The first 80s song I heard was a literal copy of Phil Collins. But there are no emotions attached to it (for me), and the lyrics are random. It’s more like supermarket background music IMHO, not something I would pay for, especially when we have centuries of music to discover already, why make fake stuff like that?
Edit: I have just heard the funniest most ridiculous metal song ever without a touch of metal inside. Breathe of Death, it’s like a bad joke.
If thats the future of anything, I’m going back to plain C (code) when I retire and I’ll never approach the internet ever again.
In my opinion training on all music is no more theft than Taylor Swift listening to the radio growing up (as long as we don't regurgitate existing songs which would be bad and useless anyway). I think an alternative legal interpretation where all of humanity's musical knowledge and history are controlled by three megacorporations (UMG/Sony/Warner) would be kinda depressing. If the above is true we might as well shutdown OpenAI and delete all LLM weights while we're at it, losing massive value to humanity.
It’s intellectual property laundering. A company selling a button that launders the blood sweat and tears of generations of artists is not the same as a person being inspired and dedicating themselves to mastery.
Humans create value. AI consumes and commoditizes that value, stealing it from the people and selling it back to their customers.
It’s unethical and will be detrimental in the long run. All profit should be distributed to all artists in the training set.
> In my opinion training on all music is no more theft than Taylor Swift listening to the radio growing up (as long as we don't regurgitate existing songs which would be bad and useless anyway).
I beg of you, speak to some real life musicians. A human composing or improvising is not choosing notes based on a set of probabilities derived from all the music they’ve heard in their life.
> I think an alternative legal interpretation where all of humanity's musical knowledge and history are controlled by three megacorporations (UMG/Sony/Warner) would be kinda depressing.
Your impoverished worldview of music as an artistic endeavor is depressing. Humanity’s musical knowledge extends far beyond the big 3.
> If the above is true we might as well shutdown OpenAI and delete all LLM weights while we're at it
Now we’re talking.
> losing massive value to humanity.
Nothing of value would be lost. In fact it would refund massive value to humanity that was stolen by generative AI.
The difference being that a musician being influenced by other musicians still has to work to develop the skills necessary to distill those influences into a final product, and colors that output with their own subjective experiences and taste. This feels like a conveniently naive interpretation to justify stealing artists' work and using it to create derivative generative slop. The final line in your comment is pretty telling of how seriously you take this issue (which is near-universally decried by artists) -- some other massive company is doing a bad thing, so why shouldn't I?
edit: I have to add how disingenuous I find calling out corporations owning "all of humanity's musical knowledge and history" as if generative AI music trained on unlicensed work from artists is somehow a moral good. At least the contracts artists make with these corporations are consensual and have the potential to yield the artist some benefit which is more than you can say for these gen-AI music apps.
I’m skeptical about how much value AI art is going to really contribute to humanity but as a lifelong opponent of copyright I have to roll my eyes when I see people arguing against it on behalf of real artists, all of whom are thieves in the best case and imitators in the worst.
Megacorporations owning copyrights to the majority of IPs(music, games, etc.) is a capitalism/monopoly problem. How does getting rid of copyright and allowing your company to profit off other peoples work in any way solve that issue?
no one can actually explain the value OpenAI adds to humanity. What massive loss? What have we gained from this entity other than another billionaire riding a hype cycle?
These high-quality music models require pirating many, many terabytes of music. Torrents are the main way to do it, but they likely scraped sites like Bandcamp, Soundcloud and YouTube.
AI music is a weird business model. They hope that there's enough money peddling music slop after paying off the labels (and maybe eventually the independent music platforms) whose music you stole. Meanwhile, not even Spotify can figure out how to be reliably profitable, serving music people want to hear.
JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B|1 year ago
Edit: I have just heard the funniest most ridiculous metal song ever without a touch of metal inside. Breathe of Death, it’s like a bad joke.
If thats the future of anything, I’m going back to plain C (code) when I retire and I’ll never approach the internet ever again.
zaptrem|1 year ago
braebo|1 year ago
Humans create value. AI consumes and commoditizes that value, stealing it from the people and selling it back to their customers.
It’s unethical and will be detrimental in the long run. All profit should be distributed to all artists in the training set.
relaxing|1 year ago
I beg of you, speak to some real life musicians. A human composing or improvising is not choosing notes based on a set of probabilities derived from all the music they’ve heard in their life.
> I think an alternative legal interpretation where all of humanity's musical knowledge and history are controlled by three megacorporations (UMG/Sony/Warner) would be kinda depressing.
Your impoverished worldview of music as an artistic endeavor is depressing. Humanity’s musical knowledge extends far beyond the big 3.
> If the above is true we might as well shutdown OpenAI and delete all LLM weights while we're at it
Now we’re talking.
> losing massive value to humanity.
Nothing of value would be lost. In fact it would refund massive value to humanity that was stolen by generative AI.
gazebo64|1 year ago
edit: I have to add how disingenuous I find calling out corporations owning "all of humanity's musical knowledge and history" as if generative AI music trained on unlicensed work from artists is somehow a moral good. At least the contracts artists make with these corporations are consensual and have the potential to yield the artist some benefit which is more than you can say for these gen-AI music apps.
wryoak|1 year ago
Xelynega|1 year ago
code_for_monkey|1 year ago
lexandstuff|1 year ago
AI music is a weird business model. They hope that there's enough money peddling music slop after paying off the labels (and maybe eventually the independent music platforms) whose music you stole. Meanwhile, not even Spotify can figure out how to be reliably profitable, serving music people want to hear.