Suni ai and Udio...the end of us?

[Richard Wilkinson]

I just tried that method from the video on Divine Comedy albums, and - well... there's no way this isn't directly ripping Neil Hannon's voice.

Udio | Wink and Bow by wilkomints

Make your music

www.udio.com

 

[David Cuny]

That's generally only even remotely probable if it's been overtrained on that particular song; for example if it occurs a (relatively) very large number of times in the training set. (Of course, random audio generation could generate a Beatles song even without being trained on it, and would given infinite iterations. But it's unlikely on these scales....)

That's a bit of a circular definition, in that an AI that's not been overtrained will not generate a near duplicate.

But that's not always the case. The wider the dataset that's been trained, the less training examples are needed to classify a particular work.

For example, if an AI has been never been trained on a voice with a Scottish accent, there are potentially a lot of new elements to classify.

On the other hand, if the voice contained enough elements with similarities to other learned voices, it wouldn't take much training to classify the attributes of a given Scottish voice with other similar classified attributes.

So the examples that people are posting may not be a function of over-training, but being able to manipulate the prompts into a very specific space.

It's worth bearing in mind that, once trained, these ANN are deterministic. The pseudo-randomness of each generation is the result of generating a pseudo-random noise seed for each generation, but each (prompt, noise seed) pair corresponds to exactly one point in the ANN's space of outputs.

Yes, it's deterministic, it that it deterministically runs a function that shapes noise into a target.

But adding a pseudo-random number isn't the only way to add some random behavior. For example, an image can start as white noise, and be iterated over by a deterministic function to make it more closely match a target criteria.

If infringing similarity can be adequately represented as a set of distances in the space of possibilities, then infringing outputs could in principle be avoided. But so far it's been a difficult problem in practice.

Plus, you'd have to over-train the AI in order for it to recognize the similarity.

In the latter case, non-commercial use is a valid defense against infringement on person's right to profit from their likeness, though laws on violations of the right to privacy with respect to a person's likeness vary from state to state.

Thanks for the clarification.

However, what "non-commercial" means has a rather loose meaning when YouTube and other platforms are able to monetize content, even if the person posting the content doesn't profit.

 

[newbreednet]

I just tried that method from the video on Divine Comedy albums, and - well... there's no way this isn't directly ripping Neil Hannon's voice.

Udio | Wink and Bow by wilkomints

Make your music

www.udio.com

oh my gosh, within three sung words I knew you were 100% right.

 

[Thundercat]

Like this?

Udio | VI Control by Pointless Music

Make your music

www.udio.com

This should be the official song of VIC.

Clever lyrics. Written by a human I’m assumin’?

But day comes soon when line is blurred and black becomes white. And the inanimate is imbued with sentience. It will be hard to tell if it was made by man or machine.

What this all means to society and each of us personally is hard to say.

But heads will roll.

 

[Thundercat]

I think originality is the keyword here. It is a lot easier to prompt-engineer good-sounding music from models that have well-produced tracks. If you compare that to, say, library music where one of the goals is to create as many tracks as possible in a reasonably short amount of time, the tracks strive for a specific standard, they are going for an effect as it were.


This is something I absolutely agree with, but I feel it's way beyond the scope of this topic.


I think this is a bit unfair. AI-generated music is going to be as good as the used model. If the orchestration, instruments, setting, etc, were outstanding and they are part of the used model, the end results will reflect that to an extent. Expecting the same from a human orchestra or from modern instruments is like expecting a sample library to replicate a live concert. An AI has more data to work with.

But on the other hand, it is still an AI, working from a finite amount of options and parameters, as opposed to a human. It might fool people, just like sample libraries do, but ultimately it is as good as what people put into it. I am sure someone could build a ridiculously huge sample library with this in mind, but it hasn't happened so far.


I use AI every day. For audio restoration, for describing images (because I am blind), for orientation when I'm on the move, to read text on a computer, etc. I train models when there's a need. I have a quite good idea of how AI works. If I denied its achievements I would be the biggest hypocrite on Earth. No, AI can certainly do things that would be impossible to do otherwise, some of which I'm even grateful for, but fearing that it will replace a human is like saying that sample libraries are bad because they completely replace human musicians.

I enjoyed your perspective. Thanks for sharing.

I see your last point differently.

Sample libraries are tools for humans to write music. They don’t write it for you.

Like the difference between DIY vs already made.

The sample libs enable us to write. The ai replaces us.

Not to dis a recent thread, but gang, this is actually a game changer.

More like a game over.

Make music because you like banging your drum. But make no mistake. These things will only improve.

And I get the argument that if you’re not good enough to out-write a machine then you should be doing something else.

Tell that to Gary Kasparov.

 

[Thundercat]

I think what it all comes down to, is eventually there will just be one person in the entire world who can do anything and everything with his mega super AI that creates everything from blue jeans to hamburgers to UFOs, all at a prompt.

This one guy will live in a floating mansion just off of Tenerife, and will live out his immortal days in the lap of luxury the AI provides him. His Stepford Wife will meet all of his needs, carnal and otherwise, while the rest of humanity is enslaved by the AI to mine Unobtanium to keep the generators that power it online.

But at least there will still be M&Ms.

But seriously this shit scares me.

 

[Thundercat]

I know it's a drop in the ocean...
How about we start promoting our music with a certain logo, AI-free or something like that...preferably all the same logo...
It wouldn't change much in the overall situation, but maybe a bit of promotion for our music and a bit of creating awareness on this topic...

Love it!

Imma get on mid journey and make us a logo!

 

[Thundercat]

Years ago I found this site.

Every time you hit refresh, a new “person” is generated through AI.

The realism is mind blowing.

This will come to music, just as realistically and amazingly.

https://www.thispersondoesnotexist.com/

 

[MarcusD]

Clever lyrics. Written by a human I’m assumin’?

Thanks. Your assumption is correct!

 

[GtrString]

This is a forum for people interested in virtual instruments. An AI trained plugin that could generate expressive performances from MIDI is literally the thing people on this forum would be interested in.

Basically every VI developer could put AI in their plugin titles, and claim that this transforms your sound like nobody else has ever done before!!

 

[MarcusD]

Basically every VI developer could put AI in their plugin titles, and claim that this transforms your sound like nobody else has ever done before!!

Can't wait for Spitfire to market this...

Will need an IMAX cinema and a some tissues. It's going to be one hell of a climax.

 

[Thundercat]

Can't wait for Spitfire to market this...

Will need an IMAX cinema and a some tissues. It's going to be one hell of a climax.

or a clIMAX?

 

[Alatar]

I see parallels to Chess.
In chess, computers are already better than humans. Even the top ranked chess players cannot beat a good chess computer. But despite of that, people still play chess! There is a thriving chess community with tournaments and everything. Because people simply love playing chess.

I think its going to be the same with music. Even when AI is much better at generating music than humans, it won't mean music is dead. People are still going to compose, without the help of AI. Just because they love it. And share their music. And other people are still going to listen to that.

 

[arafaratanran]

I see parallels to Chess.
In chess, computers are already better than humans. Even the top ranked chess players cannot beat a good chess computer. But despite of that, people still play chess! There is a thriving chess community with tournaments and everything. Because people simply love playing chess.

I think its going to be the same with music. Even when AI is much better at generating music than humans, it won't mean music is dead. People are still going to compose, without the help of AI. Just because they love it. And share their music. And other people are still going to listen to that.

I see it similarly, although, note that most chess players are hobbyists. Mankind only affords to pay a few that are the very best. The rest can do it in their pastime. So, there is no economic value in a moderately great chess player. And there also will be none in a decent composer who is not a next John Williams, but just decent enough to write some music for a film, that the AI will be able to do much cheaper. He or she will be re replaced by the AI and the only hope left is to be one of the few lucky ones to administer that AI in some way or another. But of course this will not generate nearly the same amount of work.

This is how it has always worked with new technology in capitalism. I can see no way for it to be different in this matter, unless we change the system of economics and more or less the ideology behind the whole western (which has spread worldwide) society. There are also other reasons for doing that, which are far more important than a bunch of composers! But somehow, I cannot see that kind of change coming very soon. I think we are much more likely to sink down into the abyss much deeper before people will stand up for the right reasons and start a real revolution. As of now, way to many people have been able to maintain in all this madness a more or less comfortable positions within the systems and these will cling on to the system in fear of loosing some power/privilege - although most of them are not REALLY privileged. They are just receivers of a strategical spread crumbs of the big cake. The majority of that cake is in the hands of a few and those are the only ones who could really loose (from a materialistic standpoint).

You can see it in broader terms in other political questions. The climate crisis is going to eat us and we are not really doing anything significant against it, although we saw it coming for decades. Most people are more afraid of loosing their so-called privileges like driving a privately owned car or being able to fly by plane from one place to another, or sometimes just being allowed to eat as much meat as one can afford to buy, rather than admitting that everything should be changed and rethought to mitigate the incoming catastrophe. It is a blindness caused by the ideological roots our society is based on.

 

[Alatar]

I see it similarly, although, note that most chess players are hobbyists. Mankind only affords to pay a few that are the very best. The rest can do it in their pastime. So, there is no economic value in a moderately great chess player. And there also will be none in a decent composer who is not a next John Williams, but just decent enough to write some music for a film, that the AI will be able to do much cheaper. He or she will be re replaced by the AI and the only hope left is to be one of the few lucky ones to administer that AI in some way or another. But of course this will not generate nearly the same amount of work.

This is how it has always worked with new technology in capitalism. I can see no way for it to be different in this matter, unless we change the system of economics and more or less the ideology behind the whole western (which has spread worldwide) society. There are also other reasons for doing that, which are far more important than a bunch of composers! But somehow, I cannot see that kind of change coming very soon. I think we are much more likely to sink down into the abyss much deeper before people will stand up for the right reasons and start a real revolution. As of now, way to many people have been able to maintain in all this madness a more or less comfortable positions within the systems and these will cling on to the system in fear of loosing some power/privilege - although most of them are not REALLY privileged. They are just receivers of a strategical spread crumbs of the big cake. The majority of that cake is in the hands of a few and those are the only ones who could really loose (from a materialistic standpoint).

You can see it in broader terms in other political questions. The climate crisis is going to eat us and we are not really doing anything significant against it, although we saw it coming for decades. Most people are more afraid of loosing their so-called privileges like driving a privately owned car or being able to fly by plane from one place to another, or sometimes just being allowed to eat as much meat as one can afford to buy, rather than admitting that everything should be changed and rethought to mitigate the incoming catastrophe. It is a blindness caused by the ideological roots our society is based on.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I agree. It could get tough for "normal" composers, who compose for a living, but which are not famous.

 

[Thundercat]

I see it similarly, although, note that most chess players are hobbyists. Mankind only affords to pay a few that are the very best. The rest can do it in their pastime. So, there is no economic value in a moderately great chess player. And there also will be none in a decent composer who is not a next John Williams, but just decent enough to write some music for a film, that the AI will be able to do much cheaper. He or she will be re replaced by the AI and the only hope left is to be one of the few lucky ones to administer that AI in some way or another. But of course this will not generate nearly the same amount of work.

This is how it has always worked with new technology in capitalism. I can see no way for it to be different in this matter, unless we change the system of economics and more or less the ideology behind the whole western (which has spread worldwide) society. There are also other reasons for doing that, which are far more important than a bunch of composers! But somehow, I cannot see that kind of change coming very soon. I think we are much more likely to sink down into the abyss much deeper before people will stand up for the right reasons and start a real revolution. As of now, way to many people have been able to maintain in all this madness a more or less comfortable positions within the systems and these will cling on to the system in fear of loosing some power/privilege - although most of them are not REALLY privileged. They are just receivers of a strategical spread crumbs of the big cake. The majority of that cake is in the hands of a few and those are the only ones who could really loose (from a materialistic standpoint).

You can see it in broader terms in other political questions. The climate crisis is going to eat us and we are not really doing anything significant against it, although we saw it coming for decades. Most people are more afraid of loosing their so-called privileges like driving a privately owned car or being able to fly by plane from one place to another, or sometimes just being allowed to eat as much meat as one can afford to buy, rather than admitting that everything should be changed and rethought to mitigate the incoming catastrophe. It is a blindness caused by the ideological roots our society is based on.

Very cogent points, and well thought out.

Not to derail the discussion, but we have been lied to hugely about climate change. As in, completely lied to.

I'm still 100% all in favor of recycling, taking care of Mother Earth, being good stewards of our home, but any piece of information contrary to the concerted messaging from all countries is suppressed.

And it's getting harder and harder to verify this truth, as voices are silenced, scientists are only funded if they agree with it, ad nauseam. There are larger agendas at play that most miss.

Feel free to flame me, but I'll look you in the eye defiantly and stand my ground. Someone has to be willing to speak.

Back to discussion of the destruction of life as we know it by computers...

 

[thorwald]

Sample libraries are tools for humans to write music. They don’t write it for you.

True, but musicians don't write music for you either, and they could easily argue that sample libraries can replace them.

The sample libs enable us to write. The ai replaces us.

...

And I get the argument that if you’re not good enough to out-write a machine then you should be doing something else.

Tell that to Gary Kasparov.

Mathematicians could be replaced by computers, since computers are faster, have less errors, they can perform more operations in the same amount of time. Schools could be replaced by interactive lessons, no teachers are needed. A television is basically useless, because you can get your news and movies from the internet, so is a radio... Yet, they still exist.

Even though there is an AI that beat Gary Kasparov, I don't see chess becoming obsolete any time soon. It still flourishes, there are still tournaments, and people play it because it's a very enjoyable game that develops strategic thinking.

The potential for replacing any job at any time is always there, partly the cause of technological development. But just because something has the potential to, it does not mean that it will.

 

[Thundercat]

True, but musicians don't write music for you either, and they could easily argue that sample libraries can replace them.


Mathematicians could be replaced by computers, since computers are faster, have less errors, they can perform more operations in the same amount of time. Schools could be replaced by interactive lessons, no teachers are needed. A television is basically useless, because you can get your news and movies from the internet, so is a radio... Yet, they still exist.

Even though there is an AI that beat Gary Kasparov, I don't see chess becoming obsolete any time soon. It still flourishes, there are still tournaments, and people play it because it's a very enjoyable game that develops strategic thinking.

The potential for replacing any job at any time is always there, partly the cause of technological development. But just because something has the potential to, it does not mean that it will.

You make good points.

However, the driver here is capitalism.

When most composers can be replaced because it’s cheaper, they will be. In every industry.

And that’s the difference - AI is threatening every industry nearly simultaneously.

So yes, we still play chess and we still write music, but without an economic model that values human labour we are lost.

 

[arafaratanran]

Not to derail the discussion, but we have been lied to hugely about climate change. As in, completely lied to.

I'm still 100% all in favor of recycling, taking care of Mother Earth, being good stewards of our home, but any piece of information contrary to the concerted messaging from all countries is suppressed.

And it's getting harder and harder to verify this truth, as voices are silenced, scientists are only funded if they agree with it, ad nauseam. There are larger agendas at play that most miss.

Feel free to flame me, but I'll look you in the eye defiantly and stand my ground. Someone has to be willing to speak.

Back to discussion of the destruction of life as we know it by computers...

Well, actually these lies are not at all shrouded in mystery! It is well documented that the oil industry has been financing the same kind of people (and often virtually the same people) who started out spreading misinformation about nicotine not being addictive and smoking not being cancerogenic since the 60ies. The Tobacco industry has tried to keep the money machine running as long as possible. In the same way big oil did that. And no democratic society on the planet has successfully countered their campaigns, although all of the so called facts they speak were nothing but lies. It has been proven once more that in capitalism you can counter facts with money and hordes of stupid people falling for the wrong reason for your agenda. As long as we do not prevent that from happening agains and again, I can only see capitalism leading us to the brink of extinction or beyond that (which will probably take longer than I will be around, but still ...).

And it's getting harder and harder to verify this truth, as voices are silenced, scientists are only funded if they agree with it, ad nauseam. There are larger agendas at play that most miss.

Feel free to flame me, but I'll look you in the eye defiantly and stand my ground. Someone has to be willing to speak.

If I understand correctly, I think you are trying to say that there is no climate change and we just need to recycle our stuff? No, it would be great if that was true. But unfortunately it is true the other way around. And if you think that climate change has been made up, you belong to those who have been successfully manipulated by what I just described. I hope I just misunderstood you ...

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The other side of the coin is, though, that almost all people who agree with climate change (next to other environmental threats) being a legitimate problem are also fooling themselves with a narrative that we just need to take a few measures like replacing oil with electricity and everything can basically stay as it is with a few changes and the help of technology. And in that way, almost all of society is basically not seeing what is going to come.

 

[thorwald]

When most composers can be replaced because it’s cheaper, they will be. In every industry.

And that’s the difference - AI is threatening every industry nearly simultaneously.

A lot of things need to happen for this, just to mention a few: AI needs to be on the same level, or better than a human when it comes to:

Creativity
Complex problem solving
Emotions

In addition, it needs to be:

Conscious, or at least on a level where no technical input is needed
Make decisions that do not rely on the past, but on the current situation, i.e. it should be able to reason without data
Should not need lots of resources, so it can be accessible to the average computer user, thus cheaper than human labour
Have the potential to not violate copyrighted works, AI or non-AI

Currently, the only viable way is through a dataset, which is produced by human musicians, for example if we're talking about a model for composing music. We can't talk about a legal dataset if musicians and composers do not allow their works to be used.

Then, there's the debate of can AI-generated content be copyrighted.

There's probably a lot more that I haven't thought of, but if all this becomes possible, then we can talk about a potential replacement of human composers as a choice.

I still don't see this any time soon.