this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
424 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

58975 readers
6728 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Google is embedding inaudible watermarks right into its AI generated music::Audio created using Google DeepMind’s AI Lyria model will be watermarked with SynthID to let people identify its AI-generated origins after the fact.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stern 91 points 11 months ago (10 children)

People are listening to AI generated music? Someone on Bluesky put (paraphrased slightly) it best-

If they couldn't put time into creating it I'm not going to put time into listening to it.

[–] tahoe 47 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think I’d rather listen to some custom AI generated music than the same royalty free music over and over again.

In both cases they’re just meant to be used in videos and stuff like that, you’re not supposed to actually listen to them.

[–] interceder270 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Fun fact: Steve1989MREInfo uses all of his original music for his videos.

[–] tahoe 8 points 11 months ago

This is the ultimate YouTuber power move. Exurb1a and RetroGamingNow do it too!

[–] ChunkMcHorkle 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

A number of Youtubers do . . . and some of it's even good, lol. John at Plainly Difficult and Ahti at AT Restorations are two that use their own music that I can think of off the top of my head.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Sam with Geowizard. actually quite a few "big" channels do which is awesome

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

People are using AI tools to do crazy stuff with music right now. It's pretty great

Human performance but AI voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbbUWU-0GGE

Carl Wheezer covers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65BrEZxZIVQ

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=gbbUWU-0GGE

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=65BrEZxZIVQ

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] Piecemakers3Dprints 4 points 11 months ago

You tell 'em, bot. 🙌🏽

[–] ikidd 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Can it be much different from the mass-market auto-tuned pap that gets put out today?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

The singers of that music actually have to use their voice to sing into a mic compared to someone on a computer typing in a prompt.

As much as I dislike modern pop music, I will definitely say they put in more work than the people who rely solely on an AI that will do all the work based on a prompt.

[–] SweatyFireBalls 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

My own feelings on the matter aside (fuck google and all that) this has been something chased after for a long time. The famous composer Raymond Scott dedicated the back end of his life trying to create a machine that did exactly this. Many famous musical creators such as Michael Jackson were fascinated by the machine and wanted to use it. The problem was is he was never "finished". The machine worked and it could generate music, it's immensely fascinating in my opinion.

If you want more information in podcast format check out episode 542 of 99% invisible or here https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-4/episode-one-piano-player

They go into the people who opposed Scott and why they did, and also talk about the emotion behind music and the artists, and if it would even work. Because the most fascinating part of it all was that the machine was kind of forgotten and it no longer works. Some currently famous musicians are trying to work together to restore it.

The question then is, if someone created their life's work and modern musicians spend an immense amount of time restoring the machine, when the machine creates music does that mean no one spent time on it? I enjoy debating the philosophy behind the idea in my head, especially since I have a much more negative view when a modern version of this is done by Google.

[–] WillFord27 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I feel like the machine itself would be the art in that case, not necessarily what it creates. Like if someone spent a decade making a machine that could cook FLAWLESS BEEF WELLINGTON, the machine would be far more impressive and artistic than the products it made

[–] daltotron 3 points 11 months ago

i mean, where do you draw the line necessarily between the machine and what it creates? the machine itself is totally useless without inputs and outputs, not to say art needs utility. the beef wellington machine is only notable on its ability to conjure beef wellington, otherwise it's just a nothing machine. which is still kind of cool, I guess, but the beef wellington machine not making beef wellington is kind of a disregard for the core part of the machine, no?

[–] Smokeless7048 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That was a great episode of 99PI. Would love the machine restored.

IIRC, It's not so much that it made music, but that it would create loops through iteration to inspire people. He wanted it to make full busic but it was never close to that

[–] SweatyFireBalls 3 points 11 months ago

Yeah I think you're right, and it was apparently actually random. The longer it would play a loop the more it would iterate. Such a cool thing to exist

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] Lemminary 7 points 11 months ago

This is the worst time line so far.

[–] Sanity_in_Moderation 3 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

You will still listen to it, watching movies, advertisements, playing video games...

[–] interceder270 3 points 11 months ago (9 children)

Yikes. TIL you think music sounds good based on how much time went into making it, not how it actually sounds.

Can't wait for you to hear something you like then pretend it's bad when you find out it was made by AI.

[–] WillFord27 6 points 11 months ago (32 children)

This assumes music is made and enjoyed in a void. It's entirely reasonable to like music much more if it's personal to the artist. If an AI writes a song about a very intense and human experience it will never carry the weight of the same song written by a human.

This isn't like food, where snobs suddenly dislike something as soon as they find out it's not expensive. Listening to music often has the listener feel a deep connection with the artist, and that connection is entirely void if an algorithm created the entire work in 2 seconds.

load more comments (32 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think that's OPs point, but it's interesting how many classic songs were written in less than 30 minutes

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

As someone that's more than dabbled in making music, the best tracks I made all came out rather quickly, they still needed a lot of work to finish/polish but tracks that I would spend hours coming up with the core elements would usually be trash and end in the bin, the good stuff would just....happen.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)