I'm sure chat GPT could tell you how to fix that

Touché. I will ask it tmrw.

I have to agree there. I want talk to type / click for my whole computer. Or a car I can talk to like Kit.

OMG yes

Fairly certain that's at least partially by design, Google doesn't want you to go to Word and Microsoft doesn't want you to go to Docs, they only make money by keeping you in their ecosystem.

Oh shit, I watched C&T but forgot that was the premise.

@@Un1234l in fact, I think it was also directed by the guy who made cowboy Bebop. And it was stated that it's in the same universe.

Watching it now. Thanks for the heads up.

@@MrCOLBSTAHYou are correct on both counts

It was a great show 👍

Yep, the future is in live instrument playing… Suck in on that tech-bros! We’re going full circle.

any idea what they were singing about?

just wait 20 years and maybe Boston Dynamics will have built a robot dog that can play guitar

How would you feel if those live musicians were playing music that was written by AI?

@@earthtones33 l’m pretty sure some musicians will choose to play AI generated music, but these musicians were most over 50 years old and playing the most traditional Portuguese music ( written by Portuguese legends ) in a place famously known for just that. So it is very unlikely they would make such an out of context and poor choice like playing something created by an AI. It would be like serving potato chips in a high end restaurant. But to answer your question, I’d probably not notice it because AI is getting very good at creating similar things to what humans have historically created.

Don't worry. You're not gonna be replaced any soon

Honestly I thought AI would fly planes first too.

now that is a good use for it :) i play guitar because i think its fun. i have no intention on making it a career. its just a hobby. i wouldnt want to use this for music "writing". my cousin made a backing track for jamming along to on guitar. thats a pretty good use. as a tool rather than actual music making.

yep. AI is a tool. Not doubt there will be pop artists that use this. I'm guessing it will be more like photoshop generative fill, or a writing tool

This is the worst it will be, soon people can generate polished music, the music industry is going to shrink proportionately with supply. AI will take all intellectual jobs, teaching included, soon they will have bodies and agency. The globalists at the WEF is pushing AI hard, expecting 40% near turn efficiency. Meaning 40% less employment.

Why would you use a model that exploits artists, though (especially as an artist)? There are ethical models. See Fairly Trained.

@@WilloWat human nature. Same way that AI has become an profit driven and control arms race

I’mma be honest I don’t think I’ll be able to stay away from it haha. I love it too much

@RoomieOfficial This is why AI won't ever completely replace artists- visual or musical! Many people are hard-wired to create. As long as people find joy in creating and performing music, as long as people build community by jamming together, as long as people gather in a space to experience the shared emotions and physical vibrations of live music, ​human music will remain viable. Maybe corporations intent on pumping out hit after hit will struggle, but real music, with heart, soul, and passion will survive; for the joy of it!

Yes, as i said on multiple occasions, i subscribed for Joel and i want to see him and listen to him.

​@@RoomieOfficialyesss plsss make more music, id love to see what you'd make.

⁠​⁠@@RoomieOfficial You don’t know how happy I am to hear this!!

You dont waste it, you can still do whatever you do in the past Ai just give you more options, it dosent take any of the ones you have in the past You are free and now any body can do music without the time sacrifice you do, isnt that good?

@@moastray5093 They're free to be jobless while people play with cheap imitation music? They sacrificed their time to be skilled at the craft they *enjoy* doing for a living. You take away both their life's purpose and income, and you genuinely think that is a good thing? What other options will be given, especially to put food on the table?

@@NeroMai art is to be percive and to express, not for soembody to live of it if ai is better at medicine than doctors you would argue that people may not use ai instead of human doctors to mantain theyr jobs? let me answer that for you: NO, medicine exist to save the lives of people and to reduce suffering in this world, not for people to live of it you would tell someone to die because doctor need theyrer job?, because a surgery would have a higher dead ratio and a lesser sucess ratio

labor economics hasnt been functioning for a while and ai is gonna terminate to kill it, we need post labor economics and people would be able to do art for love for it and no for profit motive... maybe and just maybe we will be free finaly our time would be ours to decide and not from others to decide thats my dream

@@moastray5093 It's not for you to decide whether or not artists want to live off of their hard work, that's the artist's decision. If someone spends 8 hours producing art and music for a client, they deserve to be paid fairly. That's how artists have been operating for thousands of years. I'm strictly referring to people being *replaced* in favor of ai. I'm not talking about doctors using it alongside their work, so cut the whataboutism. You still haven't answered my question. In 2024, what options does this give to artists when you're taking their livelihood away? We're not living in some utopian society where people don't have to work anymore, we're far from it. So using that as an excuse while people could easily be homeless by next year is a short-sighted and ill-thought-out delusion.

the problem with AI isn't the whole "what's the whole point of making art still?" because, it's proven in the past with other things. when digital art came, traditional art still prevailed, and etc. the problem with AI is its insane energy consumption, moral and ethical issues, and how it's getting spread in schools and accepted as something we should keep on "waiting to see what happens". it doesn't have enough laws against it yet and we need to actually stop normalizing generative AI for the push for more laws.

@@SouloxYT when you say energy i do think i have heard about that how the servers take a lot of power and therefore is bad for the enviroment? yea i do agree about what you said and theres also alot who works with art that might lose their jobs but i think why they dont stop it is because it makes them money and all of the countries are kinda in a race of who will have the best ai or somethig as it can be used as a weapon. if we ban it in only one country thats not gonna stop it.

Humans will continue to produce beautifully unique music which will be copied by the AyEye.

@@jondepaul2372 yea like we create by observing the world and it creates by then observing us, its always gonna be an uncanny feeling about that.

@@jondepaul2372 Humans will continue to make music and tools like AI make them more productive, just like every tool has in the past.

Don't worry. They'll do the boring and tedious stuff too. Enjoy. I'm just waiting for AI to replace CEO's and government, then we're really talking.

unintentional best Suno ad

well this is not real AI so ofc it will only do the fun, easy, stuff. Music is just audio data, a program to generate audio data isn't crazy difficult, this is what this Suno is, there are no AI in real life, this are just programs that generate data because they have access to huge databases of it.

@@momentary_ that will never happen haha

Why do you want to stop people who can't sing or play an instrument from making good music through AI? If they can make good music, good for them!

it is insane

it's ok. Don't be so quick to be impressed.

Suno is way better though

@@WillyJunior suno is catchier but it's wood.

@@bloodyiceberg6827 wood? What does that mean

Ive seen a lot of people complain about how AI takes from what people have already done, essentially making the claim that its like "copyright infringement". I think this is a totally asinine argument, and it shows the level of ignorance to how humans create too. We live our lives taking in tons of visual, auditory, and sensory data. When MOST people create things, the foundation of their creations are based on things they've seen/heard/experienced before, just with some tweaks added. This is no different than how AI works, its just a lot faster, and can be a lot better at it.

@@undeadarmy19 As a music teacher, as well as a Billboard charting producer, I 100% agree with you about the creative process. Everything comes from stuff before it. You're absolutely right - I have taken other work at the suggestion of labels and networks and retooled it and turned it loose into originality and freedom only when the style and the exact "frequency" was laid in as per the plan and vision before the session occurred. I could claim - at least this month, because stuff evolves in this space quickly, that myself or a professional like me does it a lot better (utilizes other people's music, either directly with sampling or by imitation, and makes it their own thing) and also very quickly. However, I have watched AI music generation go from kinda awkward and cringey 20 seconds (last year) to now, so this probably won't be for long that humans do it better. This is not the part of it that I contend with at all. Things coming from other things is natural and you're absolutely right. Coming up with new stuff based on other people's stuff just means you know what lane you want it in, and what audience will be hearing it - that you're focused (and probably its a commercial work, so that's a big part of its success, a clear direction and execution). The part of it which myself, as someone who has streamed over 3B times in the past 10 years and worked with high level artists globally, contend with is a legal idea. It's the right to own your creative work, and get paid for it. Often (most of the time), those rights and most of that ownership is sold to a label who delegates and directs the work's mission - gets everyone who should be hearing this to hear it. What I was talking about was those performance rights. I don't mind if AI spins off a jam based off of my track or song. I get a bit agog when it literally breaks the law and uses pieces of my vocal or guitar part without permission to use it. Trust me, if ChatGPT bot would ask me permission and register my author's name in their publishing of the new work - also known as "2nd gen distribution" - stuff that DJ's do all day more or less? I would gladly allow co-authors, including AI, to do what it do, and my LLC is in the royalty chain and I get paid for the hours I spent doing that. But it's the "wild west" in that space right now... and so the tech start ups (and giants like Meta) are "scraping" audio catalogues (meaning ganking them, not buying them) and then letting their network software run wild with no limits of usage. Those examples we heard in this post were "emotional" - not because the AI made them that way, but because the pro singers and instrumentalists they lifted were playing it that way. It's one thing to "come up with something based off of something else" like you are saying - and that's not my complaint. In fact, I teach composers how to do that - it's a necessary method in many cases and a lot of fun. It's when the actual recorded material, which is signed and licensed and owned by folks who created it, is used. It's easy enough for the tech companies to settle with labels and composers and performers and get these permissions. My only complaint is that right now, they aren't doing it. DJ culture, very early on, like in the late 80s and early 90s, went through a "wild west" period like this as well. Eventually there was enough litigation and stuff got settled and any high level DJ licenses 100% of the actual recorded material he uses from other artists for their own creation legit. It will happen one day with the AI tech companies too. This will get solved. Thanks for reading my essay! I hope it makes sense and clarifies. Have a good one, undeadarmy. Keep using your voice! I hope you felt heard by this.

*** I said "he uses" about DJ's near the end - I meant he or she.

​@@undeadarmy19 It's a ridiculous myth that GenAI "learns" from training data the same way people take inspiration from influences. Humans are not machine learning models. AI breaks data down and uses it to tweak parameters, which are essentially probabilities. Then when generating content it uses the parameters to "guess" what it should output based on the prompt. That's definitely not "better" than how humans take from their influences. Human creations are affected by the artist's unique skillset and subjective opinions every step of the way. Even when trying to "recreate" something by their favorite artist, they will end up making something unique to them. Artists build on their influences and innovate. These models are incapable of that. It's also possible to get them to spit out something roughly identical to what they were trained on.

Ai creations should be illegal. It's stealinf

I empathize with you and all kinds of artists who are feeling demoralized by AI's capabilities. If it's any consolation, I'd much rather enjoy art by a human being. It feels much more impressive to know that the art was made by human skills, not to mention the emotional connection that comes from knowing that someone's personal feelings and thoughts went into the art. A drawing/painting of something is usually much more captivating to me than a photograph -- and a photograph taken by a human photographer is usually much more interesting than an image captured by something automatic, like a satellite or surveillance camera.

​@@NormaLeeIWoodthat is one point of view. Then there's the one I subscribe to - that the art is to me as valuable as what it represents to me and how it makes me feel. If it isn't interesting to be, then that's that, I'm just not interested. I enjoy both human-drawn and AI-drawn images. The difference is that some of the images I'd like to be able to see just do not exist or I cannot find them, and I would not make a commission either way, oftentimes a commission is a matter of tens or hundreds of dollars and you cannot even be sure if you'll actually like the outcome. Which is why I value the option of being able to generate an AI images, because otherwise they wouldn't exist at all either way. While the AI helps a lot to people who just don't know how to draw it cannot afford to spend time on it, it also often isn't *quite* right or what you wanted, but it's closer to the result you wanted them nothing. Then, if you actually *CAN* afford commission it can be a reference that you can show someone to point them in the direction you want. AI also as of now has limitations. I hit a wall many times with my asks for some simple things. A snake. A white owl flying straight at the camera. More than one person on the image and their interaction. Animals being depicted faithfully. Hands, eyes. So far AI has real issues with many things. I don't know how it will look in the future, but I feel like the very nature of AI and the flood of images will make it very difficult for AI to be an answer to all the questions. It will be like an idea, like "something along these lines". And for more faithful or precise images we will still refer to real people.

Nah Im happy about AI Art, Years ago I wanted a logo done by this cool artist and he never responded. Now I can just generate something, If I don't like it, I re-roll. all for free

No offense but if the existence of AI takes inspiration out of you maybe you need therapy. And I'm serious about it. I'm not pro AI but it won't go away just because artists get sad, it will go away if artists keep doing art.

An AI can create art that is good but it can't create art that is YOU. Only you can do that.

If I make a song on it can I release it or is that not allowed cause of copyright

@@ronanfoote1376 You definately can. Even those "sounds exactly like that song" examples shown in the video that people cherry picked aren't even remotely sufficient to cause any copyright issues.

UBI universal basic income. We work because we want. Not to Survive

@@carkawalakhatulistiwawe wouldn’t we would waste time on social media like this instead

and thats the whole point, Ai as a tools not final products

I think this is absolutely the best attitude to AI music. It should be about generating inspiration..... taking that and making a product that people want to go see. I don't wanna go see AI.... i wanna go see what people can do with their material.... however that material came to be.

how can you really learn from it though?

Listen to your gut. Feel intimidated. AI. is. your. enemy.

This is the sanest comment I've read here and your example of the synth feels spot on. Technology has forever been "replacing human jobs" to some extent--horse breeders are not as needed as they were 150 years ago. While technology causes some suffering due to job displacement, it also provides more opportunities. The people that scare me are the ones that call for banning AI. That would have to be so far reaching if it was going to be enforceable at all. BTW I do feel for you feeling like something precious has been taken from you. I just don't think it can be stopped.

😢

Yeah that's an amazing comment, and you might be right, I personally don't see the need for a band or artist going down, I just think bands will have their fanbases and they will be loyal, and you might just get less people making it big but more people with loyal fans.

as a college student studying music I can help but feel genuinely scared for how this might change my whole plans for my future life as a musician. maybe you're right, maybe we will still be around, but the question is will our talent and dedication still be appreciated and treated as amazing, when my best friend can do the same thing by clicking a button and writing a few prompts. all I'm saying is, it hurts little

Half of the things you learned are already automated versions of old processes. Same with this

"wise man" huh... 😂

Sounds alright to me, I despise celebrity culture.

@@TeaspoonLicencesame

If by "Wise man" you mean the inpredibles's villain, yea, quite clever

That's the sale's pitch.

As long as it's trained on existing music, that will always happen. At least in that, humans have a clear and obvious advantage.

Also, your brain is kind of hard wired to look for those kinds of connections.

@@pokepress It's not hard wired to look for similarities. It's hard. wired to find predictability. There's a big difference. One is you're listening and you can fill the next note. Come by. The other one is you're looking for something that's already existed. And that would make it very complicated. Turn. producers of all genres to come up with new and intivating sounds. Then.

i agree in general but i enjoy listening to 99% of my music without knowing its history and specifically my favorite songs aren't really art so much as it is good music.

I think that many good songs can be AI, but the best will be human because of the way it can connect to humans. Some people like the music because of where it comes from, rather than if it is actually good.

❤

I know barely anything and often nothing about over 90% of the music I listen to. Not about the story that lead to the song itself nor the story of the artist(s) behind it. This particular reasoning would barely have any influence on my enjoyment on listening to a song by humans over AI.

"49th Street Bridge" song is another one that people don't get. Paul Simon was walking and looking at a bridge and a lamp post with flowers at the base of it. He was looking for fun and feeling groovy, so he wrote a song about it. Interesting when one knows the history.

I think the reason AI companies are trying to make models that make "art" rather than do some boring job that no one actually wants, is because you can't really do art "wrong," so AI will look impressive making it to get the companies more funding. also people have seen artificial art as the "final frontier" for technology so its an eye catching goal. Also most art, especially music is very well catalogued with most releases having a lot of metadata that goes with it like genre, subgenre, mood, key, bpm, lyrical topics. Having a huge database of well cataloged and organized data is the dream for AI developers and takes out the initial gruntwork of setting up training, making it very tempting to make models like this

do you think that AI companies aren’t trying to automate away “soulless work” people have been attempting to fully automate manual labor for decades. it just so happens that our current technology is not yet capable of that. we are capable of generating decent imitations of art photography music etc.

​@@user-wn2pv5qb5ppeople are being gaslit into thinking most work is soulless. Most work isn't. Fake work is, which is what might be left if AI develops and permeates society enough.

Why do you want to replace the "soulless work" I do? I love my manual labor job in agricultural processing. I don't want to be forced to make art or music to feed myself. Honestly, you're so full of yourself you can't see it.

You mean you're glad you only spent half of your life instead of your whole life because it's meaningless now?

Time to ask around Indie game Devs, I guess. That's one use case I can't see AI taking over within the next 10 years, because to tailor make songs that fit specific actions and emotions within games is way harder.

@@hiiambarney4489 It's already being done... many indie game devs are supportive of it as it's cutting costs by a ton.

@@SirVonStein "many indie game devs are supportive of it" oh, so they're demons? got it..

@@hiiambarney4489na there will definitely be a way to parameterize and focus with more specificity

Yeah that was weird

@@kallethorenhe always does them late

@@lography6917 I see. I haven't watched in a while, thanks for the info

That’s what they call a cold open.

That's just a choice of whoever made the model, you could remap artist names to whatever other phrase you want. It's just there for guidance to get styles you want. Same shit as every 2nd artist having the exact same artstyle, they just call it by their own name instead of the first person that started that wave.

First time? U get use to it.

Maybe it isn’t as precious 🤔

Well get over yourself.

I relate totally as a musician myself..but I don't think u mentioned it right..its not SO abt "the talent" AS the PASSION(FEELING etc) that we can put in our music as an individual person/artist that NO AI can replace it...imho😊😊❤❤

In Shakespeare's time, the value of that talent was even lower, because everyone could play an instrument. It's not about your talent to play. It's about your talent to cause emotional connection between your message and your listener. How you are doing it - is irrelevant.

@ElectroBOOM We got AI to write, then to draw, and now it can sing. Soon, it'll be able to electrocute itself for entertainment as well. You might be able to automate your entire channel :) Please don't. I'm sure most of us prefer the traditional ways of organic electric misconduct.

As long as you aren’t using the songs for monetary gain (assuming you’re a free user), you’re free to use it as background music.

⁠​⁠@@dianjonkersome people already automate numerous channels… hooray…

pay for a license to use music by actual artists, or use one of the COUNTLESS peices of non copyrighted music available online for free. this AI is solving a problem that doesn't exist

if you get the subscription you can use it for commercial purposes love you videos medhi

What's the band's name? they sound fun

@@abb5643 ONEWE! just as a heads up, they're a Korean band (the instrument playing kind), so you'd likely need to find fan translations if you wanted to know the lyrics of a particular song.

:(

No it won’t dude. Companies aren’t about to entrust the most vital part of their business, their money, to predictive models like this.

Then get out and adapt now, avoid sunk cost fallacy if you really believe your job will be redundant by the time you graduate. Easy to say, i know, but just give it some serious thought

In quite a few countries have laws against fully automaton, plus you don't need AI for something ridge like maths. your safe.

​@@frankjennings4489 doesn't need to be 100% automated for people to lose jobs. If AI programs can handle even 30% of the work load, then they hire 30% fewer people. If you think that AI isn't going to be used to "optimize" companies and devalue human labor, you're much more optimistic than I am.

Trained partly on midjourney images? 😂

@@orangearts-desgs5614I guess unless you developed the tools or read the model research white paper details, its hard to know!

@@PremiereGal Yes, that's true. I don't really know what to believe.

Make labelling art made by AI as "made with the help of AI" mandatory, isn't this the case somewhere already? It has its issues, like how do you "label" it on the radio without making it annoying? Etc.

ban AI. what's it gonna be used for anyway?

@@imannamsolving problems humans can’t?

​@imannam it has some good uses but for things like this it doesn't do anything to benefit humanity and that the problem. As ai can be used to get more accurate movements in video games or calculations for some massive projects. (I know games aren't exactly nessarry but it was just an example that it can be beneficial and shouldn't be used in a way it harms certain industries rather then benefit society as a hole.)

A better solution ban ai for anything that doesn't benefit society as a whole.

I can 100% relate to this, been writing songs for awhile now in a variety of genres but could never conjure up a band of any sort to produce any of them. These tools for the first time gave real life to my creations. It felt cathartic I can't lie. Many of them I've played on guitar but it is only one instrument where to truly bring life to the lyrics I would need many.

It's more likely that the AI made the majority of the lyrics and a human tweaked them to make it better. At the end of the day, if the AI creates the vocals, instrumentals, and 90% of the lyrics, that's not human art.

@@Briggsian it would be great to be able to upload your own creations and have the AI use it as a reference for creating fully produced works based upon them (even using your own vocals) with enough flexibility to adjust the arrangement and sounds to your own personal requirements. I can see that being the next step.

@@ichtozavuzovsky8370 My brother used to enjoy writing music as a hobby. He's a damn good piano player and a pretty solid trumpet player, but he doesn't play any other instruments. But when MIDI really started to take off in the 1980s, he could hear what his compositions sounded like if he had a drummer or a strings section or a saxophonist or whatever part was missing. Obviously, this takes that process to the next level. I could easily see this being a game-changer for someone who needs a quick commercial jingle or a backing score for a low-budget movie. Hell, the stuff Roomie is playing in this video is already many times better than whatever the hell Tommy Wiseau used for the sex scenes in The Room.

I guess what is kinda upsetting about this, if youre familiar with trying to form a band... this makes it worse. It does encourage people to go "solo" and fill in their gaps with AI, instead of perhaps using their social networking or local scenes or university (etc) to find people that could be actually decent reliable members. Like it encourages more unbalanced ratios too, at least for the rock and metal world. I notice a decrease in drummers who actually play acoustic drums, also bassists. Its almost a meme now. Its good that people can access these sounds IF they choose not to network or work with others or cannot. But a lot of folks will default to it since it is easier, ALSO solo = all money to yourself and not another bandmate.

It's all about lyrical content to me. It did sound really good.

I agree. I would love to dig up a link to the actual version generated here

I am able to find it, if i google “Carolina-O Hemingway udio”.

i’m able to find it by googling “carolina-o hemingway udio”

@@Ev3ntHorizon i’m able to find it by searching “carolina-o hemingway udio”

No need for studio recordings in the upcoming version. We all know how this is going to end.

Likewise. You can use it to have a clearer idea of what you actually want to make.

except it's using copyrighted music from artists that actually have talent, you're just sampling bro

@@bosonbreeder I'd love to be able to generate stems. I guess that's the future. Text generation for audio stems

@@maudjitobut then what’s the point? This isn’t me starting a fight, I’m just genuinely confused haha. What part of music making do you enjoy if it’s not making the actual music? To clarify, this is about your response to Bosonbreeder not your initial comment

truly!!!

Please give me your argument for how AI threatens art, I'm curious to hear.

@@TunaIRL Art is literally just human expression and communication, what more needs to be said

​​@@fuwu9904 And how is ai affecting any of that? Will you become a brainless noodle because of ai or what's the argument?

@@TunaIRL the threat is not that human made art will disappear completely, but a part of the human creativity will be left to the AI, the same as in the industrial revolution when some of the things people were doing were replaced by machines, it had a huge upside, everything became more easily available, cheaper, it allowed the world to progress, but it also made a whole generation of people to need to adapt, which was fine in the end, but those people probably also had doubts and resentment towards the new technology; also a certain quality of the products made by humans before was lost, mostly uniqueness. The industrial revolution turned out to be a huge success for humanity (even with the effect it had on the environment) because it made it easier for us to get basic things we needed. With art it is more complicated, it should probably remain an expression of humanity, and this advancement, while it won’t destroy the creative need people have, it will make it way harder for people who are not top tier to make a living out of it.

I think that song was written by a person and the vocals and instrumental were AI. It flowed way better than any AI song I’ve seen and there were too many layered meanings in the lyrics.

@@frankjennings4489 Have you seen the capability of ChatGPT(or other LLMs)? -When it came released in end of 2022. I made it write a poem about a blue banana. Totally whack idea and it made it work. The language skills of an LLM is way beyond my own. Pretty sure, you can generate better lyrics than any person can come up with or equally good.

Ready Player One

​@@djtbone001a imagine Ready Player One, except the main character is the only human in the movie and all his "friends" are AI characters in the game he's hopelessy addicted to...

".... I got broom" even better. lol

But it’s the very reasons you mentioned that make me believe AI art and music won’t replace human-made art and music. Art and music doesn’t exist in a vacuum. They predominantly serve a social function. Without the socio-cultural context, music is just noise and art is just materials. It is the meaning that we collectively imbue upon art and music that makes it valuable.

For me this is really not the same. I see two fundamental differences. First is treatment capacity (no human can possibly learn on as much music as AI does). Second is that you actually listened to those songs, which is how artists get recognized ; AI does not listen, it just computes data, and gives the artists zero recognition.

​@@lacunae2784 we even remotely don't understand how the human brain works and there is a debate wherever free will actually exists. To this extent, we cannot really say how exactly we give "recognition." Also, some can argue that AI model recognizes music by scoring it, adding classifications. Some songs get more weight in the model. True, engineers still tune models to their liking to receive "pleasant" sound, but transformers decide how to tear apart content, where to store it and which sound combinations to prefer when making music.

cuz 1 is done by a person duh the only thing that matters is whether HUMANS were involved not the evil terminator thieves

@@T13Nemo I meant recognition as in contributing to the artist’s success (sometimes financial well-being too, though not always). When you listen to music, appreciate it and even get inspired by it (as long as it’s inspiration and not plagiarism) it is the intended pupose that the music was created for. When AI companies scrape music to be converted into patterns by a model, without crediting or compensating the artist, and even with the objective of replacing them, it does not respect the intented purpose. The music is not appreciated, just used like a raw material. (This is a bit of a tangent, but I tend not to pay attention to the elucubrations about free will from neuroscientists. Complex systems (like our brains) have emerging properties (properties present in the system as a whole but not in its individual parts). Conscience is an emerging property. Some neuroscientists tend to obsess about the parts and forget the bigger picture, and get deluded thinking they are the only ones qualified to talk about the human mind. In my opinion, our understanding of free will and its limits is way better advanced by the fields of sociology, psychology, or philosophy.)

Some people argue that humans have their own voice and style when writing music even while imitating others, while AI does not. It can only work with what it's fed, which would make AI generated stuff not original.

Just in a few months, you won't be able to tell which is human and which is a robot. (It's really over for us)

@@CraddyMusic You might be right about that and it is really sad. At the moment I feel like AI voice doesn't have as much emotion in it and the lyrics seem quite generic and everything kinda sounds a bit like something u have heard before or like some famous artist... but yeah that technology moves so fast that maybe they are able to catch up on those too. I hope that the laws and such would move faster and that there would be a way to regulate the use of AI or at least some way of knowing what is human and what is AI. Probably wishful thinking... But at least the AI "artist" won't be able to perform live. Not that every current musician wants to or has a chance to do live concerts... But still, to me it is really important knowing that the song is made by human, otherwise the story feels empty in a way. So in the future it's probably more important to search for the information about the artist...that it actually exists..

​​@@CraddyMusic If what you do has no other value than creating sounds for people to hear then unfortunately you aren't doing much as it is. Actual artists do so much more than just create. They think. They think of ways they can communicate an idea or thought or a way of being to people through their medium. An artist does not need to fear being replaced because they're not valued for what they do but who they are and what they have to say about the world. It might simply be the case that you have nothing to say. "Why should people care?" Is the question an artist needs to answer for themselves. If you think AI can replace artists then you truly do not have any idea what it means to be one. All you need to ask is how many tickets to a concert will an AI song sell? Right now, why should people care about what you make? What questions does your work ask? What does it answer? Why is it important? An ai song can never answer those questions. People have no reason to care about ai songs. Unless there's an artist behind the ai creating meaning for them. An artist could see the infinite potential in criticizing AI and everything around it. Communicate the bad things, show the emotions you can bring to people personally. Or is all you want to create simply sounds that you hope people will like while you compete with ai in doing that? I know which one I'm picking.

@@TunaIRL I'm glad you guys are this hopeful but any artist's "Magic" can be fed to the AI and replicate it. Of course, the large labels are safe because they gatekeep their business with lawyers, etc but pretty much every up-and-coming producer/artist is fucked to the core. Sites are gonna be flooded with AI-generated music so they can exploit it for money. Any nonmusician will be able to generate professional music, artwork, and even videos to promote it. Live shows? Soon, you won't be able to tell that their music was AI-generated.

@@CraddyMusic I have to assume you did not read what I wrote. I'll ask a more simple question. How many tickets to a concert do you think an ai can sell? Can it interact with the people there? Can it create personal connections? Moments with people? There's a lot more to being an artist than creating music or painting paintings. You not knowing this might indicate the fact that you aren't an artist in any meaningful way. I'd love to hear how the ai algorithm recreates ticket sales for sure. Again, simply because you are fucked, does not mean people who have something to say will be. If I ask you why should people care about your music, what will you answer?

The problem with this is not that creative humans will stop making creative things, it is that creative humans will have a much harder time to earn a living. If AI music would cost less to play (on the radio, on Spotify, in shops etc) they will play the AI music.

i love using AI like suno, i love to write poems/songs but can´t sing or create music, so i use suno to make songs out of them for myself. but i understand the fear of music artists behind it

You are missing a very crucial part in your theory, some people dont care about instruments, musician and artist. In fact most people dont, wich is why your top 100 spotify is plagued with artist that have never played an instrument in their whole career. This will just create a very polarized view on musicians and make it harder for real talent to be seen in an endless sea of AI songs. Ai is just a product with no personality. But i agree in that you can recreate michael jackson voice but you cannot recreate his charisma on the stage or his motives for doing music, but no artist today will or can and thats just a fact.

@Divig Maybe initially. But watching talent live, listening to people producing music in real time - nothing can beat that. You can buy a cheap print from Dunelm, but a real painting from a local artist is so much better. Being a musician is hard now. It had always been under paid. Producers who "create" fake groups and digital music won't last long. I trust in humans to ultimately prefer human creativity over AI.

unless they can make concerts into a VR experience

it's a tool that enables people to make more art. i wouldn't feel sad about Photoshop just because it means people paint less

Humams arent special, if something has been touch by a human or not it dosent mean anithing

And listen I understand, I’m an artist who draws. I personally don’t feel the AI art threat that much since I’m not going to pursue that career path, but I could understand how scary it is to see your only source of income to be taken away by a ROBOT with no life. This is also why I’ve been hesitant because I’m literally someone part of this “field” of creativity. (In terms of art.)

I appreciate that you have a conscience. Since the melody isn’t yours, it’s unwise to monetize it. I write this as a musician who has really, really wanted to use certain samples in my own songs but who could not because I couldn’t clear them (the original artists had terms that felt too restrictive or the sample cost too much) and so went on with my life and eventually created other stuff that I love just as much if not more. There is tech that allows you to record melodies with your voice or anything else and can turn these into various instruments. This means that, just by humming, you could create an entire orchestral score. I think what you’re encountering is more a mental block-a self-fulfilling belief that you cannot do something without relying too much on tech. Try listening to songs you like and harmonizing or jamming to them. Try this with songs that are increasingly sparse (that seem to invite more layers). You will likely write melodies without thinking about it too much. Just make sure these aren’t too close to the songs to which you are harmonizing. Also, as with visual artists who carry around sketchpads, always have a handheld recorder handy. I wake up all the time at night to record song ideas.

I think it is absolutely ethical to use the melody to make your song. I don't know what the future holds for musicians but for now this is a brand new tool and it would be silly to not use it while you can.

I believe it is ethical, because you approved of the melody's existence and you were the one who decided it fit perfectly with your song. The AI could've written something completely different that you wouldn't have liked. It's essentially browsing samples, or copy/pasting code from the internet into your program to create the final product you wanted.

What about musicians who don't write their melodies and use outside writers? 99% of pop artists - Suno and other AIs is just a new way to have outside writers if we think about that - I see no problem at all with this morally speaking - also there are artists who made their names on sampling such as the Beastie Boys and Daft Punk - etc

Midjourney isn't free.

@@TeleviseGuy I didn't even realize it was charging now

i mean if you really want to use all these it wont be free, they all need subscriptions to either use them at all (MidJourney), to use the newest models (ChatGPT) or have a go at it more that 3 times a day (Suno). but it would still be a fraction of cost/time a song made by humans would take.

@@fullmetalheichou4336 And even if you pay and the price is what one considers reasonable, they're not going to stay that price for that much longer. All of these companies are hemorrhaging money right now. Eventually, they'll need to make a profit.

do u know any more free ai stuff? PLZ tell meh (yes ik im poor)

Exactly. Nor it can take away the fun of playing them. Anyway, i hope this will spark a new interest for small live shows, so indie artists may have a bigger pie to share which they didn't had before anyway, since the market was already flooded with dancers lip synching over some ghost producer uncreative stuff.

People will always be able to tell the difference. AI will never be able to do more than take the formula and generate an answer. It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it processes. It will always sound hollow and will never be able to replace, especially live. Who wants to hear a song made or "performed" perfectly every time. I think the biggest thing you need to worry about is the grifters stealing your creations to line their pockets, this stuff will settle into its limitations or go the way of crypto.

all AI creators and their creation will soon have to be labeled so it differentiate from human creators and artists. Then is up to the consumer what he wants to buy, either AI content generated products or Human generated products.

You will be making music only for yourself but why not.

​@@Anxious_McStabby the vast majority of people aren't able to tell the difference right now. I don't know where you get your confidence from.

Its already too late for that

But the prompt can only generate something thats in the algorithm

Plus, digital/electronic instruments add new layers of potential expression through sound design. Most of the music I make isn't melodically complex, but I can still express a lot just through the infinite ways you can program a synth patch.

No offense to you at all. I'm not correcting you, only adding to what you are saying. That is a nice disposition you have - I respect that. There are indeed some "creative choices" that AI prompters make in the process. Just understand that they are akin to "Make something passionate and really feel good, you know? At a mid tempo. And it's rock, but not too much. Male singer but not too screamy. Ok.... go!" There is no music AI platform that needs you to supply even the basic information that a DJ would need to supply, such as key or tempo. Much less understand what the AI generates for you, or create it in any way that inhabits technical or musical skill. I'm not sure you care to understand, or want to hear, but what a musician, writer, and performer puts into their craft and the release of any new song or music you have ever heard is a bit more focus, dedication and care, and talent than this. This is the idea that a 5 year old child with reasonable spelling... oh wait, never mind, the bot will do that for them too... can garner a hit nearly instantly, and actual music talent that spend literally years of dedication are out of work or scrambling to be "something on youtube" instead. I know that no one cares as long as the beat is thumping. I know.

@@monomentalmusicgroupllc3163 The prompt can be likened to the request made by a client or creative director in an agency to an artist. In other terms, the prompt engineer act as a commissionner and the IA as the artiste. Sorry as a French guy, I may not have used the right terms, but I hope you get the point.

@@vorrdegard2176 That is factually incorrect. Deep learning is not an algorithm or a database. An algorithm is a set of instructions, it cannot learn. AI can generate things that have never been heard before, even if it has similar qualities to things in it's training set. But, this is not very different from humans who learn to make music by listening to other musicians. Less than 1% of human musicians are making unheard sounds and inventing obscure genres. Most of the time, human artists are more derivative than AI, because human artists learn from a much smaller set of music than an AI does.

✊✊✊

My thoughts, exactly

This is plain awful. And the people behind this technology are horrible people, which are currently performing a crime against humanity. They are going to suck all life out of culture and society. This is a bleak future we are heading towards.

The difference with that, is that you didn't have to be a good singer, but you still needed to make a soundtrack to sing or rap over. AI just straight up makes a whole song for you. Artists could probably just use AI to make their beats though, and leave the lyrics to them, but that still leaves less to the imagination.

@@taiguy53 To be honest I hate autotune so much that I prefer this AI music, which is saying a lot. Not saying that I approve of it, just prefer the sound. It sounds less fake than autotune.

Then the holograms drop 💀

Not only that but even for traditional writers, you can use as a refrence point to brain storm something, than take it and adjust it more fine tunes, same with art. Right now AI art cant really do fine tune detail. You can't use it to make a steady stream of anime/comic because it almost never draw character the same way, asking to altering one thing gives you a whole new picture. I think this will just speed up the process of music for everyone, but live real performances will still be wanted. Look how crazy people been for Taylor Swift. That wont go away anytime soon.

@@casandra0 My initial thought too 🥲

Soon you will never know if it’s real what is coming out of the singers mouth 😕

@@Mikas_Emil Its always been that way, most concerts are done using Studio recordings that are tweaked with Autotune and all sorts crap because ton singers are horrible at it.

There is Creative Commons license, which means alot of content can be used by community for free as long as its author is mentioned somehow in credits. So its possible to train AI models without breaking copyright restrictions.

This seems unstoppable. The AI is the same as human inspired by song, style and influenced when creating it’s own work. That’s not copyright

@@Strepite yeah but a human remembers the feel and sound of different songs they've heard, maybe some specific melodies, not the entire thing front to back including all of the metadata lol, this is more than human

​@@user-dv5ts3de8ebut can you copyright a Ai song. No, only human creators can get a copyright.

@@beantreats Yeah but it’s not blatant copyright infrigement. The AI analyzed music just as a musician analyze other songs. Only yeah, it’s much more powerful than human in that aspect

you mean like the eagles????

Which used

That wasn't the point that was made, it was about the introduction of cameras in smart phones and how that democratised photography, not about the original camera.

@@JavedAlam-ce4mu Both good points then.

Songs were similar to each other long before AI. There are literally millions of songs with the same chords progression. Also, band s and labels too often thought that copying somebody was a shortcut to success.

@@ChristianIce i have been a dj and music producer for about 25 years and there has been loads of technology and software advancements. i personally dont have a problem with A.I. for me its just working out how to make it part of my toolkit for creating new music. i think the way A.I. learns and implements the ideas is exactly how humans do it only faster! my point about udio emulating mix transistions was just to point out that you can tell it has been fed with dj mixes aswell as individual tunes. also when i was trying to make certain genres the song would randomly transistion as if it was being mixed into another track like how djays do it. Anyway for me it seems that i could use things like udio or suno to help come up with ideas for demos or testing out lyrics to then adapt, modify and use in my own production. i do think a.i music will replace certain producers. stock, library music producers and maybe some generic pop music producers. but creativity will never die. true creative people will survive lol.

@@dagga07 Yep. stock music is going to be a thing of the past. But also my ADATs are a thing of the past, a past when you *had* to go to a studio because "home recording" didn't exist. Remember those times? :)

@@ChristianIce in my first year as sound engineer i had to learn to use Adats and cleaning the reel to reel tape machine and how to record the timecode onto the tape. But i only used the reel to reel once in a session and Adats a handful of times and never had to use them again once i moved studios. So yea definetly a thing of the past, but im sure some enthusiasts might want to use vintage gear now and again.

I don't think the issue here is AI. We, as humans, keep trying to invent things to make our lives easier. For example, the viability of being a musician has shrunk over the years with every new innovation. We've invented so much software (and hardware) for making music to the point where you can make a hit song in like 2 minutes with barely any brainpower. Now the field is so oversaturated that making it your career is entirely up to your luck. We invented that technology to make our lives easier, but there's no end in sight to human innovation. One farmer can do the job that 100 farmers in the 1800s could do, and only 2% of people work as farmers now, to feed the entire population. A digital artist can finish a photorealistic masterpiece in the time a professional painter would spent mixing their paint. And that's never going to stop, and people don't want it to until it affects them. It's appealing to a musician to have a new tool that allows them to mix and master music 10x faster, but the hidden cost of that tool is that the 9 extra songs they can make in that time are 9 songs that occupy space other musicians would've been able to fill. Still, you can't hate on the tools because they do make our jobs easier, it just seems like those jobs will be shifting into being hobbies rather than viable careers in the future.

@@research417 My question was totally about hobbies. Isn't it going to be harder for creators like us to find the motivation to make something that will no longer be unique or exceptional? The job part is out of the topic, of course this is replacing us.

@@alexyauffeves3840 Well in the end the humans are still the ones making unique music and new genres. The AI can't make a genre that isn't in its training data. It can make a good song that's within what we've heard before, yeah, but a one of a kind masterpiece is still out of its reach. I think it'll just raise people's standards and encourage people to step up the bar.

That's what I'm saying. Nobody's ever going to consciously seek out AI generated art unless they're doing it for the purpose of seeing what art made by a machine looks like. So far, I've literally never seen anything generated by an AI that has been talked about as art rather than technology. Even with AI bros, it's always "look how competent this AI painting is" and never "Wow, this AI art is impressive from an artistic standpoint, the AI really used an interesting technique!" People ultimately like art because of what they can see behind it, and knowing that it was generated by a machine kind of takes away some of the fun of interpreting art, because ultimately, the AI didn't have a deeper meaning it was trying to convey. It was just doing what it was told.

what world are you living in? the image generators did not die. they are only becoming more widely used. i see them in ads, presentations, fake social media pages, etc. all the time. it’s not as sensational as it was when it first arrived but they are becoming more deeply embedded in media every day.

Ai generated songs sound so bland

Not true

@@xheir well, I'm entirely convinced by that stunningly well thought-out argument. How could I have been so naive!

amen

Has synthetic diamonds increased the value of real diamonds? No it hasn’t. And in terms of music, people haven’t really payed for music since the creation of Napster and the internet. Technology has a habit of taking money out of musicians hands, not into it. If you think differently, look at your bank account and tell me how much music you have purchased in the last 10 years.

Sounds like you don’t create art from an authentic place and a spiritual/emotional place but from a “I’d like to make something but have nothing to talk about or anything actually inspiring me. Let me steal from a robot who stole from people who actually do write music and make art from an authentic place. I don’t have beliefs or anger or love that can inspire me on its own.” Live, feel, then come back and create. Don’t “create” for the sake of creating. That’s whack af.

​@RaineSternOfficial sounds like some vapid sophistry. I disgree with almost all of that

@@TheMasterOfTheFrets I don’t believe that you are lacking the emotional capacity to create art - but you don’t and shouldn’t need a robot to make it for you. Get inspiration organically. I do, and it’s damn good every time. I’ve never needed to be derivative. So yes, I take issue with your approach and always will. I find it lazy and likely the source of unimportant work. If you’re truly so inspired that you *must* make art like an artist, then you’re not searching for it. It comes naturally. There’s plenty of fuckery and beauty to write about - look out, and look in. Vapid? Scoff. I’ll go listen to your music, we can compare notes. I wouldn’t *like* me if I were you after reading this ^ but if you saw me perform, listened to my art, randomly met me out and about, I’m down to earth, helpful, empathetic, and damn good at what I do. So yes, I have strong opinions and I’ve earned them countless times.

@@RaineSternOfficial you've never had the technology nor the precendence of its use either. So, maybe give it a shot and compare. It's really fun