A survey published last week suggested 97% of respondents could not spot an AI-generated song. But there are some telltale signs - if you know where to look.
Here's a quick guide ...
-
No live performances or social media presence
-
'A mashup of rock hits in a blender'
A song with a formulaic feel - sweet but without much substance or emotional weight - can be a sign of AI, says the musician and technology speaker, as well as vocals that feel breathless.
- 'AI hasn't felt heartbreak yet'
"AI hasn't felt heartbreak yet... It knows patterns," he explains. "What makes music human is not just sound but the stories behind it."
- Steps toward transparency
In January, the streaming platform Deezer launched an AI detection tool, followed this summer by a system which tags AI-generated music.
172 Comments
the_q@lemmy.zip · 78 pts · 269d
phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 37 pts · 269d
If that gets killed off along with AI-generated music, that seems to be to be win/win.
tomiant@piefed.social · -2 pts · 268d
I genuinely think AI music is better than the shit they play on radio.
Krompus@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 268d
"Dog shit is better than cat shit"
tomiant@piefed.social · 0 pts · 268d
By a very thin margin, but yes. I'd rather listen to AI slop than the Human slop they try to pass for music these days.
Edit: Ah shit, I realized though that we are just gonna get talentless pop stars using AI instead. So both dog AND cat shit at the same time.
Brave new world.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 268d
And here I've been thinking there's been a big wave of great bands lately. Maybe you just listen to crap.
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 267d
I am talking about the music that gets played in coffee shops, malls, taxis, hotel lobbies, and restaurants all over the world. So yes, I listen to a LOT of crap.
The distinction is between mass produced radio pop and whatever high brow hipster music you're into.
Krompus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 268d
literally 1984
But also there is still lots of good human music being created, I guess it's passing under your radar. Ask around, browse Bandcamp, listen to radio (hint: it's not just local now, check out Radio Garden).
AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 267d
We are already in 1984, if anything AI allows others to make more human music because they dont need to find bands, fund studio time just to get a song to match the lyrics they wrote.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · -6 pts · 269d
The only thing more formulaic is Bach, who wrote music mathematically.
tomiant@piefed.social · 6 pts · 268d
Hahah he didn't exactly write according to a formula. That's like saying "yeah jimi hendrix is pretty formulaic, because he just plays guitar, with a limited number of chords and strings."
Edit: On second thought, the above is not a fair comparison at all, and there is a point to the mathematical nature of Bach, I just couldn't express it in a coherent and snarky way at the same time.
radiofreebc@lemmy.world · 47 pts · 269d
100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it · 13 pts · 268d
CarrierLost@infosec.pub · 11 pts · 268d
In case you were curious, apparently you can get Free eBooks at Planet eBook.com.
Natanael@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 267d
The versifivator is an implausibly close description of LLMs considering how long ago it was written
AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 267d
Not really they love having the human front to the ghost writers they employ today to make you feel like you connect to the artist so when they push brand deals and marketing you buy the products they made deals with. This if anything frees those ghost writers to actually make their own music without the shackles of a corporation breathing down their neck.
SpikesOtherDog@ani.social · 37 pts · 269d
I fell hard for Dysmn, who was suspiciously dropping new music every few days. I really liked the sound, and I haven't found anything that sounds like that since. 270+ videos in under 2 years. I realized it wasn't human after a month or two.
Soooo, if anybody knows a great jazzy EDM metal noise, let me know.
tornavish@lemmy.cafe · 12 pts · 269d
I looked that up, and it actually slaps. Not really my genre, but I can see how people would assume it’s real people.
pennomi@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 269d
tornavish@lemmy.cafe · 3 pts · 269d
I think this might be a way AI and humans can actually work together. A lot of musicians are creating digitally anyway. They might have to rely on drum loops if they aren’t good at beats. Iterating with an AI to get the right beat would be better than a loop, and still be a human making it.
However, I have reservations about the AI doing everything with little or no human involvement.
Carnelian@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 269d
That’s just like, your opinion
tornavish@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 269d
Right, pretty sure everyone but you knows it’s an opinion.
I think (think means opinion) most people, besides you, would agree that having a beat that is unique and not just downloaded from a loop library will produce a song that is more original.
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 268d
Do you create your own samples from scratch too? Kudos if you do, I haven't done that since the 90's, and I consider my music original. Ever used an arpeggiator? Or randomized patterns? Used a synth lead that came with the synth?
The distinction between automation and AI breaks down somewhere.
tornavish@lemmy.cafe · 2 pts · 268d
I like to take real life sounds and put layers of effects on them to make them indistinguishable from the original. My drum is me playing my cat’s butt (meow, slap). I love to take quick sounds and slow them down ~100k% and get really weird atmospheric drones, etc.
When it comes to involving AI, which I haven’t done yet, I’d love to use it to quickly iterate over ideas. I spend a lot of time chasing an idea and having it fall apart. I like the process, sure, but I’d prefer to have more wins.
Carnelian@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 269d
“In my imagination I speak for all people and we all think I’m right” chatGPT is literally rotting your brain bro
“The main issue musicians are struggling with is originality; AI can help :)” get a grip. Notice how in order for you to insert “ai” into this process you have to construct a fantasy where a totally uncreative person lazily drags a low quality beat into their project without a further care in the world? The root of your little fantasy here is simple and inescapable: AI is only appealing to boring, uncreative, soulless people. I know it, and you know it, which is why out of all the limitless possibilities your first argument is that it would be superior to something you already consider shit.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 268d
Strawman much?
tornavish@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 269d
“I refuse to have a polite conversation” - you. It’s exactly what you said, because it’s in quotes and I know how to use quotes. Hah.
I disagree.
If a person plays guitar-but not piano, and they feed their track into an AI and ask it to generate a backup piano track with specific instructions about how it should sound, they should be… denied that?
What should they do if they want a track that involves an instrument they can’t play? Hire someone? With what money? lol.
SpikesOtherDog@ani.social · 5 pts · 269d
The artist is upfront that it is just one person making music, and they say it is AI assisted in their discord.
BogusCabbage@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 269d
Can't say any legit bands that sound exactly like that, But some of the guitar and metal notes sounds inspired by Polyphia, Playing God (sorry for the yt link) might scratch your itch, otherwise look up the math rock genre, might find some gems there. Wish you the best of luck!
Gonna make a quick edit, Unprocessed 100% deserves a recommendation in this genre. Occasionally have some EDM but mainly more on the metal side, but still have some extraordinary strings akin to Polyphia
SpikesOtherDog@ani.social · 3 pts · 269d
I'm enjoying a lot of Unprocessed's Angel album. I'm also going to have to look at Polyphia and Playing God.
Math rock is one of the ways they advertised themselves. Also djent, but I'm not seeing that.
SpikesOtherDog@ani.social · 1 pts · 258d
https://youtu.be/sryKMEbUvQI
Psyqui is a Japanese EDM artist that has a similar sound. If the melodies and compositions are aigen, it may be a source.
Gerudo@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 269d
Check out a band called Unprocessed. I just found them after they did a collab with Polyphia's guitarist, another band to check out. It really sounds like this style.
SpikesOtherDog@ani.social · 4 pts · 269d
You are the second person to recommend Unprocessed. Almost 10 minutes into the Angel album. It's pretty good, definitely hits the target.
I'll have to check out Polyphia as well.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 19 pts · 269d
I have yet to hear an AI generated song that didn't have some obvious tells in the vocals. Like how you can hear autotune, but it's even worse than autotune. Crackly/crunchy, heavily distorted but only on certain words. Weird pronunciation or annunciation.
kindred@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 31 pts · 269d
Counterpoint: 97% of Listeners Couldn’t Tell AI Music from Real Artists, Based on Blind Tests
Hoimo@ani.social · 4 pts · 267d
Fuck, I failed the test. I have to wonder if they're full unsupervised generation though, because one of them had a recurring motif that I know an algo would have a hard time to keep track of. None of it was really my genre anyway, but it still got me good.
wols@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 267d
I passed, but I'm fairly confident I wouldn't have if it weren't explicitly a test. I listened to all of them twice, with the express purpose of identifying the ones that are AI-generated.
Even then, I wasn't as confident in my prediction as I would have liked.
I'll say, I did enjoy all of them musically, but when I paid closer attention to the lyrics, I noticed something really odd and hard to describe in the ones generated by AI. Like some new kind of cringe. Like it would be embarrassing for a human to have written those lines, but not in a relatable kind of way. Not in the usual "I'm embarrassed for you" kind of way.
I was torn between "I hope this isn't AI, I'm vibing with the music" and "I hope no human wrote these lyrics".
The whole exercise also shattered my perception of my own taste in music - I liked all of the AI-generated ones and I'm not happy about it.
frongt@lemmy.zip · 15 pts · 269d
You have yet to notice an AI-generated song that didn't have some obvious tells.
GreatAspie86@lemy.lol · 1 pts · 268d
Buffalox@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 269d
The drummer sounds like he has to many arms.
And the guitarist and the keyboard players sound like they clearly have more than 5 fingers on each hand. 😋
tornavish@lemmy.cafe · 40 pts · 269d
every progressive genre wants to speak with you.
comrade_twisty@feddit.org · 11 pts · 269d
So Phil Collins and Mike Rutherford? /s
Blaster_M@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 269d
davie504 be like
AbidanYre@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 269d
Could just be Count Rugen though.
Protoknuckles@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 269d
Rush?
HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 269d
That's blasphemy!!!
Protoknuckles@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 269d
I'm just saying. I hear about a drummer with 6 hands, it's gonna sound like Neil Pert. Dude is part octopus.
HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 269d
You're right. I miss that guy a lot. Every once in a while I'll watch a ton of his videos in remembrance of his crazy talent.
tomiant@piefed.social · 2 pts · 268d
That's ridiculous! Drummers can't have too many arms!
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 267d
Anyone using more than one is cheating.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 268d
Drummers very often sound like they have too many arms. Multiple percussion tracks can be layered, and also, that's kind of the point of trickier drum beats.
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 268d
I told the AI to make a drum track with a one armed drummer and I got copyright striked by the Rick Allen Estate.
audaxdreik@pawb.social · 14 pts · 268d
I was looking for videogame remixes one day and found a channel doing Little Nemo from the NES. I used to love that game and thought it was an odd pick for remixes, one you don't see too often so I clicked on it and ... it was incredibly underwhelming. I listened for a few minutes and something was kind of off but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. It was AI of course.
I'm not much of a music person, I've been listening to it daily for my entire life but I don't know much about theory. Still, when it comes to remixes, you can usually tell why someone remixed a song. They like that particular song, or there's a motif that really struck them. They'll pick out certain sounds or elements and build on them, single them out and rearrange them. It's very intentional and you can tell.
AI-generated remixes lack this intentionality. It was like someone had twisted a dial that just said "complexity" and that was it. There were more intricate layers of beats and instrumentation on top, but it wasn't doing anything. I sat there and listened for 15 minutes and it was like I heard nothing. Nothing new stuck in my head, there was no riff or little melody that made go, "Aw fuck yeah! This is what it's about!"
That's how you can tell AI generated music.
Sadly, a lot of slower and minimalist genres have been decimated by it though. Vaporwave, chillcore, dungeonsynth. A lot of these had large bodies of work to train on and it's a lot harder to tell due to their subtler nature, but you'll usually notice the artist has a new hour-long upload every day. If you click through it at random, you'll begin to notice that while the tones shift, the overall pattern of the entire hour-long mix is still kind of the same?
It's bleak, man. Fuck that shit.
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 267d
This is kind of irrelevant to the argument, but if I were to provide you with a mix of AI and organically produced music, would you be able to pick them out every time?
It's a bit like Andy Warhol's "Brillo box" art installation. Is it just a Brillo box he got at the store? Or did he make it himself, thereby creating "art"? Could you know the difference? Would you?
As a fun aside, a permanent exhibition of one of "his" Brillo boxes turned out to be fake (well, real, if you think about it, which is kind of the point of that piece of Warhol's art), and there was a huge investigation into who had taken the "original", but people had been coming and seen the exhibition for decades at that point, not knowing it was actually just a Brillo box.
I think this touches on the complexity of the issues presented by AI that is actually a pretty ancient philosophical debate around art, meaning, and value.
audaxdreik@pawb.social · 1 pts · 266d
I'd like to think much more often than not, yes. People talk about it being able to replicate low level pop and ... fine. But that's not really the kind of stuff I listen to. Maybe there's a statement to be made there about how far down pop has fallen that it can be mistaken with formulaic AI slop ...
Which I guess is what your point here is. What is art and who is the arbiter of that?
Kind of different circumstances as I see it, though. Andy Warhol still performed the art of the Brillo box. He took something basic and skillfully crafted it into art to prod the artistic community into considering what we think of as art and why. It was in no way a trick but a very deliberate and intentional statement, or question even.
AI on the other hand often feels like a trick. There is little to no intention, no human craft, and an effort to pass it off as a higher form of art than it really is. It's not asking questions or making statements but an effort to deliver "content" to fill some need. The need for more content.
But like, hey. That's just my opinion, maaan ...
roserose56@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 268d
Do you know why I listen to real artists? Because there is a story behind it, someone had an inspiration and wrote a fucking good album. AI has no story to tell, didn't broke up with someone to write a song, and certainly won't make star gaze the live concert I went to.
III@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 268d
And here I was only listening to music because the of the joy I get from some producer getting more and more percentage of the profits. Maybe I should rethink my reasoning...
Natanael@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 267d
You may unfortunately have a terminal case of retail investor brain
ICastFist@programming.dev · 1 pts · 267d
Shhh, quiet! Otherwise they might get kidnapped by trump's goons and put on an executive seat!
AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 267d
Ah yes the story written by ghost writers so the marketable front "artist" for the label can sell brand deals and ads when that "artist" goes on tour and does interviews. People using AI can still write their own lyrics and make music based on the same inspirations you say makes real music. If anything this frees the ghost writers who might not have a great voice or ability to play instruments well but has phenomenon lyricism can plan a good musical set to make their own albums and be free from the oppressive labels.
roserose56@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 267d
Speaking of the popularly artists like Taylor Swift? I totally understand, yet, there are artists that really create music. Still, AI, can't do a live.
_edge@discuss.tchncs.de · 12 pts · 269d
This description of AI songs could be a lament about most pop music: formulaic, sweet, generic, produced in a studio to sound perfect, not human. Works on radio or Spotify, but not so much for a live audience.
Sure, that's hard to detect. AI reproduces what we've been exposed to for decades.
benignintervention@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 269d
I've been trying to figure out if Stone Rebel is an AI band or not. They started in 2018 and have put out something like 77 albums since, but it's relatively simple instrumental. They have almost no information online except a claim that they're "based in France"
Honestly can't tell if they're a legit yet very private group, or if they were early adopters of procgen music
MourningDove@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 269d
Carnelian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 268d
Sometimes experimental/improv groups can basically make an album a day if they put their mind to it. Often live recorded with minimal post processing. It’s far from mainstream but it can be surprisingly popular among the right audiences.
Haven’t checked out this particular project but it’s possible
Chill_Dan@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 269d
AI wasn’t making anything close to listenable music in 2018. If they have songs from before 2023 they’re human.
Victoriathecompact@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 268d
all the album art is ai and there's no mention of them touring or anything. Bandcamp also allows ai artists, and that's where I found their album art
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 268d
stevedice@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 268d
You just described 64% of all human-made music.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 267d
even shit music takes effort and talent.
AI is literally the theft of talent and the absence of effort.
elbarto777@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 267d
stevedice@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 267d
You've just described 100% of the record labels.
elbarto777@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 267d
v4ld1z@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 268d
My first experience with AI music was when I was on my usual 90s hip-hop/rap vibe and got recommended some channels with alleged underground hits. There definitely were a couple channels that put out legit mixes that did have a lot of music and artists I didn't know prior, but one of the mixes was weird. I could tell immediately, less than a minute in, mainly because of the vocals that sounded super generic as well kind of robotic in addition to a very out of place beat that doesn't sound at all like it'd belong in the 90s/2000s era of rap music. Had it not been for the vocals in tandem with the mismatched beat (obviously created by someone who doesn't know jack about the music genre and the ear it's supposed to represent), I might not have spotted the AI involved.
The scary and sad part is that I doubt YouTube will do anything about it despite reports and that there are so many people that either don't care or don't know/realise. Only saw like one or two other comments calling out that mix having been made with AI
riskable@programming.dev · 9 pts · 269d
I'm in the camp of, "if it's good, why should I care?" However, I'm all for transparency! Passing off AI-generated music as human-generated is fraud. Be honest!
There's a LOT of grey areas though. If you're a vocalist and you're using an AI-generated background? How's that any different from pressing "play" on a sequencer or even an audio file (of some sequenced or drum track)?
If you're a lyricist, the actual music isn't as important as the lyrics. Does it matter if they used AI to generate the music or should every lyricist be forced to pay someone to make the music for them or master an instrument (or sequencer)?
What if you're trying to translate your music into a different language and use AI to translate it? Is that AI-generated music? You can give your whole damned song to AI and it'll convert to a different language in-place without having to re-record it. It even uses your singer's voice!
To me, it's incredible technology and it's enabling artists of all kinds to do cool things with their music. It seems rather paternalistic to suggest someone's creativity doesn't "count" if they didn't sweat or spend years practicing to create it.
InevitableWaffles@midwest.social · 23 pts · 269d
You must consider that the AI "helping" the artist is built from the stolen work of countless artists. Regardless of use case, the tool only exists due to theft. Plus, this tool exists as a way to not pay talent for content.
Since the bread and circuses machine must keep dispensing to keep the masses anaesthetized, the elites need a way to cut the costs or they will lose points are their net worth scorecard and get made fun of by the other billionaires.
Not to mention, AI is a shortcut that does not generate skills besides prompt engineering. We have research proving this with students and the labor force losing reasoning and straight memory by handing off to "AI". Part of being a musician is the effort and practice and knowing an instrument. Asking the clanker for a tune because learning takes too long or is too difficult goes along with what the article says for detecting it. The work will be emotionless and have no soul. Musicians are allowed to make choices for their music, of course. AI rounding out an artist's tools is what it is. I view the tool as a corrupting force but, it's their perogative. But people without no knowledge or skill for making music cranking out these generic sounding similacra to make money is always going to set my teeth on edge.
Edit: spelling and tense correction. Revision and expansion of idea to express less derision.
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 268d
I feel like this is conflating two separate arguments.
Is AI music good, versus is AI music moral.
MourningDove@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 269d
RaoulDuke25@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 269d
I use Qobuz, but is Spotify the only service that shamelessly promotes ai music?
JoMiran@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 269d
Bullshit. This only applies to fully prompt generated AI music. Tracks that heavily rely on AI based tech as a part of the process are harder to catch, and tracks that only use AI for mixing and mastering are impossible to detect.
I made a track but used AI to autotune and morph my voice to that of a woman's. It even allowed me to tweak the expressiveness of the voice. The track is 95% human made but the vocals are AI modified. I'm willing to bet that the ration of AI use in a lot of pop music and EDM is a lot higher.
PS: I make music for myself, as a hobby. I just wanted to make something to share with my friends. If you want real music, try bands like Wet Leg, IDLES, GEESE, etc who lean into making low tech music.
EDIT: Thia is an example of a song that is fully generated by AI. All that was fed to the prompt were the lyrics. The AI did everything else itself, including picking the genre. I shared it with a few people to see who'd figure out it was AI slop.
https://youtu.be/oOJ0En2u5DQ
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 269d
Compression throws me off.
That AI 'hiss' is ringing it my ears, but its very, very similar to YT uploads that have been re-encoded like 10 times. Which is a lot of them.
Out of curiosity, I made spectrograms of the AI song and concert that sounds 'clean' yet kinda noisy/compressed to me. I won't tell you which one is which:
Source song, if you are curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MydFq0io-tQ
JoMiran@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 268d
That song was a mistake that got generated when I pasted the wrong clipboard into Suno's Lyrics window on my phone and accidentally submitted it. It has not been processed at all. Suno has a "Remaster" feature that when you are happy with the generated song you can give it a few automated "mix and mastering" passes to generate a cleaner and more dynamic sound.
I've mainly used Suno to mess about so I didn't want to pay for the upgrade.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 268d
If there’s ever a need, you could try whatever open generation models use for post processing.
Eldritch@piefed.world · 8 pts · 269d
AI imitates an overall sound. But doesn't care much about "instruments" individually. For simple minimal segments it can easily lay down a simple clear beat or melody. But as more gets added. The more the sound becomes muddy and generic. That and if you're familiar enough with a given instrument. It can often just sound "wrong". Again because the AI is imitating a sound, not an instrument generally.
But yeah. The other points stand. Social media presence and output are great indicators.
Midnight Darkwave is one I'm highly suspicious of. Super generic name. Not much presence beyond the streaming sites. I like the overall sound, but it often gets muddy and kind of droning. And not in the coldwave sort of way. Something a bit more inhuman, over processed, and mechanical.
JoMiran@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 269d
I can see a creative use for Suno Studio where you can feed it a clip of a chord progression you recorded, have the AI generate a few extrapolations, then arrange bits and pieces of it within Suno Studio to create the basic song structure and finally export the midi to your DAW. Basically, you can use it as a fancy sketchpad.
The problem I can't get past is the environmental impact.
Eldritch@piefed.world · 3 pts · 269d
Absolutely, AI is just a tool. It can be used for good things and for bad things. And there are technologies currently being worked on outside the circle jerk Ponzi scheme of all the tech oligarchs right now to make it less environmentally impactful. They just don't care and are rushing to make every last buck they can before the bubble pops.
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 268d
Huh. I wonder which it's gonna be!
Eldritch@piefed.world · 1 pts · 268d
Right now, mostly bad. But there are definitely some good things. Lots of new exciting science and such being enabled by it.
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 268d
Right? I used to use... Don't remember what the app was on Android, but it was like a fun little beat studio, it could generate random patterns according to styles, and randomize instruments too. So you'd get a loop, then you'd tweak it and switch our instruments and sounds and whatnot, and then when I found a nice rhythm, I recreated it in Ableton or FL Studio or whatever.
So, let's say you use Suno to make a good beat. You import slice and dissect the beat and sounds, and I fail to see how it's qualitatively any different than using sample or loop packs, which basically every fucking musician on the planet does.
"Are we so different, you and I"? :)
tomiant@piefed.social · 2 pts · 268d
I have used Suno quite extensively just for fun, I insert my own lyrics and let it create different styles and beats, and you have to push out like 30 before it does something actually decent, but some of them are fucking bangers. I consider it like watching visualizations in WinAmp.
I am not stating a moral proposition in either direction, just an observation.
JoMiran@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 268d
I like to ask it to generate lyrics based on funny prompts. For example, I asked it to write a song from Darth Vader's perspective about the fact that he never actually said "Luke, I am your father". The results was just savage.
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 267d
That... Is... Not very good.
BUT! Let's say that you took that and used it as a scaffolding for an idea. Let's say you kept some parts, rewrote some other parts, in the end coming up with something much better than the original.
Did you write it, or did the robot?
How much would you have to change for it to be "yours"? Where's the cutoff point?
I'm just posing this as a general metaphysical conundrum, I don't take a position other than deconstructing underlying arguments.
Fucking shit. I am starting to sound like a god damned AI.
JoMiran@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 267d
I just thought it was funny that it decided to brutalize Luke all on its own.
Also, the incest thing was all the AI. I just asked for a song about the fact that Vader never said the line "Luke, I am your father".
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 267d
Well then it is not only bad but wildly off topic, because what you got there is a cheap diss track missing a lot of opportunities.
"Hey Luke I heard you kissed your sister on Hoth"
I mean right there you've got something rhyming with "hot". But anyway.
I think that if you don't know literature and art, dumb literature and art seems genius. And that's where we're at as a society.
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 269d
Frequency.
A couple months ago, I found a really cool remake of one of the songs from KPop Demon Hunters. Everyone was doing covers of those songs, and many of them were indie artists, and I was rolling through them. So I found this video, and the video was just an image effect on the cover, which looked very AI-generated, but it's just the cover image, right? Who cares about that? I asked them in the comments if they would release their stuff on Apple Music. And they quickly responded — no, they're going to leave that money on the table, and have decided to stay exclusive to YouTube. Why would an artist choose to do that? Sure, a couple artists pulled their music off all other streaming platforms when they made their own, or their friends did. Garth Brooks has never been on streaming (except Amazon, I think they're the only one whose ethics he agrees with or something?). But most indie artists are on all the platforms. Maximise revenue. So these people saying no, not only to Apple Music — maybe they didn't like Apple kissing up to Trump — but also to Spotify, Amazon, Deezer, and all the rest. Turns out most of those platforms are stricter when it comes to AI music.
But here's the thing — their songs are still by the original artist. They're just stripping out the lyrics and putting new music to the lyrics. And that music is AI generated. Or so I later learned. I looked more into the YouTube channel, and they say they will make you a cover of a song, in any style you like, for $200. And they have hundreds of uploads... in a few months. Each song may have five or six variants. And the songs are still fine, but they have a generic, plastic, not real feel to them.
Of course, they also qualify the first thing in OP's summary, no social media presence. They just have the sales site, and the YouTube channel.
But maybe it's fine, or at least less bad, that they're taking existing songs and just remixing them with AI? Only they're saying the covers are better, and they're monetising the videos, so they're getting paid for the streams when that money should be going to the original artist. It's fine if they actually covered the song and recorded it, but having a computer do all the heavy lifting? Just seems scummy.
I'm not going to name & shame, but if you look up KPDH covers and see something that looks like AI slop with click-bait titles... you've probably found the right one. (They cover other stuff too, not just KPDH.)
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 3 pts · 269d
Garth Brooks is available on every single music streaming service I know about. 🤨
Ilixtze@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 267d
Generally it is incredibly bland even blander than regular mainstream music.
remote_control_conor@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 268d
I don't listen to anything made after about 2010. I don't have these worries.
tomiant@piefed.social · 7 pts · 268d
I only watch YouTube videos from pre 2010. You probably wouldn't know them.
tym@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 268d
mika_mika@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 268d
Okay okay. First off, fuck AI yeah. But if it's becoming this indistinguishable where you need to go looking for tells that it's AI I don't think it's fair to call it bad music, just how it got there is bad.
It's like listening to Kanye West. Graduation is amazing but fuck him.
nelly_man@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 267d
Humans have made a lot of shitty, uninspired music as well. So it could mean that AI-generated slop is indistinguishable from human-made slop, in which case, it would still be bad music.
mika_mika@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 267d
Paul McCartney's "Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time" was the first thing that popped into my brain upon reading this. Not sure if it is relevant, but felt like it was worth noting.
elbarto777@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 267d
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 268d
Hard disagree, because it's like with all the other forms of AI-created slop - with the real thing there's layers of meaning, and you spend time and mental energy digging into that and getting something from it. But as with AI art and AI prose, you try looking closer at it and it just makes you feel hollow and frustrated at having wasted your time.
There was no meaning, there was no symbolism, there were no clever literary allusions, there was no interplay between the melody and the lyrics, it's just superficial garbage that tricks you into giving it attention by sounding good on its first listen.
(Edit: lol touched a nerve with some shit talentless musicians)
mika_mika@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 268d
I listened to Kanye for years before he publicly became a Nazi and I don't think the breadth of his mind changed overnight.
I spent years defending his off-putting public personality because his music touched me from the start.
I really think our pattern seeking monkey brains are easily tricked enough to find meaning in a pile of garbage if we believe hard enough and AI represents this, not proves against it.
MrNobody@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 267d
If you compare AI 'slop' with great works of course its easy to dismiss it and bash it. But there is more human crap out there made each day than there is great works. Music, images, video, texts, all of it. For each piece of great work there is that you find, theres hundreds if not thousands of not so great works that are out there. AI works can be anything from 100% no human involvment besides the initial prompt. They can also involve time and work to get the prompt just the way the user wants. It's going to end up with more people being able to create more things. Not everyone can draw, or play music, or make movies. Not everyone has the time or money to put everything together thats needed to make something like a good song or a good movie. AI tools are going to give more people those chances, and yes there is going to be slop, but theres already been slop for decades that was all 100% human being made, that had no meaning, no symbolism, no clever literay allusions. So what exactly is the problem with people using AI generate something?
ICastFist@programming.dev · 2 pts · 267d
And now, thanks to AI, we can expect 100x more shit to wade through! Great success!
If the author does not want to spend time learning and doing, then I don't want to spend time checking whatever they asked an AI to do.
Lower barrier of entry for profit-seeking bullshitters. A significant usage of AI is done by people wanting to profit off it somehow. SEO optimized garbage sites, videos that get lots of views on yt/ttk/insta, playing spotify on repeat forever.
Oh, there's also the problem of all the deepfakes that people WILL believe, whatever the intent was: revenge porn, political manipulation, trolling.
AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 267d
Not everyone has the luxury to spend time learning those skill sets. Should the single parent who had a dream to make art who is getting crushed by capitalism, works 3 jobs to make ends meet and literally doesnt have time to learn there passion without starving not also deserve to be able to express themselves? What do you want only the privileged rich people who have time to dedicate large portions of their life without impact on their finances to be the only ones putting out art? How does someone like Taylor swift who's whole career came about because her parents could spend so much money on getting her training and paying for studio time in some of the most expensive studios more deserving of getting to make art because of circumstances most people dont have the opportunity to participate in?
Oh no poor people might be able to make money off of art instead of only massive corporations that effectively already killed the human spirit in art already. Oh no someone who may have gone to school for art so they can express themselves may no longer be able to get a job at an ad company where their love for art gets extinguished as they have to constantly make soulless logos for mega corps based on advise from advertising psychologist who define what will tingle peoples brain more to make them want to consume more.
The problem your scared about already happens but is dressed up as human expression today by pr departments because people do it. If anything AI art would counter that because now more people will be producing things for the sole reason of expressing themselves instead of needing to take a soul crushing job eroding the expression of their craft for a corporation to make up for the years of debt they incurred by going to school to follow their passion only to find out the field they went into is a farce.
People believe anything already, people believed random hearsay in the past. The only counter for any type of manipulation like this whether being based in deep fakes or just someone spewing nonsense on a pod cast is critical thinking skills. AI doesnt change that one bit, if someone doesnt want to think critically about something they wont, they don't need AI today to practice cognitive dissonance and blocking AI wont stop that behavior only focusing on education and critical thinking skills will.
ICastFist@programming.dev · 1 pts · 267d
Glad to see that you lack an understanding of scale, that explains a lot.
They're not expressing themselves if all they're doing is the equivalent of a boss telling a worker to do something. This is also called "commissioning an artist"
This whole paragraph is such a display of bad faith that I can't even figure what's your position. My best guess: a lot of words to dodge the problem.
Yeah, nothing like getting a soul crushing job that doesn't involve art, so that my artistic spirit can remain unfulfilled forever while I pretend to boss around a prompt and think I did something. Refer back to my first point of this reply.
It's a matter of scale. That you failed to grasp something so simple says a lot.
elbarto777@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 267d
AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 267d
Do you think AI music or art is just people putting random words into a prompt to get an output? AI music still allows people to feed their own lyrics into the output so there can still be plenty of layers to the lyrics, people refine the beats and rhythms to match what they are feeling so emotion still comes through. People who make good AI art use it as a base and mash it up, refine prompts and find what matches what they feel, they are just using a different brush than people in the past. It also allows more people to participate in art than we have had in the past, aside from the environmental impacts of AI which are a problem, use of AI in art is just another tool for expression. Its good which means even the slop ends uo looking and sounding better than the non ai slop counterparts but that doesnt detract from the fact people put emotion and thought into making good art even if they incorporate AI into their workflow to do so.
thingAmaBob@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 268d
I will admit, I can maybe tell if a video is AI and can listen when something is AI (the way it speaks and the formulaic feel are dead giveaways for me), but often cannot tell if written word is AI. I am not looking forward to its technological improvements… 🫠
elbarto777@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 267d
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 268d
Maybe people with be more protective of their art from here on out and stop trying to make a mill off of clout.
We gave the tech companies or data. We are reaping the consequences.
Natanael@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 267d
I know somebody who likes using these GenAI tools for images and music now. It's too easy to recognize the style after a while, and it annoys me every time
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 267d
Because it's better than the shitty music record labels are spewing these days. It's pretty bad when computer generated music is better than some plastic pop tune "composed" by 12 "producers" who pieced together samples from 30 pieces of classic music recorded by legendary musicians, then stuck some pretty manikin in front to provide a voice to be digitally manipulated until it can be crammed into the mix.
Ironfacebuster@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 267d
Last time I heard ai generated music an immediate tell for me was the vocals, for some reason they just sound a little bit off. Not off key, but similar to a "robot" voice filter maybe? Of course, just like AI generated images that tell will probably be "solved" soon
aesthelete@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 268d
If you can't tell the difference and it fits how you listen to music, I guess who cares?
AI software writing up musak doesn't matter to me because I don't listen to music that way.
I'll know the bands I'm listening to are real because I will have manually downloaded their music after reading reviews, magazine articles, or things like albumoftheyear.org just like I've been doing for the last half decade.
Music streaming services suck and not only because they will promote low cost bands to you. If you actually give a shit about music then stop being so lazy as to have an algorithm fill your trough with slop and then being surprised that it's AI slop.
Or just continue eating the slop if it pleases you. 🤷
It's a bit of a contrarian take, but I think people need to start adding more intentionality to how they live their lives. If music is unimportant to you, that's fine. But nowadays everyone just watches the shows they're recommended, listens to the music that is picked out by the algorithm, and reads what is fed to them in their feeds...figure out what's important to you and curate it for yourself.
myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 267d
Is AI audio accurately able to recreate shitty auto tune that everyone uses?
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 268d
I don't know if people are still making sampled music, but this thought occurred to me the other day.
What if I prompted certain phrased, riffs, and hooks that never existed instead of making a complete song.
Then I made a song using samples in my work.
Is this a new song? AI? A mix? Seems plausible that someone is doing this now.
I pretty much only listen to live music anymore anyways, because everything else is so produced it might as well be AI.
AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 267d
This is already what people who make good AI music do today, they can then also feed in the lyrics they wrote to have the AI sing/rap. Just because some people will make uninspired music from it doesnt mean thats all it can do. Its just another tool that helps people express themselves. It literally takes effort to make AI sound good, its just in a different form than the effort needed to sing or play an instrument and allows those who might not have the ability to sing or play an outlet to still create music others enjoy and find inspiration in.
Natanael@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 267d
Procedurally generated music is already a thing, the difference would be the procedures - and how much of the final form that is dictated by you versus derived as an average of earlier works as a seed value. Usually procedurally generated music is almost entirely controlled by the musician's inputs except for random seeds.
agent_nycto@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 267d
Just send kinda sad that you'd give up trying to make up new riffs and stuff, seems like a really fun and important part of music
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 267d
I personally am not I was just thinking about what that end result would be.
krooklochurm@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 267d
If you can't even tell if it's ai and you enjoy it then I fail to see the problem.
TBi@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 267d
No issue if it’s labelled as AI. Since you should enjoy it regardless.
krooklochurm@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 267d
Fair point.
I don't think it's okay to present it as human made if it's not
theherk@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 267d
Simple, the problem is the erosion of human directed art. That is a much broader problem than if the music is good or not; it may be. But we want, many of us anyway, humans making and being recognized for making art. Empowering this expression is less likely if everybody begins consuming only machine made works.
AlfredoJohn@sh.itjust.works · -4 pts · 267d
The machines arent making art in a vacuum they take human input and thus are still human directed art. Do you realize how many "artists" use ghost writers? All ai does is allow those ghost writers to now produce their music without needing some PR tool from a big label to pretend to write the music and sell it. All AI art really does is break the vail that any of the art for the past few decades was actually art and not just pr and marketing from big corporations. Now instead of people getting mad at the industries that caused all that enshitification they are taking it out on people who are using tools to express themselves in ways they may not have had raw the musical or artistic skills to do so in the past. Now that doesnt solve the energy consumption issues that arise with AI which is a big issue but use of AI itself is not whats eroding the human spirit in art, that was done by corporations turning art into another commodity to exploit. With the way capitalism is that erosion of human spirit has and will continue to happen with or without AI.
theherk@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 267d
There is probably some truth to that, but I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. I think both can be erosive to human expression at the same time.
MourningDove@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 269d
kescusay@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 268d
Hard disagree. I will never pay a single penny for any form of LLM-generated "art," because the whole point of art is to share in something meaningful to the creator. There is no creator with generated slop. It's all just unthinking and unfeeling mass plagiarism.
GreatAspie86@lemy.lol · -2 pts · 268d
kescusay@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 268d
You misread what I wrote. I didn't say it couldn't fool me, I said I'll never pay for it. I'm not interested in fabricated emotional connections to fake art, even if it's faked well enough to trick me. All this means is that I'm going to be researching the bands and artists I listen to, which I already do anyways.
100% pure, unadulterated bullshit.
allo@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 268d
idk they are different and both good. right now im listening to my own manually composed music because the long complex note structure actually has meaning and is pretty. Sometimes I listen to my ai songs because they can be pretty in their own way too, especially my fey song and my necromancer one where her voice does a superinteresting highly emotional energetic thing i would never have dreamed to put in one of my own songs. Also sometimes I like playing music on piano or viola. There are many types of music. I like alot of them :)
stevedice@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 268d
lol if you can't tell then it literally doesn't matter. If your concerns are ethical, then you should be consuming only indie music from unsigned artists so, again, it literally doesn't matter.
damnedfurry@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 268d
...who could be using AI, lol.
stevedice@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 267d
I'd hope someone who allegedly cares so much about where the music they listen comes from would do the appropriate due diligence. Otherwise it's just contrarianism.
rafoix@lemmy.zip · -3 pts · 268d
I haven't listened to new music in over a decade. That includes hearing songs by contemporary artists. Everything sounds the same as it always did.
BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 268d
This is the "I only listen to nirvana" teen in its ultimate form.
Krompus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 268d
But he knows not what it means
jaykrown@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 268d
Not sure but I generated this and it's something I really like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPYk3zjDY-o
ronl2k@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 268d
Why should anyone care whether music is AI generated or not?
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 268d
Because if no actual artist was involved in its creation, I'm not giving money to a corporate suit who pushed a few buttons on a computer.
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 268d
Look, the guy has a point. This is a very real metaphysical conundrum. Who would've guessed that we would have a whole new metaphysical conundrum to sink our teeth in in 2025?
It's an important conversation, and interesting. I have very strong opinions on art, but I can't quite wrap my head around how to relate to AI generated art.
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 268d
Simple. It's not about art at all. But about "artists".
Let's use an example. Let's say that you're a rich person and you want to hire someone to paint a landscape portrait for you. You tell them in detail exactly what you want and they go and do it. Does that make you an artist? Of course not. It makes you the procurer
So if we replace that hired painter with a computer, does that mean that because no human artist was involved that the title of "artist" automatically reverts to the procurer, meaning the person that told the computer what to do? No.
Regardless of who (or what) creates the art, the person telling them/it what to paint isn't a damn artist and doesn't deserve any financial reward.
tomiant@piefed.social · 0 pts · 268d
Is art about the artist?
Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 268d
In terms of credit and monetary compensation it most certainly is.
tomiant@piefed.social · 2 pts · 267d
Your contention is, as far as I understand, that a person who uses AI to create AI art, is not an artist. Ok. I don't think so either, necessarily.
But when you use the word "deserve" you also make another argument, which is financial and political in nature, which is a qualitatively different proposition. I don't disagree with you there either, necessarily.
I am not taking sides by the way. Like I said, I have not been successful in navigating the problem space enough to have a single strong unified position on all of it, just bits and pieces, not strongly, and the pieces don't fit.
tomiant@piefed.social · 2 pts · 268d
I think this is a genuinely valid question.
beemikeoak@lemmynsfw.com · 1 pts · 268d
Babies don't complaint about the little turtle with lights that sings tunes while going around and around.
Like the horse feared, it was replaced by a cart that doesn't need a horse and not by horses driving cars. Thr music industry will be replaced by AI music made by a bunch of guys in a basement. It's Okay. Some people will still sing during dishwashing, showers, in the car, and at karaoke night.
allo@sh.itjust.works · -6 pts · 268d
so that if it sounds really good they know whether to shovel hate at it anyway
tomiant@piefed.social · -16 pts · 268d
Look, I hate AI as much as the next person, but honestly, I think a lot of AI music is better than whatever dumb shit they play on radio literally all across the world.
Text AI is meh.
Image AI is meh.
Video AI is not bad.
Music AI is pretty good.
Edit: Wow, tough crowd, tough crowd. I stand by what I said.
Cybersteel@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 268d
Hasn't been existed since forever like hatuni miku or teto
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 268d
I am not sure I quite follow. I mean yeah good comparison with Hatsune Miku, but I mean it genuinely- I would rather listen to some AI generated beats I "made" "myself" over the absolute auditive brain diarrhea they play in coffee shops all around the world, it's the same lowest common denominator manufactured pop drivel that I can't escape from one side of the planet to the other.
Thanks, I'll take random techno beats with Bach fugues and Chopin leads with a Rasta rhythm over that any day. At least it doesn't desperately try to make a case for itself being great art.
Cybersteel@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 268d
I mean that AI music has existed for decades and only now people are complaining.
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 267d
Then we're kind of on the same page.
Cybersteel@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 267d
I guess we are. I don't know why I was so defensive, I feel like I'm used to people online being contrarion for no reason.
tomiant@piefed.social · 0 pts · 266d
Because you were unsure about my intentions, but we cleared that up so all's good. That's how proper communication works. We work out our differences and problems by talking with each other about them.
Hoimo@ani.social · 1 pts · 267d
Vocaloids aren't AI, they're digital instruments.
nialv7@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 268d
Look, you obviously don't hate AI as much as the next person.
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 267d
I hate the fact that it is owned and controlled and developed and manipulated by modern self made kings. I hate the fact that it has tremendous destructive power. I hate the fact that it will be used to control global discourse, empower militaries, and only serve to solidify the profound wealth gap already ingrained in and promoted by the fabric of our economic system.
But hey, if you feel like you need to gatekeep hating AI, knock yourself out, I guess I will never achieve your level of purity.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 268d
Who the fuck is listening to the radio when they own a phone?
tomiant@piefed.social · 1 pts · 267d
A LOT of people, especially blue collar folk, listen to fully advertised radio schlock every single minute of their working day, and they work very long days.
WiFi is technically radio.
Neither 1) nor 2) matters, because the word "radio" encompasses a fuzzy category of media content regardless of how it's being provided. People still go to the "movies" even though we've had "talkies" since 1910. We still watch film even when it's shot digitally.