and similar generative systems we have seen a leap in generative art/media, partially with significant improvements within a few months. What makes you think this was the last or only leap in the next 5 to 10 years? As if progress would just stop here? Huh?! Do you think we hit a ceiling were progress is only tangential? A line which is impossible to cross? Otherwise I dont get this mindset in the face of these modern generative AI systems popping up left and right.
rhelsing 4y ago
I think this is a good point. To make this useful for music creators, and to make music creation more generally accessible, the output needs to be more useful. We are working on that at https://neptunely.com https://neptunely.com

gravelc 4y ago

I love simple generative approaches to get ideas, and go from there. This seems like an extension of that (well, it's what I'm going to try - sample the output, make stems, pull MIDI etc). Will make the creative process more interesting for me, not less. Having said that, it's not my job, and I can see where the issues lay there.

godelski 4y ago

Why do you think this will kill your job? To me this looks like an extension of the hip-hop genre.

jtode 4y ago
I am an active musician, but I don't actually make money at it, I was mostly joking, but: I believe that we are (one determined smart person + six months) away from bots on Youtube and other streaming platforms that generate endless "new" music that follows those simple formulas (beat, bass, sample = loop, several loops connected up = song) 24/7. Raves that have no human DJs and never stop. Good? Bad? Not for me to say, really, the most I make at it is a couple hundred bucks for two nights in a bar playing FM radio hits, and there's lots of people younger than me who like that music, so obviously I'm doing it for different reasons and I don't anticipate losing access to as many bar gigs as I want for the rest of my life. But certain genres are very tolerant of low-effort music, and I think the people who are monetizing low-effort music are gonna lose their income streams. I do different things than those people, but I still consider them compatriots, even if I don't care for their art.

WheelsAtLarge 4y ago

These are tools. Don't think of them as replacements, they aren't. But as tools that will help us be creative. As smart as these apps seem, they will still need a human to decide where and how to use them. They won't replace us but we need to adapt to a new reality.

coldtea 4y ago
>As smart as these apps seem, they will still need a human to decide where and how to use them. They won't replace us Well, they will, if the AI plus 1 human deciding "where and how to use them" can replace producers and musicians playing...
atleta 4y ago
I hear this a lot (in relation to various jobs) and I still don't get it. Yes, it is a tool. Yes, if it can, it will replace humans. That's the whole point. For some reason people tend to think that these tools/AI/ML systems will never be good enough to do their job (or a specific job). This argument can take different forms, sometimes stating that it will just do the boring part of the work (e.g. with programming) or that it will still need human creativity (maybe, but not necessarily and that's not the point) or that it will just replace low level, unskilled or mediocre professionals. And somehow everyone thinks they are not mediocre (i.e. average). But even these assumptions are unfounded. Why would anyone think that these systems will top out below their skill levels? Why would anyone think that they can't become superhuman? They did in chess, go, I think poker too. Not to mention protein folding. And without much of a hitch between mediocre/good enough and superhuman. Because that difference is just interesting for us, but doesn't necessarily mean that there is huge step, that the system needs to undergo serious development and that it would take a long time. (Like decades or so.) People thought that was the case when AlphaGo beat Fan Hui saying that Lee Sedol was a completely different level. Which, of course, he is. Still, it just took DeepMind half a year to improve alphago to that level. So yeah, you can be pretty sure that if this track (no pun intended), if this solution is good enough then it will quickly evolve into something that will replace some music creators.
cmsonger 4y ago
Kurt Vonnegut and Player Piano has a message for you.

greenhearth 4y ago

Isn't this just a sampler with extra steps?

trynewideas 4y ago

I can't think of a genre that would embrace it faster. The pay-for-knock-off rap beat market will feel more pressure from this kind of tool, especially as loop-oriented as it already is.