5 ms·

[flagged]

by jimbokun 2y ago

[flagged]

behnamoh 2y ago
because copyright? these AI tools are great for adding a music to your YT video w/o worrying about violating copyright.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  There's already a huge library of royalty free music available and even just AIing some music up doesn't fully protect you from strikes if it hallucinates something close enough to an existing song.
  - behnamoh 2y ago
    but these AI tools let you customize the music according to your needs.
    - rtkwe 2y ago
      How much direction can you actually give them? Doesn't seem like much you could actually tweak beyond the short style queue and lyrics. To really be customizable you'd need a method to tweak the generation to inform the tone, inflection, and flow of the music at any given point to satisfy what you wanted to pair it with. Songs have lulls and swells to go with the tone and emotion you're trying to create/communicate these are just strings of lyrics over boring barely connecting backing tracks.
ravi-delia 2y ago
This is why we never should have invented the phonograph. People who want to listen to music can just buy a record, making it literally impossible for them to perform an activity humans ENJOY doing. Without it everyone would surely be making all their own music, and nothing valuable would be lost
- TylerE 2y ago
  The ability to record has led the greatest expansion I musical artistry in human history. Ty it don’t think peasants were listening t to Bach, do you? Only the extraordinarily wealthy could afford to have music as anything like an every day thing.
  - jononor 2y ago
    And with more affordable and easier-to-learn tools, the creation of music will be similarly made much more accessible? DAWs and virtual instruments running on regular laptop was one step, generative AI models will be another?
    - iahds9uasd 2y ago
      The tools and knowledge for making music are already unbelievably accessible. Anyone with an internet connection and a decent computer can read about music theory, learn to use a DAW, and get some basic virtual instruments. The same goes for producing art, which doesn't even require anything digital. This does not augment the music making process in any way, it simply replaces it with what might as well be a gacha game. There's no low-level experimentation, no knowledge acquisition, no growth, and you can't even truly say you made whatever comes out. It's not a tool for music creators, it's a tool for people who want slop that's "good enough".
      - chefandy 2y ago
        Yes, there are a TON of free tools and endless instruction on using them. If you move your budget up to making one-time payments for things that cost less than one month using a subscription service, you get an astonishing breadth of new options. Beyond that, so many of the more expensive music making tools are one-time payments rather than subscription services. Buy Ableton once? You own it. You can get the latest version at a discount, but there's absolutely nothing stopping you from using the version you bought, in perpetuity.
      - jononor 2y ago
taylorius 2y ago
I don't think there's any stopping it, unfortunately. The internet is too good at "optimising" content. The future is Mr Beast, Instagram hotties and 6 pack guys, tiktok morons and onlyfans. Be happy, the market has spoken.
- chefandy 2y ago
  People that never considered the value of artistic process until it was the topic du jour unilaterally decided that it was inefficient, oppressive, complex, frivolous, and unfairly inaccessible to those that hadn't put any sustained effort into developing theirs. If you didn't understand what they don't, you'd realize that companies spending billions of dollars to create tools that make cheap simulacra of artists' work to sell them at a loss to crush them in their own markets was merely the natural progression of artistic praxis. Despite it being economically unsustainable and clearly only cheap until it craters the value of artistic skill, these tools have democratized creativity. Instead of creation only being available to those with the interest and willingness to practice and develop their artistic sense, process, and skill, they're now broadly available to anyone willing to pay money for a subscription service that will obviously soon be a hell of a lot more expensive, or shell out a few thousands dollars for a top-tier video card that you almost certainly already have in your gaming rig, anyway. This is silicon valley progress and if you don't like it, you're a communist.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    Totally with you. But it's the trend we get to re-balance in a good way: > People that never considered the value of artistic process until it was the topic du jour unilaterally decided that it was inefficient, oppressive, complex, frivolous, and unfairly inaccessible to those that hadn't put any sustained effort into developing theirs. This is eerily reminiscent of what's happening inside the USA government & administration today...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - 2y ago
nullpilot 2y ago
Not everyone enjoys composing music, and for a large group of people paying an artist is not an option. There's a lot to critizise about current AI tech, saying of all things this has no net benefit seems like the wrong thing to call out, and incredibly short sighted for HN.
- 6stringmerc 2y ago
  So putting paid humans out of business is your position then? Please explain why you believe in the long sighted view AI reducing already poverty level wages to zero is beneficial.
  - hexomancer 2y ago
    Do you not see how your argument could be applied to steam engines putting human laborers out of work? Or computers putting (human) calculators out of work? Do you think inventing the steam machine or computers was a mistake too?
    - glenneroo 2y ago
      What new jobs are going to be created when AI does everything humans currently do? In the past when new technologies were created, new jobs and industries were also created, but with AI, jobs are already being lost but I don't see many new jobs being created to replace them, other than "people who know how to talk to an AI to get what they want" and I have a feeling this will be a rather miniscule number of jobs.
    - jimbokun 2y ago
      Steam engines and computers solve problems to improve human life. They more efficiently perform tasks to free up time for humans to do other things they would rather be doing. These API composers perform a task many humans want to do. And there are roughly zero consumers of music saying "you know what's missing from the music market? music made with no human input." This strictly serves capital. The goal is to destroy more artists livelihood to marginally increase the wealth of already wealthy people.
SeanAnderson 2y ago
Dynamic music generation for interactive media seems like a good reason?
glenneroo 2y ago
Related: why are programmers racing to make the perfect AI coding tool? It's an activity many programmers enjoy, and more importantly, if the pace continues, they will likely be automating themselves (or at least a large portion of programmers globally) out of a job. Granted, many people are benefiting from these tools (myself included) but at some point a lot of us are going to have to find a new job (assuming the progression continues unabated), and I'm not sure what new jobs are going to exist when LLM coders replace many or most of us.
itishappy 2y ago
Some humans honestly enjoy automating stuff. We wouldn't want to be taking away something that humans enjoy, would we? I'm a musician myself, but I sadly suspect that most music made today "benefits humanity" very little... Is music making always a net positive? If nothing else, these tools will allow more music will be made.
- jimbokun 2y ago
  > Is music making always a net positive? Yes because the act of making music, even not very good music, is what has value. Music generated without human input has no discernible value. > If nothing else, these tools will allow more music will be made. By machines that, as far as we can tell, take no enjoyment from making it. And eliminates any possibility of emotional connection between the artist and the listener. Which is the entire source of music's value.
logicchains 2y ago
>You are automating an activity humans ENJOY doing. There's at least an order of magnitude more people who enjoy making music than there are people with the actual skill/talent to make music. Music generation AI is an absolute blessing to the untalented among us who'd love to make a song in a certain style or with certain lyrics but lack the time, talent or ability to do it ourselves.
- Juliate 2y ago
  Good for them, really. But don't mistake one thing for the other: how is it different than, say, being Emperor Joseph II asking Mozart in Vienna to write an opera for him? Mozart wrote the music, not Joseph. Similarly, you can hike across France, from South to Britain for several days. Or you can take the train. Or a car, alone, or with a driver. Or a plane, in the pilot or the passenger seat. You'll get in the same place in the end. The experience will be totally, fundamentally different for you, as well as for others.
Kye 2y ago
Generate track, extract the pieces I like, build a real track using those pieces with all the other samples I use.
_sys49152 2y ago
rap producers are running out of samples to use for new tracks. Everything vintage that can be used has been used, sampling real estate is pretty much dried up. Why would you take away a project that brings a net benefit to humanity?
Jaxan 2y ago
You can say the same about creating images, writing text and coding. Yet here we are with all kinds of AI tools to exactly that…
- jimbokun 2y ago
  Yes, we've taken a wrong turn into a hellish dystopia. We've created machines to replace humans doing things humans enjoy doing. Leaving the drudgery machines were supposed to eliminate to be done by humans.
grw_ 2y ago
why make this- because people like music? I want to use it to make my own music, according to you, I can't because it deprives some /real/ musician of making money? what an insane argument- ban singing unless you're in a choir?
dang 2y ago
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[flagged]

behnamoh 2y ago

because copyright? these AI tools are great for adding a music to your YT video w/o worrying about violating copyright.

rtkwe 2y ago
There's already a huge library of royalty free music available and even just AIing some music up doesn't fully protect you from strikes if it hallucinates something close enough to an existing song.
- behnamoh 2y ago
  but these AI tools let you customize the music according to your needs.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    How much direction can you actually give them? Doesn't seem like much you could actually tweak beyond the short style queue and lyrics. To really be customizable you'd need a method to tweak the generation to inform the tone, inflection, and flow of the music at any given point to satisfy what you wanted to pair it with. Songs have lulls and swells to go with the tone and emotion you're trying to create/communicate these are just strings of lyrics over boring barely connecting backing tracks.

ravi-delia 2y ago

This is why we never should have invented the phonograph. People who want to listen to music can just buy a record, making it literally impossible for them to perform an activity humans ENJOY doing. Without it everyone would surely be making all their own music, and nothing valuable would be lost

TylerE 2y ago
The ability to record has led the greatest expansion I musical artistry in human history. Ty it don’t think peasants were listening t to Bach, do you? Only the extraordinarily wealthy could afford to have music as anything like an every day thing.
- jononor 2y ago
  And with more affordable and easier-to-learn tools, the creation of music will be similarly made much more accessible? DAWs and virtual instruments running on regular laptop was one step, generative AI models will be another?
  - iahds9uasd 2y ago
    The tools and knowledge for making music are already unbelievably accessible. Anyone with an internet connection and a decent computer can read about music theory, learn to use a DAW, and get some basic virtual instruments. The same goes for producing art, which doesn't even require anything digital. This does not augment the music making process in any way, it simply replaces it with what might as well be a gacha game. There's no low-level experimentation, no knowledge acquisition, no growth, and you can't even truly say you made whatever comes out. It's not a tool for music creators, it's a tool for people who want slop that's "good enough".
    - chefandy 2y ago
      Yes, there are a TON of free tools and endless instruction on using them. If you move your budget up to making one-time payments for things that cost less than one month using a subscription service, you get an astonishing breadth of new options. Beyond that, so many of the more expensive music making tools are one-time payments rather than subscription services. Buy Ableton once? You own it. You can get the latest version at a discount, but there's absolutely nothing stopping you from using the version you bought, in perpetuity.
    - jononor 2y ago

taylorius 2y ago

I don't think there's any stopping it, unfortunately. The internet is too good at "optimising" content. The future is Mr Beast, Instagram hotties and 6 pack guys, tiktok morons and onlyfans. Be happy, the market has spoken.

chefandy 2y ago
People that never considered the value of artistic process until it was the topic du jour unilaterally decided that it was inefficient, oppressive, complex, frivolous, and unfairly inaccessible to those that hadn't put any sustained effort into developing theirs. If you didn't understand what they don't, you'd realize that companies spending billions of dollars to create tools that make cheap simulacra of artists' work to sell them at a loss to crush them in their own markets was merely the natural progression of artistic praxis. Despite it being economically unsustainable and clearly only cheap until it craters the value of artistic skill, these tools have democratized creativity. Instead of creation only being available to those with the interest and willingness to practice and develop their artistic sense, process, and skill, they're now broadly available to anyone willing to pay money for a subscription service that will obviously soon be a hell of a lot more expensive, or shell out a few thousands dollars for a top-tier video card that you almost certainly already have in your gaming rig, anyway. This is silicon valley progress and if you don't like it, you're a communist.
- Juliate 2y ago
  Totally with you. But it's the trend we get to re-balance in a good way: > People that never considered the value of artistic process until it was the topic du jour unilaterally decided that it was inefficient, oppressive, complex, frivolous, and unfairly inaccessible to those that hadn't put any sustained effort into developing theirs. This is eerily reminiscent of what's happening inside the USA government & administration today...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - 2y ago

nullpilot 2y ago

Not everyone enjoys composing music, and for a large group of people paying an artist is not an option. There's a lot to critizise about current AI tech, saying of all things this has no net benefit seems like the wrong thing to call out, and incredibly short sighted for HN.

6stringmerc 2y ago
So putting paid humans out of business is your position then? Please explain why you believe in the long sighted view AI reducing already poverty level wages to zero is beneficial.
- hexomancer 2y ago
  Do you not see how your argument could be applied to steam engines putting human laborers out of work? Or computers putting (human) calculators out of work? Do you think inventing the steam machine or computers was a mistake too?
  - glenneroo 2y ago
    What new jobs are going to be created when AI does everything humans currently do? In the past when new technologies were created, new jobs and industries were also created, but with AI, jobs are already being lost but I don't see many new jobs being created to replace them, other than "people who know how to talk to an AI to get what they want" and I have a feeling this will be a rather miniscule number of jobs.
  - jimbokun 2y ago
    Steam engines and computers solve problems to improve human life. They more efficiently perform tasks to free up time for humans to do other things they would rather be doing. These API composers perform a task many humans want to do. And there are roughly zero consumers of music saying "you know what's missing from the music market? music made with no human input." This strictly serves capital. The goal is to destroy more artists livelihood to marginally increase the wealth of already wealthy people.

SeanAnderson 2y ago

Dynamic music generation for interactive media seems like a good reason?

glenneroo 2y ago

Related: why are programmers racing to make the perfect AI coding tool? It's an activity many programmers enjoy, and more importantly, if the pace continues, they will likely be automating themselves (or at least a large portion of programmers globally) out of a job. Granted, many people are benefiting from these tools (myself included) but at some point a lot of us are going to have to find a new job (assuming the progression continues unabated), and I'm not sure what new jobs are going to exist when LLM coders replace many or most of us.

itishappy 2y ago

Some humans honestly enjoy automating stuff. We wouldn't want to be taking away something that humans enjoy, would we? I'm a musician myself, but I sadly suspect that most music made today "benefits humanity" very little... Is music making always a net positive? If nothing else, these tools will allow more music will be made.

jimbokun 2y ago
> Is music making always a net positive? Yes because the act of making music, even not very good music, is what has value. Music generated without human input has no discernible value. > If nothing else, these tools will allow more music will be made. By machines that, as far as we can tell, take no enjoyment from making it. And eliminates any possibility of emotional connection between the artist and the listener. Which is the entire source of music's value.

logicchains 2y ago

>You are automating an activity humans ENJOY doing. There's at least an order of magnitude more people who enjoy making music than there are people with the actual skill/talent to make music. Music generation AI is an absolute blessing to the untalented among us who'd love to make a song in a certain style or with certain lyrics but lack the time, talent or ability to do it ourselves.

Juliate 2y ago
Good for them, really. But don't mistake one thing for the other: how is it different than, say, being Emperor Joseph II asking Mozart in Vienna to write an opera for him? Mozart wrote the music, not Joseph. Similarly, you can hike across France, from South to Britain for several days. Or you can take the train. Or a car, alone, or with a driver. Or a plane, in the pilot or the passenger seat. You'll get in the same place in the end. The experience will be totally, fundamentally different for you, as well as for others.

Kye 2y ago

Generate track, extract the pieces I like, build a real track using those pieces with all the other samples I use.

_sys49152 2y ago

rap producers are running out of samples to use for new tracks. Everything vintage that can be used has been used, sampling real estate is pretty much dried up. Why would you take away a project that brings a net benefit to humanity?

Jaxan 2y ago

You can say the same about creating images, writing text and coding. Yet here we are with all kinds of AI tools to exactly that…

jimbokun 2y ago
Yes, we've taken a wrong turn into a hellish dystopia. We've created machines to replace humans doing things humans enjoy doing. Leaving the drudgery machines were supposed to eliminate to be done by humans.

grw_ 2y ago

why make this- because people like music? I want to use it to make my own music, according to you, I can't because it deprives some /real/ musician of making money? what an insane argument- ban singing unless you're in a choir?

dang 2y ago

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html