4 ms·

It just launched and in 5 years it's going to be better than Sora is at making videos. In the meantime, thousands to millions of writers/producers are going to

It just launched and in 5 years it's going to be better than Sora is at making videos. In the meantime, thousands to millions of writers/producers are going to use this to rapidly block out pop songs and rake in $$$ because they'll use it like the genius tool that it is.

lambdas 3y ago
>thousands to millions of writers/producers are going to use this to rapidly block out pop songs I’d never considered how the inevitable dystopia would sound, and it’s worse than I ever dared to fear
- FridgeSeal 3y ago
  There is no area of human creativity safe from hyper-commoditisation by ML models.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    The ML models are a symptom of an already hyper-commoditized world where all the soul and human condition has been sucked out of every instance of creativity. AI is just letting us see it from a distance
    - chefandy 3y ago
      BS. There's a hell of a lot of art in commercial art, and trying to make it appealing enough for people to pay for doesn't change that. This glib "no TRUE artist cares about making money" idea, and the closely coupled belief that commercial art isn't real art are just handy mental shortcuts to cop out of considering the economic damage this technology will do to working artists.
      - Jeff_Brown 3y ago
        I agree completely, but also want to see this tech advance. The purpose of music is not to make it, nor to make money from it. It's to listen to and enjoy it. To the extent that computers help us do that, great.
        chefandy 3y ago
        This is a lot more nuanced that that. My position doesn't conflict with wanting to see this tech advance, and your wanting to see this tech advance does not lend support to your reductive utilitarian philosophical assessment of "the" purpose of any sort of art, as if there's one true one, let alone in the astonishingly broad realm of music. I can say that I want to see AI enhance medicine, and also think it's ok for doctors to want to be paid for the work they do. I can think the point of medicine is to heal people and not to make money off of it, while still thinking it's bullshit for the organizations to train a model with all of a doctor's diagnoses and fire them, which is essentially what's happening to many commercial artists. An artist can make something solely prompted by a client needing to use it for a product or service and it's still art... in fact, you can tell by the output of most of the available models that the vast majority of images they ingested were in some way commercial, and I'll eat my hat if anyone could make a model like this one without using almost entirely, if not entirely commercial music.
        jeb20 3y ago
        It's going to Destroy sync no question. one of the few avenues artists have left to make an income with music. My personal opinion is that this is wholesale theft. While the technology is dazzling there is just no way suno wasn't trained on vast catalogues of copyrighted music. What burns me up the most is that these people are walking around like they own the place. They don't. I really hope the NYT prevails in their copyright case. this will open a floodgate of lawsuits that will also be won. On the creative side of generative AI, AI seems like a parasite that will do nothing more than further concentrate wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. When all of those robots come online and really start replacing jobs, there will be a reckoning and it's not going to be pretty.
- MrScruff 3y ago
  Alternatively, you could argue that the vast majority of released music is already unimaginative rubbish. Industrialising the creation of more of it will make releasing this type of material completely pointless, so perhaps there will be more of a focus on finding original music to cut through the grey goo?
- adriand 3y ago
  I’ve thought a fair bit about what the future of music looks like in the age of AI and I’m not convinced that much will change. The ease of making music on computers already set the skill bar super low. In 2021 Spotify reported that 60k tracks are submitted to the platform every day. Will it really make a difference if this number goes up by 10X? What knowledge workers fear about AI already happened to musicians years ago. There’s a reason that the vast majority of musicians have to work a different job. This new tool will not make much difference to musicians, who are already economically marginalized.
pmontra 3y ago
Considering that we can only listen to about 15 songs per hour, times 16 hours = 240 songs per day, those AI composers won't make that much money each. If there are 1000 of them I'd need 4 days of uninterrupted listening to listen to a song of each of them. 1 million composers? 4000 days, 11 years. We'll be where we are at now: selection because of genre preferences, quality, fame, marketing.
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
> rake in $$$ How could they charge a high price when the supply of competition is so abundant?

lambdas 3y ago

>thousands to millions of writers/producers are going to use this to rapidly block out pop songs I’d never considered how the inevitable dystopia would sound, and it’s worse than I ever dared to fear

FridgeSeal 3y ago
There is no area of human creativity safe from hyper-commoditisation by ML models.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  The ML models are a symptom of an already hyper-commoditized world where all the soul and human condition has been sucked out of every instance of creativity. AI is just letting us see it from a distance
  - chefandy 3y ago
    BS. There's a hell of a lot of art in commercial art, and trying to make it appealing enough for people to pay for doesn't change that. This glib "no TRUE artist cares about making money" idea, and the closely coupled belief that commercial art isn't real art are just handy mental shortcuts to cop out of considering the economic damage this technology will do to working artists.
    - Jeff_Brown 3y ago
      I agree completely, but also want to see this tech advance. The purpose of music is not to make it, nor to make money from it. It's to listen to and enjoy it. To the extent that computers help us do that, great.
      - chefandy 3y ago
        This is a lot more nuanced that that. My position doesn't conflict with wanting to see this tech advance, and your wanting to see this tech advance does not lend support to your reductive utilitarian philosophical assessment of "the" purpose of any sort of art, as if there's one true one, let alone in the astonishingly broad realm of music. I can say that I want to see AI enhance medicine, and also think it's ok for doctors to want to be paid for the work they do. I can think the point of medicine is to heal people and not to make money off of it, while still thinking it's bullshit for the organizations to train a model with all of a doctor's diagnoses and fire them, which is essentially what's happening to many commercial artists. An artist can make something solely prompted by a client needing to use it for a product or service and it's still art... in fact, you can tell by the output of most of the available models that the vast majority of images they ingested were in some way commercial, and I'll eat my hat if anyone could make a model like this one without using almost entirely, if not entirely commercial music.
        jeb20 3y ago
        It's going to Destroy sync no question. one of the few avenues artists have left to make an income with music. My personal opinion is that this is wholesale theft. While the technology is dazzling there is just no way suno wasn't trained on vast catalogues of copyrighted music. What burns me up the most is that these people are walking around like they own the place. They don't. I really hope the NYT prevails in their copyright case. this will open a floodgate of lawsuits that will also be won. On the creative side of generative AI, AI seems like a parasite that will do nothing more than further concentrate wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. When all of those robots come online and really start replacing jobs, there will be a reckoning and it's not going to be pretty.
MrScruff 3y ago
Alternatively, you could argue that the vast majority of released music is already unimaginative rubbish. Industrialising the creation of more of it will make releasing this type of material completely pointless, so perhaps there will be more of a focus on finding original music to cut through the grey goo?
adriand 3y ago
I’ve thought a fair bit about what the future of music looks like in the age of AI and I’m not convinced that much will change. The ease of making music on computers already set the skill bar super low. In 2021 Spotify reported that 60k tracks are submitted to the platform every day. Will it really make a difference if this number goes up by 10X? What knowledge workers fear about AI already happened to musicians years ago. There’s a reason that the vast majority of musicians have to work a different job. This new tool will not make much difference to musicians, who are already economically marginalized.

pmontra 3y ago

Considering that we can only listen to about 15 songs per hour, times 16 hours = 240 songs per day, those AI composers won't make that much money each. If there are 1000 of them I'd need 4 days of uninterrupted listening to listen to a song of each of them. 1 million composers? 4000 days, 11 years. We'll be where we are at now: selection because of genre preferences, quality, fame, marketing.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

> rake in $$$ How could they charge a high price when the supply of competition is so abundant?