Aiva - Artificial Intelligence Composition: beta starting today

KarlHeinz

Senior Member
Before being able to try this out I never know that the most important musicstyle I will ever need is shanty.....:rofl:

And terrible is a nice word for what has been produced as shanty.

I am glad I cant judge the chinese track cause I have no knowledge how that should sound. But still curious how the "pop" would sound if its available someday. At least more fun that sitting in front of the TV watching soaps...
 
OP
Darius

Darius

New Member
Just to interject on this healthy debate;-

Aiva have today launched Pop and Rock (knock yourself out, @KarlHeinz!), better orchestration methods, new instruments & samples, and a revamped sample engine (by yours truly).

More coming very soon...

 
Last edited:

KarlHeinz

Senior Member
Hi Darius, I was happy to read:
Aiva have today launched Pop and Rock
BUT: only for payed plans, NOT for the free plan, even in this beta stadium. I had a discussion already yesterday in the online chat if they try kidding me but no answer on this apart from "I can try ALL the other styles (did I mention one before, sorry, for me its still :rofl:). And if I want to try out something honest in this direction I go with Orb Composer, o.k., you have to press more then one button but....
 
Still would like to know where they stand on copyright infringement. This clearly infringes Lucas'/Williams copyrights. No way can you simply input someone else's work into an algorithm, spit out new content based on it and not claim that you infringed, and given how bad the other stuff sounds, it's notable that there's a huge amount of human influence on all the interesting stuff supposedly "AI-written", to the point that I personally think it's misleading to call it AI composition. It's really AI-assisted at best.

 
If Pharrell and co. got nailed for simply sounding too "very like" Marvin Gaye - which is kind of what it boiled down to....I don't see how they could win a lawsuit for anything anybody makes where the recipe for making the AI output which is then re-arranged and made into something actually musical involves the actual notes of a piece of music like Across The Stars...surely that just gets subpoena'd in discovery and then it's goodbye AI composition. Something somewhere said it was trained purely on public domain material but the above recording clearly shows that is untrue, and it appears you can point the interface to non-public domain content as part of the "influences"...I dunno.

I think it's legally on shaky ground and I bet it becomes a test case for when somebody uses an AIVA piece for something with enough financial incentive for someone to sue.
 

Sibelius19

Music is just color and rhythm --Debussy
Still would like to know where they stand on copyright infringement. This clearly infringes Lucas'/Williams copyrights. No way can you simply input someone else's work into an algorithm, spit out new content based on it and not claim that you infringed, and given how bad the other stuff sounds, it's notable that there's a huge amount of human influence on all the interesting stuff supposedly "AI-written", to the point that I personally think it's misleading to call it AI composition. It's really AI-assisted at best.

I think it would be interesting to use your own compositions as the inputted influences.
 
OP
Darius

Darius

New Member
No way can you simply input someone else's work into an algorithm, spit out new content based on it and not claim that you infringed
I think much of this thread's discussion is that this is exactly what humans do;- just [some] humans do it much better [for now :emoji_robot:]! I believe it's a blunt argument to say that humans get their creative ideas from a devine, original source. We stand on the shoulders of giants; so does AI.
It's increasingly hard to say if something infringes on something else in a crowded creative space; and in America, at least, amount of infringement seems directly proportional to the amount of money that can be made!
 

cola2410

Member
I think much of this thread's discussion is that this is exactly what humans do;- just [some] humans do it much better [for now :emoji_robot:]! I believe it's a blunt argument to say that humans get their creative ideas from a devine, original source. We stand on the shoulders of giants; so does AI.
It's increasingly hard to say if something infringes on something else in a crowded creative space; and in America, at least, amount of infringement seems directly proportional to the amount of money that can be made!
Just going back to my old post here:
"Ironically this is what we humans call our IP rights ) We are fed with music from far less than 1000 artists, try to mimic them first then fail to create anything really original and end up with themes similar to Williams/Horner/Newman/Hermann/Elfman/Zimmer/Desplat/Mancini/etc works and still think it's our own music. What a shame..."

Really )
 
It's increasingly hard to say if something infringes on something else in a crowded creative space
No, in this case it's incredibly easy. If an Aiva users use the actual notes of the piece like say the Williams piece clearly used above, the composition itself, and insert it into the algorithm, all someone has to do is subpoena that in discovery in the lawsuit. And they will. And then they win. Period.

Because usually in a copyright case you have to show that the person had the ability to hear the piece in question, and in some places, show they had the intent to copy it. Hence why studios first question when a copyright infringement issue comes up is "was it the temp track?". Because they know that if it was, the case is weakened for them colossally....
 
And the difference is mutation...yes, we work with ideas that came from the past, but they are basically irrevocably mutated by our imperfections...which sometimes become the most interesting thing. The intent however, commercially, with a piece like the Williams thing above is literally to generate a new work based off the old. It is part of the algorithm.

That is so clearly infringing as to be absurd. And it will be a case of deep pockets...first person who is ripped off by it for something sizable will sue. And they'll win. I'd bet at that point composer contracts will actually state they don't want algorithmic composition used in any way for risk of liability.
 
Also most composer contracts explicitly state that you hold them harmless and not liable for copyright infringement. By literally inserting another piece of copyrighted music into an algorithm, generating something from it and giving it to a client you are breaking a very basic clause in most contracts to write music....so unless AIVA literally only can be influenced by the public domain - which it can't be because how could that produce music that's up to date even for the 1960's let alone now - then it's impossible to use in a commercial setting, unless there's some legal trickery used.
 

barteredbride

Hello and hola...a Brit in Spain
Here´s my take on this subject.

In my view the legal stuff will only be a problem in the beginning.

Once AI gets more advanced it'll just go off on it's own and do it from start to finish.

The first AI painting that recently sold for £0.5million, checked and checked through it's database of paintings until it was sure it had created a painting that was different enough to be called ´original´. It wasn´t a copy of anything.

Ai WILL eventually create a piece of music or art that will be considered a masterpiece. On par with the greats. When this will happen, I don´t know.

Will this stop ME making music? No. At this present time I know I will never create a masterpiece to match the great (human) composers. But this doesn´t stop me creating music and enjoying it.

Nobody can say how AI will affect jobs in the future and when.

But I know this...I will never use AI to create my piece of music, not because I don´t think the technology is super cool and amazing, but I wouldn´t because, well...where´s the fun in that???
 
The first AI painting that recently sold for £0.5million, checked and checked through it's database of paintings until it was sure it had created a painting that was different enough to be called ´original´. It wasn´t a copy of anything.
Not quite - they knew the 15,000 odd paintings they put in as the source. It was programmed to create novelty - it was programmed to create something different, to deviate from the source material, ie so it wouldn't just mash up various randomly chosen pictures into one.

The second AI painting is probably worth 10 cents. It's a bit like the Banksy that shredded itself, which is now worth even more. The value came wholly from the context.

And every piece of art, pretty much without exception, that is considered great has something else - it's rarely just purely an image or a sound, but it has a point, it was conceived with some sort of emotional connection. The idea that machines will get there any time soon is just pure fantasy/sci-fi stuff. Won't occur for a long time, if ever.

But anyhow, the legal stuff for music WILL be an issue, because you just know someone is going to sue and that point, nobody will want you to touch that tech in a work for hire scenario....
 

barteredbride

Hello and hola...a Brit in Spain
And every piece of art, pretty much without exception, that is considered great has something else - it's rarely just purely an image or a sound, but it has a point, it was conceived with some sort of emotional connection. The idea that machines will get there any time soon is just pure fantasy/sci-fi stuff. Won't occur for a long time, if ever.
I agree with your point about great pieces of art having ´something else´, but in the end this can be programmed as part of the algorithm too.
 
I don't know that an algorithm will ever grieve over the loss of their son, like this piece was written for....


Or respond emotionally to the massacre at Baba Yar like Shostakovich 13....

or hit the glories of Pictures at an Exhibition....

Not in our lifetimes, anyhow, and if such things can be made from an algorithm their implications will be vastly greater than music, which will be a trivial issue....
 

Sibelius19

Music is just color and rhythm --Debussy
I don't know that an algorithm will ever grieve over the loss of their son, like this piece was written for....


Or respond emotionally to the massacre at Baba Yar like Shostakovich 13....

or hit the glories of Pictures at an Exhibition....

Not in our lifetimes, anyhow, and if such things can be made from an algorithm their implications will be vastly greater than music, which will be a trivial issue....
I was actually thinking about this in a similar way recently. If we ever get to a point where AI is doing everything, even creative works (with no human interaction) then we are lost.
When would we ever say "hey, I'm going to write a song for my wife...I better go consult the AI machine"
There is humanity in the process of creation itself.
If we ever avoid that process in its entirety (where AI performs all aspects of the creative process), then it would be a symptom that we are lost as a people, with no soul or purpose.
 

YaniDee

Active Member
There is humanity in the process of creation itself.
If we ever avoid that process in its entirety (where AI performs all aspects of the creative process), then it would be a symptom that we are lost as a people, with no soul or purpose
Well said, and it really makes you wonder why we are rushing in to this..
As a cost cutting measure? It seems a high price to pay...