AI Music Has Crossed The Rubicon For Better Or Worse 

There are thousands of these channels, and they're absolutely terrible. Someone just asks ChatGPT to make a list of recent AI news, generates audio with ElevenLabs, and images / video mostly with one of the auto-stock-clip pullers. Then they put the whole process on automatic and crank out videos. The #1 problem is LLMs just write irrelevant fluff. ChatGPT mentions one fact from the article, not even an important fact, followed by thirty seconds of vague stuff like "technologies such as this have the potential to cause lasting changes to every part of our lives, from how we interact with one another to how we plan and go about our days. The engineers behind [product name] have taken a great step in the development of the underlying technologies, and their resourcefulness and ingenuity prove that... blah blah blah" It makes you want to pull your hair out waiting for it to say something interesting about the actual news. In a 10-minute video with 5 pieces of news, you get about 20 seconds of content and 580 seconds of vague fluff.

Then you add AI RU-vid viewers to the mix for total echo chamber. I'd be interested in seeing that done. I wonder how fast it would descend into total gibberish.

@@jmalmsten zombie world Maybe it'll keep going in some antarctica servers long after humanity has cooked 🤣🤣

that defeats the point of having background music. it needs to convey a feeling, an emotion, a mood, which is hard to do as it is, but when it's not a human doing it, how the algorithm is supposed to know what "feeling" is? at that point I'd rather not have any "music".

​@@VirtuousSaint It's only a matter of time until you find yourself enjoying stuff made by AI, and maybe only then you'll come to terms with the fact that all this anthropocentric rhetoric is little more than good ol' denialism.

Also, why on earth would a creator want anything that was "generic" unless they were spoofing it? Money? sad.

@@VirtuousSaintmaking a piece feel a certain way is already relatively algorithmic. AI should have no problems with prompts like upbeat, dramatic, suspenseful, etc.

You sound like a Luddite ​@@VirtuousSaint

That sucks

Ok, found some serious discussion on this I think I should share: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8FbAhkMBiTM.html and ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wEQ9Vg2YKcU.html. Udio is NOT transparent or open source and likely has stolen all the material it trained it's AI on. This is awful and should be fought tooth and nail if we want to preserve the rights of actual human artists.

I've tried to have this conversation in a couple of different writers' groups, and it's been disheartening how many people haven't even considered the ethics of how AI "learned." One lady was fine with using Midjourney for book covers, but she got quite indignant about AI-generated voices replacing voice actors (because she does some acting on the side.) It was a bizarre conversation. In another discussion, a computer programmer spent paragraphs patiently explaining to me all the wonderful uses of AI in medicine, warfare, etc, without once addressing my basic question - is it ethical to use AI that's been trained on copyrighted material without the copyright holder's knowledge to generate art which one then sells? It really upsets me that companies like Findaway Voices used deceptive practices to mine audio books published through their platform to train AI. I looked into doing an audio book with them years ago, and they were going to charge me thousands of dollars to produce the audio book, all the while using my novella and the voice actor to train AI without being up front about it. Thank goodness I was too broke to pursue the project. I've never played around with Chatgpt or Midjourney - it doesn't really appeal to me, but I have no problem if other people want to play around with the technology. I'm not opposed to using AI in certain creative scenarios - brainstorming, perhaps, or generating ideas for search terms and keywords when you're trying to figure out how to market a story. But such use should be far removed from the finished product, especially if you're intending to sell it.

What's the difference between what you're railing against, and a human writing a song based on their own musical influences? I don't see much, honestly.

​@@marzupalami difference is you get sued if song is too similar.

it's been really hard for me to find good and interesting (for me) bands. i had to go thru 95% of crap to find 5% cool. it will be even harder in the future. top 0.1% of good music XD

I think there's a reasonable worry here but I also agree that this is the future, or at least a part of it, and that it is all part of a new toolkit for artists and creators.

Come back to us when what you do for work has been rendered obsolete because of generative AI. I guarantee if its anything other than a manual task there will be someone developing AI to do it better for less & there's an entire industry dedicated to to automating the manual tasks too. Anyone who is aware of the kind of societal system we run on where a universal income will never become a reality & doesn't see the dangers in this is the real tool.

As for me, i do not want waste my life time to watch ai generated crap.

@@peacefulman2196 who says you'll know?

Not every person should be given the tools to create things through ai. The entire point of art is the process it takes to finalize something. When someone skips the entire process of dedicating time and passion to something; the value is reduced, and the quality is halved.

@@orbitaloutcast9878 That's like saying you shouldn't let people compose music unless they go to music school. Just because the end product might not be fantastic doesn't mean anyone should have the right to dictate who can and can't use a tool. Or should you or anyone else be allowed to decide which people get to use paint brushes?

@@bluemoondm8629 AI generated images\videos are smooth and can be detected by keen eye with 70% probability. Suno music, especially voice easily recognizible. Im sure there will be tools to detect generated content in near future.

Sounds like the worst thing ever. Worse than RoP. Using the "big machine" to produce Tolkien adaptations would be even more agaist Tolkiens ideas than what amazon is doing.

@@thegoblonoid He was an author not a prophet.

Isn't that what all artists do though?

​@@ErikKain haha isn't that the truth?

You scared bro? It's still learning. Just give it a little time and you won't be able to tell the difference.

@@marzupalami you won't be able to tell the difference

@@samvsmedia8680 I meant the "royal you" as in us.

It's a brave new world.

Perfectly sums up my feelings

There is an artist, it’s the symbiosis of man and machine. In the future, it may well be just machine. Disgusting is an odd descriptor. If it’s not to your taste, then fair enough, but disgusting it is not. Also, the vast majority of human art is mediocre at best, and I include myself as an author in that observation. The Pareto curve applies and will always be true, and hence the very best art will likely be human generated for some time yet, although when AGI arrives, all bets are off.

Point is make money for ai companies. Nothing more nothing less.