This thread is permanently archived
AI Song Covers
| There's an AI cover of Mr. Krabs singing Billie Jean that's pretty damn good.
| I have no problem with the tech in it's self. I'm just worried people will put themselves in cubes full of ai generated content. Like people already put themselves is positions where the dissociate at work and then go home to tv or tiktok for hours. But at least there there are real people, real news, some connection to consensus reality. With AI it's just going to maximize it's numbers to eternity. I feel like this could be the axis of AI going hay wire trying to make paperclips
| I'd like it more if the people using it where creative types. Not business majors or tech bros. Like we kind of already had ai music with vocaloid. But now obviously it's able to do alot of people's voices and then are used in a disrespectful way to the actors/ voice actors imo
| AI song covers are like photos of paintings.
who cares?
| There are two types of AI covers. The funny ones, and the useless ones.
| I like'em, many of those are good or interesting to listen to when you know the singer wouldn't sing that specific song because a variety of reasons
Like: it's a fictional character, it's a dead person, it's a famous singer that wouldn't (or doesn't have the time to) sing uhh.. the whopper whopper ad song or something
>>969836
Also this is important, music is only there to make us feel, and AI covers are able to achieve that just fine.
(And they can only get better with time, so..)
| >>969739 completely incorrect, i didn't think it was possible to be objectively wrong but here you go. L take, room temperature IQ sounding ass
| Photos are like post-its of our memories.
| >>969739 this; literally whomst careth
just a toy to be played with by dorks who are unwilling to put in the effort of creating something themselves
| >>969824
Pretty much this. Hearing the Beach Boys sing 'Apple Bottom Jeans' is funny, or hearing Elvis sing some modern top 20 billboard hit. But it's a fad that props up the growing AI industry and database. It'll pass, like those videos where the song lyrics are shown as ai generated images.
| It's unethical like the rest of this stuff. It might seem fun in the short term but long term it will screw creators over so executive's can cut costs and in turn degrade art and culture.
| >>970106
Yeah this is my main concern. I hope we avoid the future where we fuck all future culture by stealing everything ever made in the past in order to screw over those who made it, and in tern becoming unable to make anything properly original or artistic again.
Its wildly unrealistically cynical, but hell I just can't see it not happening anymore.
| >>970106 >>970107 you both are not understanding what's happening.
AIs WILL be able to do creative stuff quite possibly, better than humans.
I see this AI era as an improvement because many of the modern day stories, movies, comics, AAA games, books and other things (made by humans), are mostly garbage.
AI will lift the standard for creativity and origanility.
Humans are not the maximum "apex artists", but AI will be.
| I think it's pretty fucked up that people are taking somebody's voice without permission and make it say things. Yes, even for fictional characters (they're still voiced by real people!) and dead people (this is extra fucked up actually).
| >>970237 it's not messed up for me, It's fair that someone could use my voice as I can use anyone's voice
Also humans don't hold copyright of their voices, because many people have similar voices (sometimes almost identical), and also everyone is free to imitate the voice of anyone, regardless of good their impression is
| Neco Arc covers are life changing, though the voice acted ones are still better imo
And, yeah. The shit where people do "serious" AI covers using dead artists and shit is just gross. Earning money off of pulling on people's heart strings by shittily "bringing back the dead" is fucked, but it's not like labels wasn't doing that already
| >>970244 Actually in many juristictions it fits under your likeness, which you do own the rights to, just like your face. Mimicing someone's voice naturally is considered to still be your voice your just changing it to sound like someone else.
| >>970244 people own their likeness you absolute bozo tech bro retard. And no shit you don't care if people use your voice. You are a Noone who the fuck cares enough about you
| Your honor I just don't get why they are so mad, like I don't care.
| Most that are posted on youtube are harmless. If we are talking about using the AI voice for social enginering crime, then, yes that one need to be prohibited. But consent for fictional character? Really? Next you'll blab about consent of video game pixels and the girls drawn in hentai doujin.
And who the fuck cares if people live in their own AI bubble? How is it worse then watching shitty news on tv and be angry about real shit that you have no power of influencing?
| >>969926 if AI music can make you feel the same as normal music, you probably like your steak well done
| >>970678 nice strawman bozo. And yes we should care about fictional characters retard who the fuck voices those characters? It's certainly isn't a fictional character, people are profiting off of someone's real voice and work and a machine that could care less about ethics. This is why people really should take some form of cs ethics course.
| >>970813 they've sold their voice when they agreed to do the voice acting role. If anything, it's the movie publishers who got their right for those voices. You make shit public consumption, you've traded your right for money/fame. Good luck being a white knight defending dead people voices, I envy you for either having so much free time to do it or being so shameless that you think being keyboard warrior is enough to defend someone else's voice.
| >>970755 yeah, normal music is superior to AI. So, what's popular now? Oh yeah, songs on tiktok... hm.... good taste indeed. AI songs can't come close to those tiktok hits
| >>971114
Here you can see the inner thoughts of somebody does not go outside, knows nothing about music and gets all their opinions from online influencers
| >>971112 Did they sell the right to have their voice replicated and modified (by AI) in perpetuity? If they did there's no problem here; but the right to use your voice in a song/album and the right to use your voice in every song forever are clearly different things.
| >>971112 bro you are legit mentally handicapped if you think anything you just typed makes sense/has any legal grounds to stand on
| >>971121
>post on anon board
>hAvE YoU gO OutsIDe???
Oh the irony...
lol no, I don't listen to online influencer, but keep projecting, I want to know more about you.
| >>971186 no, I don't think I habe legal ground, but so do you. how am I different from people like you who keep saying stuff is illegal and violate someone's right when the claims you made yourself also has no legal precedent since all the AI cover are all new?
| Also, if it is illegal? What are you going to do? Argue in anon board and call someone have shit taste? Do DMCAs takedown or go to court to defend someone else's voice. Barge in to someone else's room to prevent them from fapping to some photoshoped celebrity photos? Very noble sir, I'm so proud of you.
| >>971121 The problem is that he is right look at a fucking spotyfy, bandkamp, and other sheet, and see what is the most popular.
>>971131 I have a question. Who cares about them? If you read stupid copyright rules, you can understand that everything works on rule of power.
| good day to yo/u/
1. copyright is retarded
2. >>f17788 is retarded
3. i am also retarded (this is how i know how all of the above are retarded)
have a nice day
| >>971385
I do. I follow music pretty closely. That's why I know AI shit is only popular within very niche internet communities and nobody actually listens to it. You wouldn't be able to point me to a single AI track within any big genre that's considered a hit, widely listened to or popular cause it doesn't exist
This whole AI in music shit is just a repeat of the same made up tech hype that was used for NFT and crypto scams. Y'all are gullible af
| >>971438 you just want make up in your head that AI is bad, there're many AI covers that sound heavenly and I listen them everyday
| >>971447
Good for you g/u/rl. I never said AI is bad though. I've never said it's a negative thing either. But pretending like it's superior or taking over is a braindead take. It's a fun little gimmick and can sound really good, but it's by no means taking over or changing music as we know it or anywhere near as big as the original songs of anything that's been made covers of
AI voice shit is cool, but it's still just a silly little tech gimmick and pretending otherwise is dumb
| >>971458 I mean, I get your point and you're kinda right, I'll give you that.
But in my personal opinion, AIs are going to change Music as we know it in some way or another, be that good or bad, I think it's going to be a major event, a significant change, if you catch my drift.
I've heard a phrase that stuck with me and that is:
"AI can only get better"
And I've seen that is correct many times. And that the rate as it gets better it's faster and faster.
Just my thoughts on this
| >>971480
Sure. It can only get better. But that imo won't change the fact that it simply is covers. The "AI" we're talking about also isn't real artificial intelligence. The tech we're calling "AI" is just machine learning algorithms. That inherently means it can't create anything new. It can't invent something. It can only replicate things already made by humans
So regardless of how much better the AI might sound in the future, it'll still just be a gimmick layered onto real music
| That's why I don't believe in it being revolutionary. It can be used as a nice little tool and in the future probably help speed up the process of making music if used as thay, but it can't change the landscape cause it needs humans to create something before it can create that thing itself
If it was real AI I'd agree with you, but due to the inheret limitations of it just being machine learning that's not realistic. It's just another wave of tech hype
| >>969596
It's fine when it's the voice of someone who can't sing anymore - Sinatra? Mercury? Go wild. But people who are still alive and making music? Fucked up.
| >>971494 >>971495 cope and seethe, AI CAN make new things already (new songs, new music, new paintings, etc) there're generative AIs that make new things like that. It's just they aren't that good in music and songs yet.
That's what I'm trying to tell you, they can only get better.. and I'm not meaning a "slightly, slowly get better", I mean a "WE'RE ABOUT TO LIFT OFF ON A SPACESHIP FUELED WITH NUCLEAR FUSION AND ANTIMATTER WITH NO LIMIT OF C" level of speed.
| >>971542
"To the moon" crypto shit is all I can see when you say that, sry
If you could show me examples of AI creating something new then I'd love to see it. But so far all the "art" I've seen it generate is just a mash of shit that exists already. I'd love to be proven wrong but you're just saying the same shit that gets said during every tech hype trend with nothing to back it up
| >>971543 here's a link to Google's MusicLM a music generation model through the use of text (text to music)
https://google-research.github.io/seanet/musiclm/examples/
With several examples of new music in diferent genres
It's not perfect, it's not even that good, (nor close to a good human artist, by far) but it's a good start.
Also, about your claim regarding generative AI, it's not like they are doing "unoriginal" nor exactly "repeating and mixing the shit they've seen" 1/2
| 2/2 ... They (the Deep learning generative models) are indeed making new things, they are not re-arranging the exact the same things they've seen, they are making a new thing based on the LEARNING they had, focusing their variables and their goals on what the human(s) asked them through the text.
Here's a good video that explains it well and also summarizes a bit of the history of how it came to be
https://youtu.be/SVcsDDABEkM?si=JWOxVPmaOjw7M4nt
tell me your thoughts if you'd lik
| I also extremely recommend researching about the topic "Technological Singularity" predicted as an upcoming event in the possible near future,
A book written by Ray Kurzweil, "The Singularity is Near" goes into the depth of this topic.
Although is not only him, but also other futurists and great minds, scientists, and engineers converge and talk about the singularity quite often.
The subreddit r/Singularity has a good place to gather more info and solid sources.
| >>eb263d
Thank you for actually providing this stuff. I do still disagree with you, but this seems to mainly be because of a misunderstanding
Wither I didn't make myself clear or you misunderstood what I meant by it not being able to make new stuff. My point was that it can't do things humans haven't done, as in it needs to learn from humans in order to do something. It can't think for itself or invent brand new concepts, only work based on what humans have already made and fed it
| It can make new music within a genre that exists, but it can't just make a new genre. That's what I meant by what I said
When it comes to the singularity stuff, I'm well aware of the concept, but it's not much more than that. It's mainly just a sci-fi thing. While I'm sure it would technically be possible at some point with extremely powerful technology, nobody would allow such a thing to happen. Governments and just humans as a species would avoid that at all costs
| Oh, ID change, wtf
But, yeah. People don't want AI that can develop past humans, which is why we have settled for just calling machine learning algorithms AI instead. Actual artificial intelligence isn't possible at the moment and not something any sane human being would want to have to deal with
Cool concept for sure, but just a bad idea, which is also why AI will not invent stuff past what humans can, but continue to simply work within the boundaries of what humans have made
| Genuinely do appreciate the stuff you provided though, cause it's interesting shit for sure. It's fun tech
| >>971598
>as in it needs to learn from humans in order to do something
Humans need to learn from humans too
>It can't think for itself or
Yet, but mainly because the AIs of modern day haven't been made with that purpose in mind, although some self-recursive, self decision-making, (somewhat)self-reflective, AI agents already exist.
>invent brand new concepts
Humans can't do that either, or at least humans can't be completely, purely, original, can anyone imagine a new color?
| >>971599
>It's mainly just a sci-fi thing.
It is not! It is a very likely scenario! Although you're free to disagree with me, even experts can't agree much on when it will happen
>technically be possible at some point with extremely powerful technology
It actually might not be that advanced, I truly think (in my personal opinion), that it will be quite possible in the near future (the next few years, the next decade)
You should really check the current status of the benchmarks 1/
| >>971605
I don't see your point with that first thing
Yes, but my point is that nobody would want that, and if created there'd be very heavy limitations placed on it as to avoid something like a singularity. It's also just not convenient. Tools that use machine learning is the only thing rn cause it's the only somewhat useful AI adjacent thing
What do you think made the internet? Also inventing new concepts and changing the laws of the universe are wildly different things lmao
| ...benchmarks of AI, that are already surpassing humans in several areas like reading comprehension, speech comprehension, and some others
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/165mkdq/the_evolution_of_ai_vs_humans/
There's an infograph about it
>Governments and just humans as a species would avoid that at all costs
Actually most govenments (specially USA and China) would seek to achieve tech singul. because that'd give them incredible advantages and developments
| >>971609 I'm not understading your perspective very well, if you could have a super genius in a bottle, would you not want to have it?
| >>971600
>AI will not invent stuff past what humans can, but continue to simply work within the boundaries of what humans have made
Actually, Deep Mind's AlphaFold AI program is accelerating the field of biology and medicine by predicting the exact 3D structure of proteins, and quite quickly. Humans only had a tiny fraction of the whole universe of proteins and their structures before this huge help came,
https://www.deepmind.com/research/highlighted-research/alphafold
| >>971607
I heard talks of singularity being close when I was growing up in the early 2000s (so I'm skeptical cause, well, it hasn't happened yet). It's not just that researchers can't agree on when but they also can't agree on if it's even realistic at all. The world as we know it is also collapsing. Even if the one saying a singularity could happen in 2029 is right there won't be anyone to make it due to the fact that if systems don't change by then the climate crisis will kill us
| >>971611
Reading comprehension and speeech comprehension is not signs of it surpassing humans in intelligence. It's just a machine doing what machines do best. Computers can process tect at near instant speed and always have been able to
I'm sure somebody in those govs would be insane enough to want it, but both of those (and especially the US) is on the brink of collapse, so I severely doubt they'd be able to or want to invest enough resources into it
| >>971612
No. No I wouldn't. I think something like that would just create way more problems for humanity. It wouldn't have any humanity, it would "think" in a purely utilitarian way. It's solutions to problems would be inhumane and not take into consideration shit like emotions or morals etc.
I don't want humans to reach a point of immortality or to be all knowing. We're not built for that. Something like that would most like just drive us to insanity
| >>971616
I read through it, and it only firther proves my point. That work is work that humans can do, but it's slow and expensive. Therefore they trained this tool to do it for usfor the sake of efficiency. That's exactly what I mean by it being a tool that works within the boundaries set by humans
>>971617
Mhm!! I'm honestly really enjoying this conversation. Hearing your perspective on it is really interesting and it's nice to have a genuine talk. That's rare online
| (sry for the several spelling mistakes it's like 5am here lol, hope it's still legible)
| >>971627 it's okay
>>971620 >>971622
I don't think a collapse will happen anytime, because funnily enough, I've also grown up being told that we're on the verge of collapse but it hasn't happened yet(also a lot of supposed to be "end of the world"s)
>>971624
I see your point but imo the AI will be quite human if it's build in a good way
and hopefully, humanly good
>I don't want humans to reach a point of immortality
Why not? :(
I don't think extending our lives will make us 1/
| 2/ insane, since perfect immoratlity is quite probably impossible to achieve, so... We'll just extend our lives! There're many things I want to see!
Although I agree with you in the all knowing thing, that scares me
| >>971625 well it is working within human boundaries that's true, but still, it's accelerating things faster than without it
| >>971692
Same for that part. But the problem is that, well, the climate crisis isn't a joke. It is an actual thing, and scientists have confirmed that we've already fucked up beyond repair. Large parts of my country flooded this summer, houses floating down the streets, etc
That's unprecedented here, and due to the firm grasp oil companies have on worldwide politics, if radicals don't force a complete change in system we will just die out from this shit. That's sadly just fact
| >>971692
And especially in places like the US politicians are firing at every single group of people whoch has been drastically increasing the amount of people radicalised. Regardless of what happens, the systems currently in place are probably unsustainable and collapse from climat or civil war within the next 10-20 years seeem like the most likely outcome to me
Hopefully it would be! But if it is fully conscious, idk how we could make sure it would want to cooperate and have our
| best interests in mind. Humans are also heavily influenced by politics, so I'm worried the AI if "humanised" would be very, very biased in certain directions instead of being truly objective and finding the actual best solutions. But, just gotta hope whoever would be responsible for it would do what's best
>>971693
Extending our lives I'm definitely not against, but if we got to a point where we had no way out other than be killed or suicide, idk if most people could handle that
| There's a certain comfort that comes with knowing time is limited, and the fact we're not immortal is great motivation to actually do shit and not stay stagnant. At least based on my own views, those of people around me and my experiences I think having a time limit and being aware of it is a big part of what makes us human and keeps us from going too far off the rails
>>971694
Which is sick! I don't think that's bad at all. My only point was that it needs human input to do stuff
| >>971696 >>971697 I'm sorry to hear that, I didn't know things were that bad in other countries and places :(
But I hope everything gets better somehow
>>971698
It's a possibility the AI will be biased, but that's another issue we need to talk about/adress when the time comes
And I know what you mean with that thing of living forever without being able to leave or without the "sleep forever" option
| >>971699 I understand that perspective quite well! Although personally, I want to live without that natural limit of aging and dying, I love life a lot
| >>971882
It can, but the only way would be to shut down majority if not all of industry and replace oil and shit with nuclear. It would require corporations and governments to universally agree to do that immediately and simultaneously, and they ain't doing that willingly, ever. So either it won't get better or we'll abandon the system that would make that kinda AI existing possible
True. But imo that problem should be handle before we get there so we don't fuck up big
| >>971884
Valid. I love life a lot too, and it does sound tempting at times. I just wouldn't wanna risk it though, cause I don't want to lose my love for this life again
| >>971887
>replace oil and shit with nuclear
Yeah that would be awesome and I there is still some hope that they'll go nuclear if we achieve viable nuclear fussion soon (hopefully)
>should be handle before we get there so we don't fuck up big
Oh yeah that makes sense
>>971888
Very understandable, I hope you're doing okay g/u/rl
| >>971962
It's very much achievable already. We know how to fix it. They just gotta actually push it and stop stalling
I'm doing really well!! Amazing even <3
Hope you're doing well too g/u/rl!!
| >>971975 I'm happy to hear that you're doing well!
Let's hope the future is a bit better than the present
This thread is permanently archived
| How do you g/u/rls feel about them?
As someone slightly less terminally online, I don't much like the idea of them, but wouldn't mind if they weren't spamming all of my feeds for some reason.
I only really find the joke ones to be in good taste. The ones of living people feel uncomfortable to me, and the ones of dead people feel in poor taste.