That goes for any form of art, too I dream of being an animator one day, but lately, I've been seeing so much crap about how terribly they're treated in studios, overworked and underpaid blah blah blah, and ai itself is also starting to make visual art in general kind of redundant. It really stinks ngl
I always see dipshits saying “if you’re job can be taken by AI then it’s not necessary” and even if those people are big enough of scumbags to say they don’t care about people I’m sure they’ll whine when the quality of everything replaced by AI is abysmal
imagine kendrick drops a FIFTH (bro ive changed this twice) diss called "drake is bad" and fantano is a feature on the song and just gives bad rankings to all drakes albums
@@tylerhackner9731 everyone laughing till he pulls out the fantano sample of certified lover boy (which if I'm being honest sounds like it would be my favorite drake album if I sat down and listened to it)
Yeah as a small artist this is heartbreaking, especially given people's gravitation towards generative AI music and simultaneous aversion to supporting their own cities
I feel you. I have a friend whose main gig has been filming stock footage, and her opinion is that her job is all but dead and that the smart ones are getting out now. The execs will be drooling at the prospect of not having to pay a human being to make art for them.
@@squeemlives brutal. Yeah, my only hope is all the copyright stuff, and because an ecosystem exists, production companies won't want to take the risk with AI stuff. But I don't want to be naive. Pretty much dedicated my life to music, so it's tough
Yeah, "technical art" type art is really what's gonna end. It's the same for 3D modeling. Character artist are fine. Dude who modeled the table? He's homeless. And it frustrats me that pivoting careers is given as a good solution like I didn't, I dunno, love what I did and don't want to be a character artist???? Or wouldn't be good at it.
@@sarahdrawzstill, i feel like here and with DALLe it’s only theft if the person prompting it prompts it so it replicates something existing. If you prompt it in a way that makes An amalgamation of existing things into something new, thats not theft. Obviously this has great potential for bad people to make stolen art, but I think its also capable of far more than that if the user actually cares to make an original thing
@@MonkeyMagikzIf I made a "new" Picasso painting that was nothing more than an algorithmic average of all his previous works (or a specific collection of his works) and paraded it around as more than a cool novelty, Picasso would have every right to be offended. Expanding it to all or part of a whole artform, be it visual or musical, doesn't change anything. If I make a piece of AI art with the prompt "scifi landscape horizon", what I am doing is prompting a machine to generate an algorithmic hodgepodge of every single piece of artwork that fit the bill- stealing from thousands of artists who, most importantly, overwhelmingly *despise* AI technology and want it dead and buried. It's dangerous to the continued existence of art as a viable career and utterly disrespectful of the wishes of the people actually putting in the work to make the art the AI algorithms leech off of.
@@eleonarcrimson858 computers are a big source of our everyday inspiration and the work in the DAW is majorly shaping our music with the workflows they suggest for us to make music with. example: you don't hear a lot of music with alternative xen scales and the reason for that is just that the MIDI 1 standard doesn't make it easy to compose in alternative xen scales. just as trivial as that
@@funnyyellowdog8833 Considering that AC/DC basically copied themselves with each successive album, those derivative copy bands must be as diluted and degraded as the sonic equivalent of inbreeding.
Not at all D:< At least their vocals and instruments aren't completely synthetic. Actual human effort is involved, whereas these AI-abusing tech bros' songs take nothing more than a few mouse clicks 😞
I would rather hear 1000 David Guetta songs with shitty interpolations than to hear stolen work from artists with AI. If this keeps going, creativity will pretty much be nonexistent.
@@100c0c it's not a person at least when it's David Guetta doing a shitty interpolation you are still hearing a human not an artificial fake rip off of another artist where they get no royalties and could be made to say any possible words
@@FLAVOURBMX I don't see a significant difference between interpolating using a DAW and writing a prompt. Like the technical aspect makes the same work more moral? That's weird.
@@100c0c a human producing a song in a DAW actually takes effort and skill, and also in the case of someone like David Guetta the song will also be sung by a singer, and usually they will change up the song a bit, and most importantly pay royalties to the original artist.
why am i gonna spend time listening to music that someone didn't spend time writing, recording and producing. why are we boiling down the centuries-long, rich cultural histories of music down to products that only function as a money delivery vessel to CEOs. AI is only a creativity tool for people making 7 figures or more. Musicians make low-to-mid 5 figures, and AI is gonna take 1 or more of those 5 figures away, period. "bUt tHiS wiLl dEmoCrAtiZe mUsiC" it already is democratized, you're just too lazy to learn an instrument, incl. FL Studio. get outta here
Yeah, that's the question - who gets rich from this? At the moment the question of royalties and ownership are being played down, but eventually someone is going to release an Ed Sheeran soundalike track that's going to do fucking numbers and I think that's when the big guns come out to shut this down
@@squeemlivesbigger artists aside there’s also gonna be the issue of scammers using AI to “make” music and the sell it to people as their own. Imagine paying $10 for an album on Bandcamp and it’s just a dozen AI generated tracks.
@@squeemlives we all now WHO gets rich from this, we came to that realization years ago (long before openai was a thing). Yet we're endorsing this shit calling a "boomer" or whatever whoever is raising a legitimate complaint against it. We're doomed and that's all our fault.
@@squeemlives Dumb, you dont need famouse people's voices to create a great song. Thats what you people don't understand. Today's music from famous artist truly suck, I haven't heard anything good for over a decade.
This APP basically takes out ALL the human input with a few exceptions. Remember the few AI songs that went viral some months back?. With those you had to do a lot more to make the song work. Now it’s basically plug in the lyrics and it’ll not only sound like the person but even make them sing in the style of music you specify. Hell, it’ll even do the beat/music bed itself. Society is cooked
@@Tha_Pencil well some songs have done pretty well. Like the motown versions of the Kendrick disses or the 60s/70s r&b versions of super ratchet sexy red songs. Probably only because it’s still pretty novel
i believe that it would be beneficial to all people if AI was regulated in a way where it would be illegal to feed the algoritm with Copyrighted material without permition. And also when something is made with AI it should be obligatory to list everything that was fed into the machine.
100% my take on AI in art/music. I actually think AI stuff is cool and can really help boost accessibility for people. BUTTT, and that’s a big but, it needs to be regulated exactly how you’re saying: no training on material that they are not given explicit permission to use/have not paid a licensing fee for and it must be labeled as being made fully or partially with AI
Agreed. In today's copyright law you don't need explicit permission from the creator but you do need to pay a license for the right to use their work (so long as it doesn't violate the moral rights of the copyright holder, which AI might do in some circumstances). All these companies should have to pay a license for the right to use all the copyrighted material, and it should be retroactive on all material they've already fed into the algorithms. This might either force them to go bankrupt or exclusively use royalty free music, but honestly good riddance anyway.
Better yet, make it illegal to profit off of ANY ai generated work. I don’t care about ai stealing work because it violates copyright, that’s silly, copyright is a flawed system as it is. If we only barre usage of copyrighted material we completely sidestep the issue of ai stealing from independent artists. I don’t care if Taylor swift loses money because of ai, I care about what ai’s theft will do to the small artists.
At this point "democratizing art" is just code for "I'm a hack tech futurist who is jealous that I'm creatively bankrupt so I need to compensate by stealing every piece of creativity ever and justify it as charitable magnanimity because I'm incredibly insecure" Edit: Some of y'all are weird in the replies. Art has always been democratized and accessible. The only barrier of entry is your own devotion to your craft of choice. Synthizers and photographs are not the same as AI music and AI art. In fact, these two tools made creativity MORE accessible than traditional tools. For both, there still needs to be human input to create new work with a synthesizer and a camera. AI generated art in its current form, scrapes data from existing art, copyrighted materials, and creates content based on logical probabilities done by the program, not the human. What HAS been democratized by AI is the false perception of skill and polish. Manufactured expertise without the expert. Publishing content without any consideration for ethics, thought, or effort has been democratized. And if you think my position comes from jealousy, you're fundamentally missing the plot. Don't know why some of y'all are so excited to have your critical thinking taken away by robots.
@Ayplus the tl;dr is that tech companies that pitch AI art generation as "democratizing" seem to have a God complex about technology that steals from artists.
You realize the photograph was also a means of democratizing art? Prior to the invention of the camera people had to actually draw portraits of families... yet now photography itself is an art form.
This happened with sampling, it happened with Synths. Adapt, overcome and learn to incorporate new tools and technology or be left behind. Suing someone over a soundalike melody is bananas, unless you’re straight up trying to copy the exact voice of someone and make money from it I think we should embrace our new robot overlords
The AI has already sucked the entire internet dry and there is a lack of supplies. Thank God, 99% of all vinyl records have never been released on CD and there are countless tapes in the publishers' basements that are only played on the radio (Our studio digitizes these professionally). The AI was only fed finished mixes and hardly understands that there are 80 individual tracks. The sound quality is currently still poor. The individual instruments sound terrible. Every further improvement costs money and the AI requires more and more electricity. I hope they don't manage to monetize this AI in such a way that the product remains in the unfinished state. At the moment I don't understand how this is financed and who benefits from it.
I hate to be negative, but its looking like the creative class is about to get wiped out. American capitalism did the same thing to the working class 40 or so years ago. these companies will reach an agreement with record companies, and movie studios and all the other wealthy people they can't simply plow through. The talking heads will read generated scripts that label creatives as entitled for expecting to be rich without having to work "like the rest of us." My guess is creative work will become "unskilled" and will exist mainly to guide AI, which will "do the real work." And generate the final content. I think the only real hope is that they eventually exclude enough people from the economy that the balance tips and something major is done. They're pretty good at not letting that happen though. And just to clarify for any dump people when I say they I mean the wealthy, not any ethnic or religious group.
Im hopeful because so far the pushback against all these trash AI art and AI music apps is pretty strong, people really hate this stuff and we aren't going down without a fight. (Also theres programs that sabatoge AI coming out like nightshade)
The thing with AI is that it is really difficult to capture emotion that humans can relate to. AI calculates but can't generate emotion. HOWEVER, people are being dumb enough to consume any product they are fed by the wealthy groups. So, hypothetically, AI should not replace humans but since people are dumb enough to consume anything "vibe-y", AI thus will replace humans creativity.
@@AdityaRaut765most of the music out there has no emotion anyway. Take a look at what Drake does. AI can do the very same smooth lowkey song with different elements. Mainstream music is creatively bankrupt as is. AI can creep in and do what they do or even better. Not advocating for AI, but we do have our fair share of emotionless music anyway. That should not be the argument.
@@bryan1956 Exactly! That was what I was referring to. I am just 20 years old, but look songs back then. They were much more than just "vibes". Music, nowadays, has been so much stale. As you gave an example, Drake. Drake in early was so good. The corporate guys (wealthy) has turned him this "vibe-y" guy, and people are eating it. I've talked with my friends, and they are like,"Yeah I love this song. What's your favourite? Oh that's your favourite? But the song has no vibe to it." Now, I understand vibing to song. What i mean here is those vibes which are from song due to loud beats and artist talking nonsensical shits. I understand some of them being boosted (e.g, Tunuk tunuk, Indian). It is entertaining and that's about it. But people are consuming other shits which are worse than it. And hence that is why AI can replace today's musics that are less creative and wealthy people will do anything to make those robotic nonsensical AI music mainstream and people will love it because that music follows the "trend".
@@bryan1956 in short, what I mean is, with what are trending today as they are less creative and people are being dumber in creative side, AI music will be mainstream (as wealthy people will put all their money into it and make it mainstream through tiktok, shorts,etc)
Considering how the music industry can utilize this to their own corporate advantage... there's no way this is not going to end in technologies like this being owned entirely by the record labels. Leaving the creative potential of AI being used by indie artists in the dust.
@@davidlones365 Stuff like this yeah will definitely be bought up by record labels, but the possibility of self-hosting AI models isn't too out there. There'll be efforts too to make them more efficient, such that these tools could become available. That is of course, if computing in general doesn't become completely owned by a few and only available as services.
Maybe learn to ask for something slightly more complex than "Motown pop girl group from the 1960s" ... You know you as a human have the ability to write your own lyrics and perhaps an entire story to use as a prompt.
@@davidlones365 Yes , I write my own lyrics None of the udio songs sound identical to the artist in question. You might get something that sounds sort of similar sort of like someone sort of like so and so it doesn't ever sound identical to them. These people are tone deaf or something. It creates a unique voice every time, always ai voice.
@@Arperture A little more than that, you can get pretty darn close to certain celebrities, vocals wise, getting lucky. But you won't ever get a full version, where the music sounds like. I did a song in ancient Hittite language. Hard rock. It ends up, the vocals sound very similar to AC/DC vocals, but no. It's not ever gonna be 100% the same.
Word. They are really shameless. I have debated them before and they claim that this is just a new tech like DAWs and that they are as much of a music producer/composer as anyone else. Alot of them also monetize the AI generated songs and argue hard for being able to copyright them which is just absolute peak irony. Some people where born without integrity it seems.
meaningless fake music is important in life, too. and I say that as an artist myself. But think of all the videos, that are not about music, but something else, where the content creators just need something that sounds "kinda like Billie Eilish" but without actually being her, because then you'd need to buy a license for the music. with AI music generators they can do that and finally just make pretty good content as much as they want. Billie Eilish also doesn't earn less money because of that because the content creators' wouldn't have otherwise bought the license for her music but just used random (and probably bad sounding) license-free music or just made different content, that is less cool but doesn't require the music. How often have you already watched a UA-cam documentary about something and the UA-camr suddenly says something along the lines of "I wish I could show you this resource now to make a point, but then my video might get a copyright claim so you have to type it in the search bar yourselves!"? I always find that pretty annoying as a viewer and it's just silly that we have to do that as content creators. So what about the fake AI music? It's good enough for some background elements, isn't it? No one would give it a deep listening party and praise the godlike style, but the music is certainly useful in all kinds of superficial situations.
Im a data scientist. “Learning” is because the AI finds parameters by itself using the data. Is not searching pieces of music in a huge data base, is getting a mathematical representation of the parts that make music, music Edit: I’m just commenting why is called learning. I’m completely against the use of music or any data without compensation for the authors. All of us whom work in Data Science and AI should take ethics courses because a Jesus, using data without permission is stilling
@@Brandon82967 So don't use my songs anyway because I object to them being stolen so that a non-musician can pretend they have my decades of hard work and experience. No thanks. I don't give a f*ck what you call it, it's stealing my work and I object. And I intend to take legal action should I find my work has been used in this product.
Your non-explanation utterly fails. Our voices, our sounds, our hard-won decades of performing experience are being slurped up by your machine and used by someone WITH NO SKILL at music, to pretend to have our skills. When sampling came along, artists found a way to work around it by charging perfectly reasonable licensing fees. 20 years ago if you wanted to have my bass tone without my hands making it, you would have been welcome to pay me a license to use samples of my playing. I have been offered NOTHING for the work that I am positive was slurped off my bandcamp/youtube/soundcloud/spotify/etc. There is also NO WAY IN HELL that this machine could make music, without said plagarism. So WHERE is MY GODDAMN MONEY? I know this 'service' is charging users to use MY work, so where do I get compensated?
@@Brandon82967 You must be hoping people are stupid and don't watch the whole video. When you can specifically prompt the device to specifically return an artist's style and you basically get a copy of that artist's work, there is NO OTHER DESCRIPTION than blatant plagarism. People better expect to get sued.
@@angie99656 1. its free 2. 'hard-won' and 'slurped up' clearly you feel emotional about this 3. music experts who understand genres and instruments and who can write lyrics will get much better results than someone like me
As someone who went to school for AI/ML and is also a massive lover of music, I'm all for AI, and I'm not even against training it against real tunes. However, it needs to be done properly and in a sufficiently regulated fashion. The example "AI" shown in the video is so clearly not done properly imo, and we're even still trying to determine what "proper" even means in this context. Doesn't seem to me like we should be able to use creative content created by these "AI" to make money until we have a robust set of regulations, and ways of validating/enforcing those regulations. It should in no way be possible to generate the output shown in the videos without the artist's consent to be used in something to make profit. In my eyes, we are a LONG way away from being able to do this properly (not so much technologically, I think we're pretty close there, but more so on the rules/regulations/enforcement/validation/security side). There's a lot more nuance and complications I should add, but this is a UA-cam comment nobody will read and I'm tired and it's been a long day so that's what you get
@@Zaiiykon Because just replacing the boring ones makes less money than replacing all of them. In their "ideal" world, the forces driving the development of this technology would prefer to never pay for anything at all. It is not, and has never, been about doing something good. If it was, these things would have been developed from the ground up in ways that exclusively help existing working people, not ways that try to replace them.
Totally agree, as a musician/composer of 55 years I have used every means possible to create music from acoustic instruments galore to modular synth, to sample libraries and now I have playing with Udio and you are completely correct although Udio is fun, dangerous fun yet fun never the less: but, us musicians always get a raw deal. I have spent every dollar I have ever owned on buying instruments and so far I have earned through my music about $100. What about UA-cam? Every album I have ever owned is here? So when I am playing a REAL piano I can forget all about these debates and just play and feel.
@@edmundocassis Don't post my music, my music is free I give away my CDs, and I will also play for free. Surely , I would never expect any one else follow my philosophy I am just lucky enough I don't have to rely on it for renumeration. Music is a pure joy and I am so grateful for every moment in my studio and every note I get to play on the few REAL pianos I have access to.
AI programmers are just as creative and playful as musicians. That's why they rather spend time figuring out pictures and music than how to solve AIDS or something. it's sad but true. And it's not just AI programmers. VST plugins also evolve faster than the software that is used in universities or something boring like that. Humans just always wanna have fun
It's just fun, dude. It's like having a holodeck from star Trek. I'm not trying to make art or be creative. I'm just trying to have fun hearing what bluegrass metal jazz trance sounds like.
This is incredibly similar if not the same as what's going on with visual arts and ai. I haven't been able to post any of my art in a way that it can't be scraped and stolen. Having an established "artist" steal from me IRL was enough for me to lock my stuff down for a long time. This [ai scraping] is worse because it's not even something you can really have any recourse over, and I think the visual plagiarism and theft is being adapted more frequently and more easily across all ai-apps and ai "art" overall. It's interesting to see this same sort of effect play out with music as well. It's negatively impacting almost everyone, down to people who crochet and buy patterns to make a specific item/garment, only to have the patterns and products advertised be entirely ai-gen, and end up with faulty products and a lot of wasted time and effort, plus materials. People make things to sell, and even established small businesses and brands on etsy ffs are hurting rn. ai books are another issue for another time. Smdh. Recently I've even seen this starting to hit older trades. Any creative-based or trade-based work, artists, all of us, down to hobbyists, we're all getting screwed now. As a visual artist who has also worked professionally in these spaces, who's also a computer nerd, I have been sounding the alarm since before the bored ape NFT. I haven't had the same protections for years now, so I no longer share my art. Not having the ability to create and share in even a quasi-ethical environment, it's been hurting my mental health and my heart. Work I create that means something to me, that I don't want to have commercialized, I can't show that to anyone anymore unless I want it dissected and basically sold for parts behind my back, if that makes sense. I did make some things to sell, and it was a very different thing. I really just like sharing art with other artists and people connecting with it or seeing how something I created solely from me, how one person resonates with it or another person interprets it, artists helping other artists, art nerds of all kinds also connecting and sharing, that was really lovely and far too brief of a time. I miss it. I agree that the concept of ai to help artists throughout the creative process is attractive but it's not operating in that same way [yet?]. Until there's a way to adequately "train" these ai models, apps, etc, and until individual artists have the recourse to protect their works without needing a bevy of lawyers and cash or connections, ai isn't viable or sustainable. ai overall is causing far more harm than good for almost everyone. I didn't even touch on the huge impact this will have in terms of illustrators, comics artists, or the economic consequences this will continue to exact in the future. The only relief I've found in all of this is getting back to my roots with... sidewalk galleries and guerrilla art. Transient art. I take 0 responsibility for any actions taken on behalf of my personal ways to cope.
Excellent post. I feel similarly. Real artists could stop feeding the algorithm by not posting their art, and let the "prompt artists" feed the algorithms their output until the whole system hallucinates its way into obsolescence. If there is no money to be made being an artist, and if by posting art online, artists are just making tech ceos and shareholders richer by "democratizing art" to talentless people who want to call themselves artists, why should real artists contribute to that? If all the talented artists stop posting their work, the algorithms won't have novel input, which could disrupt the business model. I'm going to make a catalogue of music that I never upload. If my goal of being a professional musician is no longer viable, I won't upload my work to the internet. At least I can find solace in the fact that I'm not contributing to a system where some tech doofuses with no artistic talent whatsoever can get richer from pilfering my music and the music of millions of other people. Artists should unite here. If big tech takes away our possibility of making so much as a meagre living from our art, then why should we ever upload our art to the internet? We could form artists clubs in our local areas and share our work with like-minded people, in a theft-free environment. Can we make money doing this? Unlikely, but at least we talk about the decline of civilization while we enjoy our art together.
@@DoubtfulTomFinally, two intelligent comments. The problem is that we need to work to be able to pay our bills, and this demands time and energy, which at the end of an exhausting day of work would leave us in no mood to make art. This is the apocalyptic, or dystopian, scenario that humanity is facing. The strongest will survive...
@@DoubtfulTom You're missing two fundamental things: 1. Art is made by derivatives, if people work enough to do derivatives of the AI artwork with human techniques and whims, the breeding effect is reduced or gone. 2. In Art there is a thing called **convergence**, this mean a certain art work can convergence a same idea from a totally different origin and methods. This is where "real artist do not post art to stop feeding the AI" will be totally useless because of this convergence of ideas.
Unfortunately, intellectual ownership is a difficult concept. Nothing we hear in music is fully original. All artists do get their inspiration from the outside world. This AI model is directly learning from other pieces of music. However, to suggest that human artists do not do the same is a bit hypocritical.
Agree, a lot of artists don’t understand this concept. It’s understandable; they are not engineers. The only truly original drawing is one created by individuals who have been blind from birth, and the only genuinely original music is that composed by individuals who have been deaf from birth.
How do artists get their “inspiration?” They buy cds, tapes, vinyls, sheet music. They buy concert tickets, stream on Spotify or listen on the radio, etc. Artists are still remunerated from this inspiration, even indirectly. AI does absolutely none of this. It takes everything without remuneration and spits out a re-synthesised version at inhuman speeds that directly competes with its training dataset, therefore eating into a finite pool of royalties. Intellectual property isn’t actually that complicated. The tech bros know this, which is why they vehemently protect their own IP while undermining and stealing others.
@@minecraftjunky2001 The AI boom has effectively retired me, how much has an artist made? I saw it coming 20 years ago, surprisingly it was 10 years faster than expected.
@@xx-----------xx873 Useless in what way? To who? AI isn't going only for artist though. It's pretty much going for everyone except for already rich and powerful elites, who will make most profits out of it. Will that render everyone useless? And assuming you profit from it without being a member of those elites i assure you when people get hungry they get angry and they will take their anger out on those who are reachable, that includes you. The elites won't be loyal to you, at some point you will be expendable. I suggest you stop being such an egoistic asshole and to take your head out of your own ass. Also judging the worth of other people based on how much money they make isn't the way to go, but i guess an techbro AIncel will never understand that. Your clock is ticking too buddy.
Honestly this video gave me so much respect for you man. So few people understand the "laundering" aspect of this and how fucked it is. Thank you spreading this information to a mainstream audience 🙏
Should of changed the title to, "Disgusting AI Music App Makes Me Rage So Hard That I Fall On My Knees Begging That The New Ai Overlords Dont Take My Job"
why not? I remember using chord and melody generators in the past, this is no different. Its just people at the moment are using it all wrong. you get an idea, get lyrics wrote down, don't want to accidentally steal someone elses melody, so you go to ai, and get it to generate something. You then take that work, take the bits you like and play it on keyboard, or guitar or split the stims and turn it into midi, then clean it up a bit, add more instruments, add other bits, sing it, and release it, what is really wrong with that? It might get big, then you get all these labels trying to see if they can sue you, then when it comes to court, you just have to prove you used a beat or melody generator or ai, which is pretty much the same thing. its only using other music to learn how to generate the melodies.
publishing should be allowed imo, but it would be best if laws regulated the profit. a piece of art that was made based on other people's pieces of art should not make any cash if the ones who contributed also weren't paid. that would be fair
@@Beatsbasteln AI generated music isn't theft, its more like a melody generator. its learning how to create music, and just like melody and chord generators, it can spit out garbage. when we learn, we for instance want to learn how to play blues, we take the blues scales, and stay in those keys, someone has definitely done it before, we learn the blues songs, and learn techniques from our favourite artists. AI is no more stealing than it is to take what you have learned and make something else. only difference is if your melody is the same as someone else's, you could get sued. It is also why some people created a program to generate all melody sequences in I think an 8 and 12 bar, and make them public domain, so the vultures of music can't keep restricting creativity for profit. But lets be honest now, pop music is all the same, and you can't copyright a feeling.
@@GhostWriter_Music issue is, what you said is too much work for your average dude who just want to make a quick buck. Just like with visual AI art, AI music will allow anyone quickly release a bunch of songs, sell them as they are, and profit off this before everyone starts doing that and the market becomes overly saturated. Even worse - most listeners won't be able to tell the difference. This will further consolidate the money and fame to big media studios who create superstars. Any person will be able to make a banger track, but only a select few artists will have the finances to turn their tracks (ai generated or not) into actual shows, pay for marketing, the tours, the music videos, the imaging, etc etc. I personally think that AI will make the industry of superstars even more profitable, while robbing individual and indie artists even further
i asked this thing to make a slint style post rock track with the lyrics of dracula flow 1, and once it finished generating the track it gave me a little warning saying they had replaced slint in the prompt for a bunch of tags like post-hardcore, math rock, epic, lethargic and when i went to listen to it, it literally sounded like slint still.
Why do we expect the authors of educational textbooks to be compensated but not the artists whose property is being used to teach this software. The software couldn't exist without the artists hard work, so the law needs to catch up and recognise it for the crime that it is. The greater harm comes from enabling the capital class to steal from artists.
It's a great tool if you are a non-commercial song-writer who wants to try out your lyrics with different genres, that you could never afford to do with human musicians. It gives you choice over music style / genre and instruments, as if you have multiple backing bands at your beck and call. Then you are actually creating a new song in an established style. Some people seem to forget semi-automated music has been around for half a century, with hits like Blue Monday by New Order 'run' by the band hitting switches then leaving the stage. I personally am having a ball using it. AI is just going to become more ubiquitous no matter how much individuals rail against its unfairness or point out it's failings. Not only are the largest corporations on the planet in a race to commercialize their most advanced AI models there is also competition between the US, Europe and China, so no government is likely to put too many controls on this runaway beast. It feels to me like a situation where I either learn to ride it or get trampled in its wake. Others are looking for loopholes to burrow into.
I think the following rule should apply to all AI: You must prove you own the AI content, by providing your training data, to make sure you aren't training AI on copyrighted materials.
I make music and art, I literally don't care. It's basically just a fad, but I think it's fun to play with, and soon people will move on. No one will be ditching art drawn by people or music made by people, it'll just be it's own side thing. Kinda like photography, u don't have to pay an artist to draw a portrait of a loved one, u can just snap a pic, but as photography has become more popular & built into everyone's phone, artists will still be commissioned for those sorts of things since it's more special typically
Corporations will use this to generate content for ads and bypass hiring people to create the ad content ... the proliferation of ChatGPT scripts and AI narration of UA-cam "documentaries" is rising ...
AI uses white noise as a carrier signal and modulates that white noise with shit it scrubbed off the internet. In other words, it's a Plagiarism Spectral Vocoder. Literally. When it sounds more "smeary/artifacty" is when it couldn't find enough scrubbed (pirated/stolen) material to fill in the spectral information completely. At best this spectral vocoding should be used for accessibility applications like voice guided programs and language translators. It's currently running under the facade of "free novelty entertainment via text prompts" but we all know this is not the end game in capitalism. This is Napster all over again, only now it's corporations instead of broke 16 year old high school kids, and these corporations are aimed to charge money in exchange for the pirated material. They are anxiously awaiting to get this stuff into the court system to establish legal precedent whilst judges and juries still have no fucking clue what is actually behind this technology.
The white noise thing is something I almost always noticed because it takes next to no effort to hear it. Every single AI audio tool has this exact problem and I've yet to come across one that does not have this. I've even been put to the task of trying to devise ways to clean up that noise and its damn near impossible because it is part of the process of shaping that noise into discernible waveforms like a snare, a kick, a synth, a voice, etc. You could try to filter it but then you lose audio data, and in turn, you know, lose frequencies, harmonics, etc. Unfortunately, I do not think they'll ever get over that hump no matter how hard they try. To your point about courts getting involved, when people start realizing they're using giant probabilistic calculators, stochastic parrots, in order to generate art, many are going to struggle with it. I don't think average IQ individuals are ready to grapple with the idea. You can see it here in this comment section and in any room with people who do not know what they're talking about. I try my best, personally, not to present the most immoral use of AI to people because it would make their stomach churn. Let's just say pdf files are more than likely training their own AI art models for obvious reasons. That's not a conversation I think a single normal person with no idea how these things work would ever understand or want to have. It is more fun for normies to run around and talk about automating out bullshit jobs, regardless of the obvious consequences of that either. People are aware of these things, they do not account for them. The cost of that business they're partaking in is so great, they will never wrap their minds around what horrors will unfold in real time.
Not only is it plagiarism but it will ruin music for ever, people can just auto generate Ideas for songwriting, there's gonna be no such thing as songwriting any more (sound design, mixing and mastering are already being taken by AI as well) and ALSO since melodies are copyrighted, someone could just auto generate a tonne of melodies and prevent any "catchy" melody from being released ever again, horrible stuff
the manual mode was literally typing in the lyrics like the "codene" reference you found so compelling. This seems like a major gap in your research...
Right now it makes extremely generic or just uncanny stuff, but the 'better" it gets the worse it will be for culture. The idea is to replace shared cultural experiences with these ready-made simulations of cultural experience tailored to your preferences (which they'll get from your data). This will have the same "filter bubble" effect that social media has had on information and opinions, but now for movies, music, shows, games, etc.
"Ai Learning" refers to the fact that if you give it a dozen songs from the same artist it will find that artists patterns and "learn" to recreate them as in it knows now if you want music that sounds like what that artist would have made, what patterns it has to follow. sure algorithms dont learn in the same sense as humans do because its not capable of understand why a certain thing is the way it is, it can only understand how it is and recreate that or based on how different things interact create new theoretically possible interaction. im by no means one of those weirdos who go 100% on ai and unconditionally defend it against every oposition but you cant go and say something the software just did didnt happen because we call it by a name thats traditionally a human concept. thats the same how boomers complain about smartphones replacing the need to read news papers because now you can just have the digital version of it always in your pockets and read it without the delay of traditional printing media. also to the making certain changes to a song thing, of course by default algorithms will attempt to copy something as close as possible but you can embed in to the model that it forcefully always has to be at least 10% for example different and after creating a perfect copy have it go over and change things so that it still sounds good but fulfills the quota of different enough to be considered new instead of a blatant rip off on someone elses work. thats why there is a difference between ethical and non ethical algorithms, most of the complaints in this video here are either only present in unethical algorithms that on purpose has no limits/restrictions or ai made by people who just dont care about these things. instead of complaining about the technology and hold these things against it you should apply that to the humans who created it because they comitted the "crime" of copying someones style. the algorithm is just the poor victim told to do a thing it doesnt understand why to do it or why its not allowed to do the request it was given. after all we dont yell to ban the existence of photoshop just because you can use it to depict someone comitting a crime but the same thing is done to algorithms. restrict how people create and use it, not the invention of new technology and how technology works, fighting progress always automatically puts you in to the loosing team even if a certain thing can only be bad. of course if you tell ai to create something and then describe bit for bit something that already exists it will be close to that because your literally not giving it another choice, if your just telling it the genre, the mood, the instruments and other general characteristics of the artist then it will be much more different while still being in the same field. that argument of usign the same tgas to create an exact copy is like putting a gun to someones head and forcing them to copy an artist and then complain that they did it. if you narrow it down so much that there is no alternative, what is it supposed to do. not do the only thing it was created for to do? of course there can be made arguments for copying a persons voice so close that you cant mistake it for someone else but that it recreates the melody of one of there songs is so brain dead that its not even an argument. if you dont want it to do something then dont tell it to do that. im aware there are many companies who use peoples work without and consent, often even violating a websites request not to scrape there data for learning and this is something that needs to be regulated but fundamentally oyu have to give it things that already exist, you have to give it voices so it know how humans sounds and you have to give it sounds of instruments for it to know how to recreate the instrument, you have to give it songs from a genre so it can understand the genre. the fact that it happens isnt the bad thing, that it happens without consent and compensation to multiple involved parties is the bad thing. your shooting against the wrong target here. yes the companies reaction to just hide the evidence is bad but that doesnt make algorithm music in general bad, there are algorithm models out there which are done in the best ways it can be and it doesnt do any of these bad things, if you dont like a company then just make it go away. if your an artist sue the company for copying your work, if your a person who listens to music just dont use them and eventually the company will go under but you also have to support companies who do the right thing. dont go against all algorithm generations but show them your willing to tolerate the ones who dont do any of the things you have a problem with and eventually more companies will do that if thats the only way to persist in the space. dont create a wild west but create a stable space your comfortable with instead.
People said this about synthesizers, drum machines, sampling, digital workstations and the mp3- an endless train of fear over new, disruptive technologies. Besides, when it comes to modern pop music, AI can't kill what's already a cold, lifeless corpse
All those things had to be operated by a skilled musician. Ai can be operated by a lazy wanna-be and is borrowing MY WORK, as far as I know, and I resent being used.
@angelainamarie9656 how is this different from me listening to my favorite artist, learning their songs note for note and then using that as inspiration for new material?
As an artist, i find this amazing... first off, i know during the pandemic a lot of people went into sync music, which basically wants artists to do what this app is doing... its like in that world, you could give them a nu-disco pop track and no one wants it, then Dua Lipa becomes big and they all want nu-disco.. its trend chasing and the industry just wanting cheap knock offs to avoid paying Dua Lipa... this will be great for sampling and will eliminate talentless artists and push innovation.
Already artists and musicians are being ripped by dsp's and major labels, as a musician 25 years in the game I thank AI because this shit must burn to the ground.
8 місяців тому+3
The greatest heist of art ever pulled since the British colonialism.
3:50 is not how it works. You cannot upload anything to a model, the model is basically a huge mathematical function which maps some input to some output. In this case words to sounds. To do this it you need the optimal parameter values for this function, also called weights, which amplify or diminish the relationship between pieces of words and sounds. There’s no music or text inside the model, only the weights (numbers) and the model’s architecture (maths) which determines how all the information flows through it. We cannot directly understand what those numbers mean, but it’s basically abstracting meaningful relationships between words and sounds. We can find the optimal parameters by running training algorithms on a huge amounts of labeled training data: music which has attached textual descriptions. This is not uploaded or stored inside the model. The learning algorithms help slowly update the weights of the model until it starts producing seemingly accurate predictions of what certain textual description should sound like according to the human given labels on the training data. Now the model can generate seemingly endless amounts of music or text which have a close relationship with each other but which generalizes and does not simply copy the training data. This is why it can produce completely new or unexpected outputs which were not on the training data.
Now artificial intelligence is making soulless digital music to replace the soulless digital music created by humans using computers. This was inevitable!
Ultimately any type of art should be about the work itself, not the creator. If you feel bad for the artist on the AI discussion, then you fail to appreciate the art itself. I can now hear you all say that this AI Udio stuff is generating bad quality music, if that’s true, then what’s the problem? If it isn’t true, then what’s the problem? The only ‘problem’ there can be, is that the artist is being deprived of an income and fame… But art isn’t really supposed to serve that purpose. If you’re not a musician, then why not enjoy this as it is? If you buy bread then all you care about is the quality of the bread, not the baker right?
Wait til you hear of a self portrait or auto biography 😮😮😮 haha just kidding. but yeah i agree. art that looks outwards is way better. art of the artist by the artist seems shallow. edit: I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE REST
i've said it before and i'll say it again: once AI makes me feel shivers with a artificially generated song just like freddie mercury's voice, then i'll accept it as legit art
You wouldn't sue a human for making a song in a given style that bares only passing resemblance to another artist's style. AI should be treated no differently. We as humans have all consumed thousands of songs and pieces of art. When we make art, we are inevitably influenced by others. Similar style or artistic influence is not plagiarism. "Art is theft" - Picasso
yea but the difference is a human can draw on their own life experiences to make something that is inspired by a thousand different sources whereas an AI can only be fed info and content to copy and rearrange... an AI can not have any lived experience. how do elon musks balls taste dude?
I'm a visual artist whose livelihood has been made largely obsolete by AI art in the last year. And yet, I still believe "I Glued My Balls to My Butthole Again" to be one of the greatest works of comedy I've ever witnessed, and it has brought me immeasurable joy.
Haha totally. AI is just another incredible tool for creatives. These anti-AI takes are not going to age well since there's really no logic to them. I like to take different AI images, photoshop them, combine them, animate them, etc. There's plenty of room for human innovation using these tools if you have creativity. :)
I completely disagree. It's the USER who is infringing when they prompt with intent to recreate a song or style. The platform only learns patterns and other information mathematically calculated. And the app isn't assisting in the sense that no one needs to use AI to commit copyright infringement. People can do that, and have all the time, without AI. People are really grasping at straws when it comes to what AI for music actually does and what it does not do. It's pretty clear many people are misunderstanding how the tech behind how AI works even though they don't think they misunderstand it.
I enjoy making stupid songs with AI. Like dumb songs about farts or taking a taco bell dump to inappropriate music genres like a polka. I have no interest in emulating an artist - i just like to make personal stupid songs. I don't really see any issues with personal use for a giggle, but I do see an issue with parading this around like it's some kind of "new artist". Once we can create music based on completely synthetic voices (not using training data from real people) - that I think is going to be the way to go.
But then there’s “Suno Ai”, where I could record myself singing a melody, upload it, have Suno generate a cover using prompt tags like “Metalcore, emo, *example here* style vocals, alternative” etc etc and the Ai would perform to a fault, exactly what i performed, in that genre. It’s super uncanny and I refuse to believe artists aren’t using this tool themselves…
This is hypocrisy. Creating music by humans also is just plagiarism with extra steps. Just add a few more steps in the AI algorithm and there will be no noticeable difference. For now, we are a little better at this game - closer to the emotions, more creative. But that's only for a little while longer. And in terms of ethics, we have no argument. Our creativity, too, is just the sum of our experiences.
Excately. If human songs were always something completely different, original, etc. there would be no way to train an AI on them. AI recognizes patterns and repeats them, that's all. Human musicians would call it getting inspired by other artists.
*Drakes favorite App*
1 v 20
Here I was thinking it was Nickelodeon.
Hey vulpes
Nah yubo is drake’s favorite app
@@Tocinos yeah man, tell him to give them ghostwriters a break
the world really is trying to a pull a ‘make being an artist unsustainable any% speedrun’
taylor made the world record 😔
That goes for any form of art, too
I dream of being an animator one day, but lately, I've been seeing so much crap about how terribly they're treated in studios, overworked and underpaid blah blah blah, and ai itself is also starting to make visual art in general kind of redundant. It really stinks ngl
I always see dipshits saying “if you’re job can be taken by AI then it’s not necessary” and even if those people are big enough of scumbags to say they don’t care about people I’m sure they’ll whine when the quality of everything replaced by AI is abysmal
@@Xineral animation has always been an extremely tedious and largely thankless grind. not that AI isn't making it worse, just as a consolation.
mtb spotted
imagine kendrick drops a FIFTH (bro ive changed this twice) diss called "drake is bad" and fantano is a feature on the song and just gives bad rankings to all drakes albums
W idea ngl
I’d unironically listen to it
@@tylerhackner9731 on giblets bro
@@tylerhackner9731 everyone laughing till he pulls out the fantano sample of certified lover boy (which if I'm being honest sounds like it would be my favorite drake album if I sat down and listened to it)
Could be an interlude on an album
Yeah as a small artist this is heartbreaking, especially given people's gravitation towards generative AI music and simultaneous aversion to supporting their own cities
I work in music for television and everyone is just terrified of this, especially music we've written being used to train models without our consent.
I feel you. I have a friend whose main gig has been filming stock footage, and her opinion is that her job is all but dead and that the smart ones are getting out now. The execs will be drooling at the prospect of not having to pay a human being to make art for them.
@@squeemlives brutal. Yeah, my only hope is all the copyright stuff, and because an ecosystem exists, production companies won't want to take the risk with AI stuff. But I don't want to be naive. Pretty much dedicated my life to music, so it's tough
I don't see why model trains need music on tv
Yeah, "technical art" type art is really what's gonna end. It's the same for 3D modeling. Character artist are fine. Dude who modeled the table? He's homeless.
And it frustrats me that pivoting careers is given as a good solution like I didn't, I dunno, love what I did and don't want to be a character artist???? Or wouldn't be good at it.
Do you get upset when kids learning guitar use other works to learn how to play guitar? AI is like MSG to white liberals.
this finally made me understand what artists were mad about when dalle came out
right??
@@sarahdrawzstill, i feel like here and with DALLe it’s only theft if the person prompting it prompts it so it replicates something existing. If you prompt it in a way that makes An amalgamation of existing things into something new, thats not theft. Obviously this has great potential for bad people to make stolen art, but I think its also capable of far more than that if the user actually cares to make an original thing
What difference when computer soft get work of millions people?
@@wpsiamthatinotcome on mate proofread your comments
@@MonkeyMagikzIf I made a "new" Picasso painting that was nothing more than an algorithmic average of all his previous works (or a specific collection of his works) and paraded it around as more than a cool novelty, Picasso would have every right to be offended.
Expanding it to all or part of a whole artform, be it visual or musical, doesn't change anything. If I make a piece of AI art with the prompt "scifi landscape horizon", what I am doing is prompting a machine to generate an algorithmic hodgepodge of every single piece of artwork that fit the bill- stealing from thousands of artists who, most importantly, overwhelmingly *despise* AI technology and want it dead and buried. It's dangerous to the continued existence of art as a viable career and utterly disrespectful of the wishes of the people actually putting in the work to make the art the AI algorithms leech off of.
I can't believe people push, and want computers to work in art. We work shit jobs and ai makes art. Nightmare timeline
That's really for most of us and always has been. I don't know why people don't realize that.
computers are already doing that for many years. people have talked like this about synthesizers as well when they were new
Well with synthesiser you actually need a musician to play them, not in this case... @@Beatsbasteln
@@Beatsbastelnwut
@@eleonarcrimson858 computers are a big source of our everyday inspiration and the work in the DAW is majorly shaping our music with the workflows they suggest for us to make music with. example: you don't hear a lot of music with alternative xen scales and the reason for that is just that the MIDI 1 standard doesn't make it easy to compose in alternative xen scales. just as trivial as that
Anthony, this video isn't 6:16 long. How does this fit neatly in the diss track
Nice joke
It’s okay, this video is 8:46 long and 6÷1+6 = 8÷4×6 so it’s still balanced. Anthony understands 🙏
greta van fleet is basically an ai that was prompted to make led zeppelin songs
Could be worse; some bands copy AC/DC...
@@funnyyellowdog8833 Considering that AC/DC basically copied themselves with each successive album, those derivative copy bands must be as diluted and degraded as the sonic equivalent of inbreeding.
holy real
Not at all D:< At least their vocals and instruments aren't completely synthetic. Actual human effort is involved, whereas these AI-abusing tech bros' songs take nothing more than a few mouse clicks 😞
This comment feels like an ai that was prompted to parrot 7 year old music takes.
Boy, what a fun, exciting decade it has been so far.
Love being alive during the 20's, love it.
As far as the developed world is concerned, worst decade since the 40s no contest
@@Amalingyou must be white lol
heard somebody call this decade the "rotting 20s" as opposed to last century's roaring 20s
Damn dude. You need to get your life together.
Hope the rest of the decade works out for you.
@@dogbogs i love that so im stealing it thanks
I keep trying to hear the word "udio" but every time it's said all I can hear is "Yu-Gi-Oh".
It's time to Duel!
The saddest part of this is that once the tech exists, it's a permanent fixture of society
I would rather hear 1000 David Guetta songs with shitty interpolations than to hear stolen work from artists with AI. If this keeps going, creativity will pretty much be nonexistent.
SHOUT OUT TO HIS FAMILY
How is the AI different from interoplating others' works?
@@100c0c it's not a person at least when it's David Guetta doing a shitty interpolation you are still hearing a human not an artificial fake rip off of another artist where they get no royalties and could be made to say any possible words
@@FLAVOURBMX I don't see a significant difference between interpolating using a DAW and writing a prompt. Like the technical aspect makes the same work more moral? That's weird.
@@100c0c a human producing a song in a DAW actually takes effort and skill, and also in the case of someone like David Guetta the song will also be sung by a singer, and usually they will change up the song a bit, and most importantly pay royalties to the original artist.
why am i gonna spend time listening to music that someone didn't spend time writing, recording and producing. why are we boiling down the centuries-long, rich cultural histories of music down to products that only function as a money delivery vessel to CEOs. AI is only a creativity tool for people making 7 figures or more. Musicians make low-to-mid 5 figures, and AI is gonna take 1 or more of those 5 figures away, period. "bUt tHiS wiLl dEmoCrAtiZe mUsiC" it already is democratized, you're just too lazy to learn an instrument, incl. FL Studio. get outta here
People already listen to garbage, mass produced radio hits as it is. You won’t necessarily be the target demographic, yet
Good musicians,can make more than 5 figures
My channel begs to differ
i think the whole lawsuit thing will definitely get rolling once people try to generate music and profit off of it
Yeah, that's the question - who gets rich from this? At the moment the question of royalties and ownership are being played down, but eventually someone is going to release an Ed Sheeran soundalike track that's going to do fucking numbers and I think that's when the big guns come out to shut this down
@@squeemlivesbigger artists aside there’s also gonna be the issue of scammers using AI to “make” music and the sell it to people as their own. Imagine paying $10 for an album on Bandcamp and it’s just a dozen AI generated tracks.
@@squeemlives we all now WHO gets rich from this, we came to that realization years ago (long before openai was a thing). Yet we're endorsing this shit calling a "boomer" or whatever whoever is raising a legitimate complaint against it. We're doomed and that's all our fault.
Wasnt that heart on my sleeve song getting millions of streams
@@squeemlives Dumb, you dont need famouse people's voices to create a great song. Thats what you people don't understand. Today's music from famous artist truly suck, I haven't heard anything good for over a decade.
This APP basically takes out ALL the human input with a few exceptions. Remember the few AI songs that went viral some months back?. With those you had to do a lot more to make the song work. Now it’s basically plug in the lyrics and it’ll not only sound like the person but even make them sing in the style of music you specify. Hell, it’ll even do the beat/music bed itself. Society is cooked
on the brightside, the climate crisis and Kessler Syndrome will wipe out AI before us
Who's gonna wanna listen to that tho
@@Tha_Pencil well some songs have done pretty well. Like the motown versions of the Kendrick disses or the 60s/70s r&b versions of super ratchet sexy red songs. Probably only because it’s still pretty novel
@@chiarosuburekeni9325 yeah but fandom is a huge part of music. People love to obsess over the artists they listen to. Who's gonna be an AI Stan? Lol
Can't laugh at nerds marrying their miku holograms anymore if yall out here listening to ai music
i believe that it would be beneficial to all people if AI was regulated in a way where it would be illegal to feed the algoritm with Copyrighted material without permition. And also when something is made with AI it should be obligatory to list everything that was fed into the machine.
completely agree. You should be able to search up if your music is in it, and opt out easily
@@alexbush714 and file a claim if it’s been used for profit in any way
100% my take on AI in art/music. I actually think AI stuff is cool and can really help boost accessibility for people. BUTTT, and that’s a big but, it needs to be regulated exactly how you’re saying: no training on material that they are not given explicit permission to use/have not paid a licensing fee for and it must be labeled as being made fully or partially with AI
Agreed. In today's copyright law you don't need explicit permission from the creator but you do need to pay a license for the right to use their work (so long as it doesn't violate the moral rights of the copyright holder, which AI might do in some circumstances). All these companies should have to pay a license for the right to use all the copyrighted material, and it should be retroactive on all material they've already fed into the algorithms. This might either force them to go bankrupt or exclusively use royalty free music, but honestly good riddance anyway.
Better yet, make it illegal to profit off of ANY ai generated work. I don’t care about ai stealing work because it violates copyright, that’s silly, copyright is a flawed system as it is. If we only barre usage of copyrighted material we completely sidestep the issue of ai stealing from independent artists. I don’t care if Taylor swift loses money because of ai, I care about what ai’s theft will do to the small artists.
At this point "democratizing art" is just code for "I'm a hack tech futurist who is jealous that I'm creatively bankrupt so I need to compensate by stealing every piece of creativity ever and justify it as charitable magnanimity because I'm incredibly insecure"
Edit: Some of y'all are weird in the replies. Art has always been democratized and accessible. The only barrier of entry is your own devotion to your craft of choice. Synthizers and photographs are not the same as AI music and AI art. In fact, these two tools made creativity MORE accessible than traditional tools. For both, there still needs to be human input to create new work with a synthesizer and a camera. AI generated art in its current form, scrapes data from existing art, copyrighted materials, and creates content based on logical probabilities done by the program, not the human.
What HAS been democratized by AI is the false perception of skill and polish. Manufactured expertise without the expert. Publishing content without any consideration for ethics, thought, or effort has been democratized. And if you think my position comes from jealousy, you're fundamentally missing the plot. Don't know why some of y'all are so excited to have your critical thinking taken away by robots.
What?
@Ayplus the tl;dr is that tech companies that pitch AI art generation as "democratizing" seem to have a God complex about technology that steals from artists.
i think you are the one jealous for the technology. im an artist and i dont care for it.
You realize the photograph was also a means of democratizing art? Prior to the invention of the camera people had to actually draw portraits of families... yet now photography itself is an art form.
This happened with sampling, it happened with Synths. Adapt, overcome and learn to incorporate new tools and technology or be left behind. Suing someone over a soundalike melody is bananas, unless you’re straight up trying to copy the exact voice of someone and make money from it I think we should embrace our new robot overlords
Even AI gotta practice cloning kendrick
The AI has already sucked the entire internet dry and there is a lack of supplies. Thank God, 99% of all vinyl records have never been released on CD and there are countless tapes in the publishers' basements that are only played on the radio (Our studio digitizes these professionally). The AI was only fed finished mixes and hardly understands that there are 80 individual tracks.
The sound quality is currently still poor. The individual instruments sound terrible. Every further improvement costs money and the AI requires more and more electricity. I hope they don't manage to monetize this AI in such a way that the product remains in the unfinished state.
At the moment I don't understand how this is financed and who benefits from it.
Fuck AI. I’m sick of seeing AI art everywhere.
Yeah i really really think all this AI shit was a horrible mistake.
Not all
You’re already living in a simulation homie
fuck soulless art
Old farts in charge of the government don't care, sorry
I hate to be negative, but its looking like the creative class is about to get wiped out. American capitalism did the same thing to the working class 40 or so years ago. these companies will reach an agreement with record companies, and movie studios and all the other wealthy people they can't simply plow through. The talking heads will read generated scripts that label creatives as entitled for expecting to be rich without having to work "like the rest of us." My guess is creative work will become "unskilled" and will exist mainly to guide AI, which will "do the real work." And generate the final content. I think the only real hope is that they eventually exclude enough people from the economy that the balance tips and something major is done. They're pretty good at not letting that happen though. And just to clarify for any dump people when I say they I mean the wealthy, not any ethnic or religious group.
Im hopeful because so far the pushback against all these trash AI art and AI music apps is pretty strong, people really hate this stuff and we aren't going down without a fight. (Also theres programs that sabatoge AI coming out like nightshade)
The thing with AI is that it is really difficult to capture emotion that humans can relate to. AI calculates but can't generate emotion. HOWEVER, people are being dumb enough to consume any product they are fed by the wealthy groups. So, hypothetically, AI should not replace humans but since people are dumb enough to consume anything "vibe-y", AI thus will replace humans creativity.
@@AdityaRaut765most of the music out there has no emotion anyway. Take a look at what Drake does. AI can do the very same smooth lowkey song with different elements. Mainstream music is creatively bankrupt as is. AI can creep in and do what they do or even better. Not advocating for AI, but we do have our fair share of emotionless music anyway. That should not be the argument.
@@bryan1956 Exactly! That was what I was referring to. I am just 20 years old, but look songs back then. They were much more than just "vibes". Music, nowadays, has been so much stale. As you gave an example, Drake. Drake in early was so good. The corporate guys (wealthy) has turned him this "vibe-y" guy, and people are eating it. I've talked with my friends, and they are like,"Yeah I love this song. What's your favourite? Oh that's your favourite? But the song has no vibe to it." Now, I understand vibing to song. What i mean here is those vibes which are from song due to loud beats and artist talking nonsensical shits. I understand some of them being boosted (e.g, Tunuk tunuk, Indian). It is entertaining and that's about it. But people are consuming other shits which are worse than it. And hence that is why AI can replace today's musics that are less creative and wealthy people will do anything to make those robotic nonsensical AI music mainstream and people will love it because that music follows the "trend".
@@bryan1956 in short, what I mean is, with what are trending today as they are less creative and people are being dumber in creative side, AI music will be mainstream (as wealthy people will put all their money into it and make it mainstream through tiktok, shorts,etc)
Considering how the music industry reacted to pirated MP3 downloads, there's no way this is not going to end in a legal curb stomp against Udio.
Considering how the music industry can utilize this to their own corporate advantage... there's no way this is not going to end in technologies like this being owned entirely by the record labels. Leaving the creative potential of AI being used by indie artists in the dust.
@@davidlones365 Stuff like this yeah will definitely be bought up by record labels, but the possibility of self-hosting AI models isn't too out there. There'll be efforts too to make them more efficient, such that these tools could become available. That is of course, if computing in general doesn't become completely owned by a few and only available as services.
@@davidlones365 This man figured it out. That's why they haven't stomped AI's out of existence yet.
W pfp
@@davidlones365 I'd rather see that happen. Atleast then the charlatans will be easy to identify.
totally agree. It is a predatory plagiarism...
I asked for motown pop girl group in the 1960s and it was literally just the supremes, like it was diana ross' voice 100%- actual theft
No, it wasn't.
Maybe learn to ask for something slightly more complex than "Motown pop girl group from the 1960s"
... You know you as a human have the ability to write your own lyrics and perhaps an entire story to use as a prompt.
@@davidlones365 Yes , I write my own lyrics None of the udio songs sound identical to the artist in question. You might get something that sounds sort of similar sort of like someone sort of like so and so it doesn't ever sound identical to them. These people are tone deaf or something. It creates a unique voice every time, always ai voice.
No more than a tribute band emulating a popular artist.
@@Arperture A little more than that, you can get pretty darn close to certain celebrities, vocals wise, getting lucky. But you won't ever get a full version, where the music sounds like. I did a song in ancient Hittite language. Hard rock. It ends up, the vocals sound very similar to AC/DC vocals, but no. It's not ever gonna be 100% the same.
AI art in general should be a novelty. It should be criminal to pose as a real artist when you really use ai.
I agree, but how would we enforce it? wouldn't the remedy be worse than the disease?
Fuck no what is this heavy handed emotional BS response
Word. They are really shameless. I have debated them before and they claim that this is just a new tech like DAWs and that they are as much of a music producer/composer as anyone else. Alot of them also monetize the AI generated songs and argue hard for being able to copyright them which is just absolute peak irony. Some people where born without integrity it seems.
makes me depressed as an artist that there are people who give this meaningless fake music credibility
Would you consider remixing and sampling plagiarism then?
meaningless fake music is important in life, too. and I say that as an artist myself. But think of all the videos, that are not about music, but something else, where the content creators just need something that sounds "kinda like Billie Eilish" but without actually being her, because then you'd need to buy a license for the music. with AI music generators they can do that and finally just make pretty good content as much as they want. Billie Eilish also doesn't earn less money because of that because the content creators' wouldn't have otherwise bought the license for her music but just used random (and probably bad sounding) license-free music or just made different content, that is less cool but doesn't require the music. How often have you already watched a UA-cam documentary about something and the UA-camr suddenly says something along the lines of "I wish I could show you this resource now to make a point, but then my video might get a copyright claim so you have to type it in the search bar yourselves!"? I always find that pretty annoying as a viewer and it's just silly that we have to do that as content creators. So what about the fake AI music? It's good enough for some background elements, isn't it? No one would give it a deep listening party and praise the godlike style, but the music is certainly useful in all kinds of superficial situations.
It’s so terrible. I‘m a composer what shall I do now?
The same was said about the electronic guitar
Hell yeah. I'm paying to support the app I like it so much
Im a data scientist. “Learning” is because the AI finds parameters by itself using the data. Is not searching pieces of music in a huge data base, is getting a mathematical representation of the parts that make music, music
Edit: I’m just commenting why is called learning. I’m completely against the use of music or any data without compensation for the authors. All of us whom work in Data Science and AI should take ethics courses because a Jesus, using data without permission is stilling
which is not copyright infingement and is transformative, despite what everyone claims
@@Brandon82967 So don't use my songs anyway because I object to them being stolen so that a non-musician can pretend they have my decades of hard work and experience. No thanks.
I don't give a f*ck what you call it, it's stealing my work and I object. And I intend to take legal action should I find my work has been used in this product.
Your non-explanation utterly fails. Our voices, our sounds, our hard-won decades of performing experience are being slurped up by your machine and used by someone WITH NO SKILL at music, to pretend to have our skills. When sampling came along, artists found a way to work around it by charging perfectly reasonable licensing fees. 20 years ago if you wanted to have my bass tone without my hands making it, you would have been welcome to pay me a license to use samples of my playing.
I have been offered NOTHING for the work that I am positive was slurped off my bandcamp/youtube/soundcloud/spotify/etc. There is also NO WAY IN HELL that this machine could make music, without said plagarism. So WHERE is MY GODDAMN MONEY? I know this 'service' is charging users to use MY work, so where do I get compensated?
@@Brandon82967 You must be hoping people are stupid and don't watch the whole video. When you can specifically prompt the device to specifically return an artist's style and you basically get a copy of that artist's work, there is NO OTHER DESCRIPTION than blatant plagarism. People better expect to get sued.
@@angie99656 1. its free 2. 'hard-won' and 'slurped up' clearly you feel emotional about this 3. music experts who understand genres and instruments and who can write lyrics will get much better results than someone like me
As someone who went to school for AI/ML and is also a massive lover of music, I'm all for AI, and I'm not even against training it against real tunes. However, it needs to be done properly and in a sufficiently regulated fashion. The example "AI" shown in the video is so clearly not done properly imo, and we're even still trying to determine what "proper" even means in this context. Doesn't seem to me like we should be able to use creative content created by these "AI" to make money until we have a robust set of regulations, and ways of validating/enforcing those regulations. It should in no way be possible to generate the output shown in the videos without the artist's consent to be used in something to make profit. In my eyes, we are a LONG way away from being able to do this properly (not so much technologically, I think we're pretty close there, but more so on the rules/regulations/enforcement/validation/security side). There's a lot more nuance and complications I should add, but this is a UA-cam comment nobody will read and I'm tired and it's been a long day so that's what you get
I read your comment and I hope you have a nice night of sleep after your long day is over.
im interested to hear the rest of that thought..
Why make Ai Ruin creative jobs though. Why can’t it just do all the boring jobs instead
if i listen to a bunch of songs and make my own song, I do not have to pay anyone. so why should AI?
@@Zaiiykon Because just replacing the boring ones makes less money than replacing all of them. In their "ideal" world, the forces driving the development of this technology would prefer to never pay for anything at all.
It is not, and has never, been about doing something good. If it was, these things would have been developed from the ground up in ways that exclusively help existing working people, not ways that try to replace them.
I honestly don’t think any labels will sue on something like this. Stealing from artists is their bag and garbage like this is the future they want.
Tell that to napster
@@lolforlife2487 napster wasn’t something the label could profit off of like this. Keeping 100% of an AI “artists” profits is their dream.
@@_Narc they could profit off of it that's called spotify
@@lolforlife2487that’s not good enough for them
"yeah yeah yeah, we are just using ai dw" *plagarism*
Totally agree, as a musician/composer of 55 years I have used every means possible to create music from acoustic instruments galore to modular synth, to sample libraries and now I have playing with Udio and you are completely correct although Udio is fun, dangerous fun yet fun never the less: but, us musicians always get a raw deal. I have spent every dollar I have ever owned on buying instruments and so far I have earned through my music about $100. What about UA-cam? Every album I have ever owned is here? So when I am playing a REAL piano I can forget all about these debates and just play and feel.
Until you post your music and it is used to feed the AI.
@@edmundocassis Don't post my music, my music is free I give away my CDs, and I will also play for free. Surely , I would never expect any one else follow my philosophy I am just lucky enough I don't have to rely on it for renumeration. Music is a pure joy and I am so grateful for every moment in my studio and every note I get to play on the few REAL pianos I have access to.
Why is humanity so hell bent on waging war against creativity and art with all this bullshit?
$$$$$
AI programmers are just as creative and playful as musicians. That's why they rather spend time figuring out pictures and music than how to solve AIDS or something. it's sad but true. And it's not just AI programmers. VST plugins also evolve faster than the software that is used in universities or something boring like that. Humans just always wanna have fun
it's not humanity. don't consign the actions of the greedy and ultrawealthy to the whole of our species.
It's just fun, dude. It's like having a holodeck from star Trek. I'm not trying to make art or be creative. I'm just trying to have fun hearing what
bluegrass metal jazz trance sounds like.
@@jaredf6205 It's fun for some, but career impeding for others.
I speak for everyone when I say I hate AI so much
Bruh, i got an ad from them be4 this video started 💀
This is incredibly similar if not the same as what's going on with visual arts and ai. I haven't been able to post any of my art in a way that it can't be scraped and stolen. Having an established "artist" steal from me IRL was enough for me to lock my stuff down for a long time.
This [ai scraping] is worse because it's not even something you can really have any recourse over, and I think the visual plagiarism and theft is being adapted more frequently and more easily across all ai-apps and ai "art" overall.
It's interesting to see this same sort of effect play out with music as well. It's negatively impacting almost everyone, down to people who crochet and buy patterns to make a specific item/garment, only to have the patterns and products advertised be entirely ai-gen, and end up with faulty products and a lot of wasted time and effort, plus materials. People make things to sell, and even established small businesses and brands on etsy ffs are hurting rn.
ai books are another issue for another time. Smdh.
Recently I've even seen this starting to hit older trades. Any creative-based or trade-based work, artists, all of us, down to hobbyists, we're all getting screwed now.
As a visual artist who has also worked professionally in these spaces, who's also a computer nerd, I have been sounding the alarm since before the bored ape NFT.
I haven't had the same protections for years now, so I no longer share my art. Not having the ability to create and share in even a quasi-ethical environment, it's been hurting my mental health and my heart. Work I create that means something to me, that I don't want to have commercialized, I can't show that to anyone anymore unless I want it dissected and basically sold for parts behind my back, if that makes sense. I did make some things to sell, and it was a very different thing. I really just like sharing art with other artists and people connecting with it or seeing how something I created solely from me, how one person resonates with it or another person interprets it, artists helping other artists, art nerds of all kinds also connecting and sharing, that was really lovely and far too brief of a time. I miss it.
I agree that the concept of ai to help artists throughout the creative process is attractive but it's not operating in that same way [yet?]. Until there's a way to adequately "train" these ai models, apps, etc, and until individual artists have the recourse to protect their works without needing a bevy of lawyers and cash or connections, ai isn't viable or sustainable. ai overall is causing far more harm than good for almost everyone. I didn't even touch on the huge impact this will have in terms of illustrators, comics artists, or the economic consequences this will continue to exact in the future.
The only relief I've found in all of this is getting back to my roots with... sidewalk galleries and guerrilla art. Transient art.
I take 0 responsibility for any actions taken on behalf of my personal ways to cope.
Excellent post. I feel similarly. Real artists could stop feeding the algorithm by not posting their art, and let the "prompt artists" feed the algorithms their output until the whole system hallucinates its way into obsolescence. If there is no money to be made being an artist, and if by posting art online, artists are just making tech ceos and shareholders richer by "democratizing art" to talentless people who want to call themselves artists, why should real artists contribute to that? If all the talented artists stop posting their work, the algorithms won't have novel input, which could disrupt the business model. I'm going to make a catalogue of music that I never upload. If my goal of being a professional musician is no longer viable, I won't upload my work to the internet. At least I can find solace in the fact that I'm not contributing to a system where some tech doofuses with no artistic talent whatsoever can get richer from pilfering my music and the music of millions of other people. Artists should unite here. If big tech takes away our possibility of making so much as a meagre living from our art, then why should we ever upload our art to the internet? We could form artists clubs in our local areas and share our work with like-minded people, in a theft-free environment. Can we make money doing this? Unlikely, but at least we talk about the decline of civilization while we enjoy our art together.
@@DoubtfulTomFinally, two intelligent comments. The problem is that we need to work to be able to pay our bills, and this demands time and energy, which at the end of an exhausting day of work would leave us in no mood to make art. This is the apocalyptic, or dystopian, scenario that humanity is facing. The strongest will survive...
@@DoubtfulTom You're missing two fundamental things:
1. Art is made by derivatives, if people work enough to do derivatives of the AI artwork with human techniques and whims, the breeding effect is reduced or gone.
2. In Art there is a thing called **convergence**, this mean a certain art work can convergence a same idea from a totally different origin and methods. This is where "real artist do not post art to stop feeding the AI" will be totally useless because of this convergence of ideas.
Unfortunately, intellectual ownership is a difficult concept. Nothing we hear in music is fully original. All artists do get their inspiration from the outside world. This AI model is directly learning from other pieces of music. However, to suggest that human artists do not do the same is a bit hypocritical.
^the unfortunate truth
Art is always made by derivatives. You modify something in favor of your interests. Every art piece has this fundamental basis.
Get rid of it all together
Agree, a lot of artists don’t understand this concept. It’s understandable; they are not engineers. The only truly original drawing is one created by individuals who have been blind from birth, and the only genuinely original music is that composed by individuals who have been deaf from birth.
How do artists get their “inspiration?” They buy cds, tapes, vinyls, sheet music. They buy concert tickets, stream on Spotify or listen on the radio, etc. Artists are still remunerated from this inspiration, even indirectly. AI does absolutely none of this. It takes everything without remuneration and spits out a re-synthesised version at inhuman speeds that directly competes with its training dataset, therefore eating into a finite pool of royalties.
Intellectual property isn’t actually that complicated. The tech bros know this, which is why they vehemently protect their own IP while undermining and stealing others.
I really don't understand the tech bro cheerleading squad. What exactly do they think happens when the rich don't need us to work anymore?
They’ll be rich off Nvidia calls, tech is the future and art has been proved useless.
@@xx-----------xx873 I'm sorry art is useless to you, it does require a bit of consideration and introspection to take anything from it.
@@minecraftjunky2001 The AI boom has effectively retired me, how much has an artist made? I saw it coming 20 years ago, surprisingly it was 10 years faster than expected.
@@xx-----------xx873 Useless in what way? To who? AI isn't going only for artist though. It's pretty much going for everyone except for already rich and powerful elites, who will make most profits out of it. Will that render everyone useless? And assuming you profit from it without being a member of those elites i assure you when people get hungry they get angry and they will take their anger out on those who are reachable, that includes you. The elites won't be loyal to you, at some point you will be expendable. I suggest you stop being such an egoistic asshole and to take your head out of your own ass. Also judging the worth of other people based on how much money they make isn't the way to go, but i guess an techbro AIncel will never understand that. Your clock is ticking too buddy.
@@xx-----------xx873if art were useless they wouldn't invest on ai which produces art
Using Udio is like buying fake J's
Honestly this video gave me so much respect for you man. So few people understand the "laundering" aspect of this and how fucked it is. Thank you spreading this information to a mainstream audience 🙏
resistance is futile.
Should of changed the title to, "Disgusting AI Music App Makes Me Rage So Hard That I Fall On My Knees Begging That The New Ai Overlords Dont Take My Job"
I think people individually creating songs using AI is fine, but publishing and profiting shouldn't be allowed
why not? I remember using chord and melody generators in the past, this is no different. Its just people at the moment are using it all wrong. you get an idea, get lyrics wrote down, don't want to accidentally steal someone elses melody, so you go to ai, and get it to generate something. You then take that work, take the bits you like and play it on keyboard, or guitar or split the stims and turn it into midi, then clean it up a bit, add more instruments, add other bits, sing it, and release it, what is really wrong with that? It might get big, then you get all these labels trying to see if they can sue you, then when it comes to court, you just have to prove you used a beat or melody generator or ai, which is pretty much the same thing. its only using other music to learn how to generate the melodies.
publishing should be allowed imo, but it would be best if laws regulated the profit. a piece of art that was made based on other people's pieces of art should not make any cash if the ones who contributed also weren't paid. that would be fair
@@Beatsbasteln AI generated music isn't theft, its more like a melody generator. its learning how to create music, and just like melody and chord generators, it can spit out garbage. when we learn, we for instance want to learn how to play blues, we take the blues scales, and stay in those keys, someone has definitely done it before, we learn the blues songs, and learn techniques from our favourite artists. AI is no more stealing than it is to take what you have learned and make something else. only difference is if your melody is the same as someone else's, you could get sued. It is also why some people created a program to generate all melody sequences in I think an 8 and 12 bar, and make them public domain, so the vultures of music can't keep restricting creativity for profit. But lets be honest now, pop music is all the same, and you can't copyright a feeling.
Yeah I mainly just play around and make stuff. not try and pass it off as real music.
@@GhostWriter_Music issue is, what you said is too much work for your average dude who just want to make a quick buck.
Just like with visual AI art, AI music will allow anyone quickly release a bunch of songs, sell them as they are, and profit off this before everyone starts doing that and the market becomes overly saturated. Even worse - most listeners won't be able to tell the difference. This will further consolidate the money and fame to big media studios who create superstars. Any person will be able to make a banger track, but only a select few artists will have the finances to turn their tracks (ai generated or not) into actual shows, pay for marketing, the tours, the music videos, the imaging, etc etc. I personally think that AI will make the industry of superstars even more profitable, while robbing individual and indie artists even further
as a researcher in the field of 'Responsible AI', I support Fantano on this. Thanks for saying this bro!
i asked this thing to make a slint style post rock track with the lyrics of dracula flow 1, and once it finished generating the track it gave me a little warning saying they had replaced slint in the prompt for a bunch of tags like post-hardcore, math rock, epic, lethargic and when i went to listen to it, it literally sounded like slint still.
“that is literally Blade’s voice”. I had to laugh at this comment. What I heard is so auto-tuned that it is literally NOT anyone’s voice.
Why do we expect the authors of educational textbooks to be compensated but not the artists whose property is being used to teach this software. The software couldn't exist without the artists hard work, so the law needs to catch up and recognise it for the crime that it is. The greater harm comes from enabling the capital class to steal from artists.
Anthony Fantano is Bald
never heard that one before
This guy's onto something
i never noticed this
ain’t no way
Who knew!
antony is so clearly jealous that both sides are using akademiks as a judge
AI training is stealing, u should at least be able to opt out of it copying ur music
I thought I read, “discussing” but disgusting is a better word for it 😂
It's a great tool if you are a non-commercial song-writer who wants to try out your lyrics with different genres, that you could never afford to do with human musicians. It gives you choice over music style / genre and instruments, as if you have multiple backing bands at your beck and call. Then you are actually creating a new song in an established style. Some people seem to forget semi-automated music has been around for half a century, with hits like Blue Monday by New Order 'run' by the band hitting switches then leaving the stage. I personally am having a ball using it. AI is just going to become more ubiquitous no matter how much individuals rail against its unfairness or point out it's failings. Not only are the largest corporations on the planet in a race to commercialize their most advanced AI models there is also competition between the US, Europe and China, so no government is likely to put too many controls on this runaway beast. It feels to me like a situation where I either learn to ride it or get trampled in its wake. Others are looking for loopholes to burrow into.
type of app Joe Hale Osteen would use
The perfectionist in me is SO upset Kendrick messed up with this line 😭
I think about it way too much hahaha
I think the following rule should apply to all AI:
You must prove you own the AI content, by providing your training data, to make sure you aren't training AI on copyrighted materials.
Have you heard of Bo Burnham
The snippets of AI generated music always have this like wind tunnel warble that gives me a headache. Gross.
I make music and art, I literally don't care. It's basically just a fad, but I think it's fun to play with, and soon people will move on. No one will be ditching art drawn by people or music made by people, it'll just be it's own side thing. Kinda like photography, u don't have to pay an artist to draw a portrait of a loved one, u can just snap a pic, but as photography has become more popular & built into everyone's phone, artists will still be commissioned for those sorts of things since it's more special typically
It shares the same argument as piracy. People who use AI were never potential clients in the first place.
Corporations will use this to generate content for ads and bypass hiring people to create the ad content ... the proliferation of ChatGPT scripts and AI narration of UA-cam "documentaries" is rising ...
AI uses white noise as a carrier signal and modulates that white noise with shit it scrubbed off the internet. In other words, it's a Plagiarism Spectral Vocoder. Literally.
When it sounds more "smeary/artifacty" is when it couldn't find enough scrubbed (pirated/stolen) material to fill in the spectral information completely.
At best this spectral vocoding should be used for accessibility applications like voice guided programs and language translators. It's currently running under the facade of "free novelty entertainment via text prompts" but we all know this is not the end game in capitalism. This is Napster all over again, only now it's corporations instead of broke 16 year old high school kids, and these corporations are aimed to charge money in exchange for the pirated material. They are anxiously awaiting to get this stuff into the court system to establish legal precedent whilst judges and juries still have no fucking clue what is actually behind this technology.
The white noise thing is something I almost always noticed because it takes next to no effort to hear it. Every single AI audio tool has this exact problem and I've yet to come across one that does not have this. I've even been put to the task of trying to devise ways to clean up that noise and its damn near impossible because it is part of the process of shaping that noise into discernible waveforms like a snare, a kick, a synth, a voice, etc. You could try to filter it but then you lose audio data, and in turn, you know, lose frequencies, harmonics, etc. Unfortunately, I do not think they'll ever get over that hump no matter how hard they try.
To your point about courts getting involved, when people start realizing they're using giant probabilistic calculators, stochastic parrots, in order to generate art, many are going to struggle with it. I don't think average IQ individuals are ready to grapple with the idea. You can see it here in this comment section and in any room with people who do not know what they're talking about. I try my best, personally, not to present the most immoral use of AI to people because it would make their stomach churn. Let's just say pdf files are more than likely training their own AI art models for obvious reasons. That's not a conversation I think a single normal person with no idea how these things work would ever understand or want to have. It is more fun for normies to run around and talk about automating out bullshit jobs, regardless of the obvious consequences of that either.
People are aware of these things, they do not account for them. The cost of that business they're partaking in is so great, they will never wrap their minds around what horrors will unfold in real time.
Automatic very bad subtractive synth
Not only is it plagiarism but it will ruin music for ever, people can just auto generate Ideas for songwriting, there's gonna be no such thing as songwriting any more (sound design, mixing and mastering are already being taken by AI as well) and ALSO since melodies are copyrighted, someone could just auto generate a tonne of melodies and prevent any "catchy" melody from being released ever again, horrible stuff
I breathed a sigh of relief when he pivoted into a surprise review of 6:16 in LA at the 6:16 of the video
Generative AI is like an emperor with his "new clothes" twerking right into everyone's face.
the manual mode was literally typing in the lyrics like the "codene" reference you found so compelling. This seems like a major gap in your research...
Right now it makes extremely generic or just uncanny stuff, but the 'better" it gets the worse it will be for culture. The idea is to replace shared cultural experiences with these ready-made simulations of cultural experience tailored to your preferences (which they'll get from your data). This will have the same "filter bubble" effect that social media has had on information and opinions, but now for movies, music, shows, games, etc.
Yeah this company is definitely the enemy of working creatives
"Ai Learning" refers to the fact that if you give it a dozen songs from the same artist it will find that artists patterns and "learn" to recreate them as in it knows now if you want music that sounds like what that artist would have made, what patterns it has to follow.
sure algorithms dont learn in the same sense as humans do because its not capable of understand why a certain thing is the way it is, it can only understand how it is and recreate that or based on how different things interact create new theoretically possible interaction.
im by no means one of those weirdos who go 100% on ai and unconditionally defend it against every oposition but you cant go and say something the software just did didnt happen because we call it by a name thats traditionally a human concept.
thats the same how boomers complain about smartphones replacing the need to read news papers because now you can just have the digital version of it always in your pockets and read it without the delay of traditional printing media.
also to the making certain changes to a song thing, of course by default algorithms will attempt to copy something as close as possible but you can embed in to the model that it forcefully always has to be at least 10% for example different and after creating a perfect copy have it go over and change things so that it still sounds good but fulfills the quota of different enough to be considered new instead of a blatant rip off on someone elses work.
thats why there is a difference between ethical and non ethical algorithms, most of the complaints in this video here are either only present in unethical algorithms that on purpose has no limits/restrictions or ai made by people who just dont care about these things.
instead of complaining about the technology and hold these things against it you should apply that to the humans who created it because they comitted the "crime" of copying someones style.
the algorithm is just the poor victim told to do a thing it doesnt understand why to do it or why its not allowed to do the request it was given.
after all we dont yell to ban the existence of photoshop just because you can use it to depict someone comitting a crime but the same thing is done to algorithms.
restrict how people create and use it, not the invention of new technology and how technology works, fighting progress always automatically puts you in to the loosing team even if a certain thing can only be bad.
of course if you tell ai to create something and then describe bit for bit something that already exists it will be close to that because your literally not giving it another choice, if your just telling it the genre, the mood, the instruments and other general characteristics of the artist then it will be much more different while still being in the same field.
that argument of usign the same tgas to create an exact copy is like putting a gun to someones head and forcing them to copy an artist and then complain that they did it.
if you narrow it down so much that there is no alternative, what is it supposed to do. not do the only thing it was created for to do?
of course there can be made arguments for copying a persons voice so close that you cant mistake it for someone else but that it recreates the melody of one of there songs is so brain dead that its not even an argument.
if you dont want it to do something then dont tell it to do that.
im aware there are many companies who use peoples work without and consent, often even violating a websites request not to scrape there data for learning and this is something that needs to be regulated but fundamentally oyu have to give it things that already exist, you have to give it voices so it know how humans sounds and you have to give it sounds of instruments for it to know how to recreate the instrument, you have to give it songs from a genre so it can understand the genre.
the fact that it happens isnt the bad thing, that it happens without consent and compensation to multiple involved parties is the bad thing.
your shooting against the wrong target here.
yes the companies reaction to just hide the evidence is bad but that doesnt make algorithm music in general bad, there are algorithm models out there which are done in the best ways it can be and it doesnt do any of these bad things, if you dont like a company then just make it go away.
if your an artist sue the company for copying your work, if your a person who listens to music just dont use them and eventually the company will go under but you also have to support companies who do the right thing.
dont go against all algorithm generations but show them your willing to tolerate the ones who dont do any of the things you have a problem with and eventually more companies will do that if thats the only way to persist in the space.
dont create a wild west but create a stable space your comfortable with instead.
People said this about synthesizers, drum machines, sampling, digital workstations and the mp3- an endless train of fear over new, disruptive technologies. Besides, when it comes to modern pop music, AI can't kill what's already a cold, lifeless corpse
So digital audio killed music? Ok oldhead.
@@IAmOneAnt no dumb dumb, digital tools are awesome. Commerce ruins art.
@@IAMFORDWICH didn't catch the pop part yae I agree
All those things had to be operated by a skilled musician. Ai can be operated by a lazy wanna-be and is borrowing MY WORK, as far as I know, and I resent being used.
@angelainamarie9656 how is this different from me listening to my favorite artist, learning their songs note for note and then using that as inspiration for new material?
As an artist, i find this amazing... first off, i know during the pandemic a lot of people went into sync music, which basically wants artists to do what this app is doing... its like in that world, you could give them a nu-disco pop track and no one wants it, then Dua Lipa becomes big and they all want nu-disco.. its trend chasing and the industry just wanting cheap knock offs to avoid paying Dua Lipa... this will be great for sampling and will eliminate talentless artists and push innovation.
I love this take
As someone who is generally positive about the benefits and use cases for AI, I think these music gen apps are pure plagiarism.
AI doesn’t exist though, so what exactly are you positive about?
Already artists and musicians are being ripped by dsp's and major labels, as a musician 25 years in the game I thank AI because this shit must burn to the ground.
The greatest heist of art ever pulled since the British colonialism.
Silicon Valley looked out at the vast landscape of human culture, art, creativity and passion and said "That's mine now".
Our priorities are f*cked up. Artists deserve to be compensated for their music and to not have it plagiarised by art-hating tech bros.
finally my opera album about farts can be realised
DRAKE DROPPED A DISS AND THEN KENDRICK DROPPED AGAIN TODAY LIKE 30 MIN LATER. MELON YOU GOTTA TALK ABOUT IT PLEASE
AI for music should be used to mix and master songs that would be sick
i wouldn't have a job if that happened
@@SoyProteinMachine ya well that’s just how it goes I might not have a job either
Fantano Drake responded in another song and Kendrick responded again to on the same day today
It’s a good thing you let him know
i forgot about that
Either amp up copyright or have no copyright whatsoever
16th of June is when Cars 3 released. Don't forget that master piece of an sequel :)
If this is how the real artists sound no wonder they are cooked, there's nothing human about autotuned rapping.
Drake subs the premium plan on this aps
3:50 is not how it works. You cannot upload anything to a model, the model is basically a huge mathematical function which maps some input to some output. In this case words to sounds. To do this it you need the optimal parameter values for this function, also called weights, which amplify or diminish the relationship between pieces of words and sounds.
There’s no music or text inside the model, only the weights (numbers) and the model’s architecture (maths) which determines how all the information flows through it. We cannot directly understand what those numbers mean, but it’s basically abstracting meaningful relationships between words and sounds. We can find the optimal parameters by running training algorithms on a huge amounts of labeled training data: music which has attached textual descriptions. This is not uploaded or stored inside the model.
The learning algorithms help slowly update the weights of the model until it starts producing seemingly accurate predictions of what certain textual description should sound like according to the human given labels on the training data. Now the model can generate seemingly endless amounts of music or text which have a close relationship with each other but which generalizes and does not simply copy the training data. This is why it can produce completely new or unexpected outputs which were not on the training data.
FYI for those who don't know - a person's voice is part of their personality rights, it is their exclusive property and it is illegal to replicate.
Laws mean nothing.
@@uwotmate-d3m Really? Try robbing a bunch of stores and tell me how your life goes after that.
@@uwotmate-d3mHuh, are you an anarchist?
Now artificial intelligence is making soulless digital music to replace the soulless digital music created by humans using computers. This was inevitable!
Ultimately any type of art should be about the work itself, not the creator. If you feel bad for the artist on the AI discussion, then you fail to appreciate the art itself. I can now hear you all say that this AI Udio stuff is generating bad quality music, if that’s true, then what’s the problem? If it isn’t true, then what’s the problem? The only ‘problem’ there can be, is that the artist is being deprived of an income and fame… But art isn’t really supposed to serve that purpose. If you’re not a musician, then why not enjoy this as it is? If you buy bread then all you care about is the quality of the bread, not the baker right?
Wait til you hear of a self portrait or auto biography 😮😮😮 haha just kidding. but yeah i agree. art that looks outwards is way better. art of the artist by the artist seems shallow. edit: I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE REST
That's a very good point, and is one that I think most people here aren't understanding.
Ultimately, you're not the judge of what art should be or what purpose it should serve.
i've said it before and i'll say it again: once AI makes me feel shivers with a artificially generated song just like freddie mercury's voice, then i'll accept it as legit art
Still won’t be art tho. Just math.
You wouldn't sue a human for making a song in a given style that bares only passing resemblance to another artist's style. AI should be treated no differently. We as humans have all consumed thousands of songs and pieces of art. When we make art, we are inevitably influenced by others. Similar style or artistic influence is not plagiarism. "Art is theft" - Picasso
yea but the difference is a human can draw on their own life experiences to make something that is inspired by a thousand different sources whereas an AI can only be fed info and content to copy and rearrange... an AI can not have any lived experience. how do elon musks balls taste dude?
I'm a visual artist whose livelihood has been made largely obsolete by AI art in the last year. And yet, I still believe "I Glued My Balls to My Butthole Again" to be one of the greatest works of comedy I've ever witnessed, and it has brought me immeasurable joy.
Haha totally. AI is just another incredible tool for creatives. These anti-AI takes are not going to age well since there's really no logic to them.
I like to take different AI images, photoshop them, combine them, animate them, etc. There's plenty of room for human innovation using these tools if you have creativity. :)
@@hurlicane56 dude i cant tell if you're being satirical or not
Hell yeah. I laughed loud as hell in a house full of sleeping people last night to that song
@@hurlicane56you use ai as tools in your workflow. Ai bros use ai as the entire workflow. It’s different.
genAI in general is plagiarism. there will never be a way to make genAI ethical to use
I completely disagree. It's the USER who is infringing when they prompt with intent to recreate a song or style. The platform only learns patterns and other information mathematically calculated. And the app isn't assisting in the sense that no one needs to use AI to commit copyright infringement. People can do that, and have all the time, without AI. People are really grasping at straws when it comes to what AI for music actually does and what it does not do. It's pretty clear many people are misunderstanding how the tech behind how AI works even though they don't think they misunderstand it.
This is scary af
I enjoy making stupid songs with AI. Like dumb songs about farts or taking a taco bell dump to inappropriate music genres like a polka. I have no interest in emulating an artist - i just like to make personal stupid songs. I don't really see any issues with personal use for a giggle, but I do see an issue with parading this around like it's some kind of "new artist".
Once we can create music based on completely synthetic voices (not using training data from real people) - that I think is going to be the way to go.
FANTANO YOU GOT WORK BUDDY
Metro just sampled an AI generated song that was generated by Udio or something similar but added his own drums and edited it
Ai is getting scary good 🤖 🤳
But then there’s “Suno Ai”, where I could record myself singing a melody, upload it, have Suno generate a cover using prompt tags like “Metalcore, emo, *example here* style vocals, alternative” etc etc and the Ai would perform to a fault, exactly what i performed, in that genre. It’s super uncanny and I refuse to believe artists aren’t using this tool themselves…
In all fairness the pop music industry and megalith record labels were already garbage and had a monopoly on the music industry.
This is hypocrisy. Creating music by humans also is just plagiarism with extra steps. Just add a few more steps in the AI algorithm and there will be no noticeable difference. For now, we are a little better at this game - closer to the emotions, more creative. But that's only for a little while longer. And in terms of ethics, we have no argument. Our creativity, too, is just the sum of our experiences.
Excately. If human songs were always something completely different, original, etc. there would be no way to train an AI on them. AI recognizes patterns and repeats them, that's all. Human musicians would call it getting inspired by other artists.
Beef watch is definitely returning tomorrow
I can't wait until it can replace most lawyers.
cant imagine the sampling ability with this
everyone hating so hard on ai but as someone who samples to make tracks im excited asf
Literally metro:
What do I do now, I struggle enough trying to get creative and make my own music now this.
I get you, try to find a way to work with it