The future fucking sucks.
post
You can't convince me that's not manufactured
It literally is. Human beings aren't listening to this music. The huge numbers are coming from bots.
The AI slop bros are making the Dead Internet theory real, to artificially inflate their value.
Americans love slop music, whether by AI or a committee of writers behind a sexy singer.
Manufactured isn't even a word people use. It was made up by sleepy Joe. (Can't believe I have to add /s)
“Synthetic music”, no you mean AI slop but want to keep inflating the bubble the Guardian
I like to not get music advice from charts. I don’t think I’ve heard AI music. I’m going to not look for it.
Spotify won't tell you that it is even if you do happen to stumble upon it.
Serious question: Let's say you hear a song on Spotify, and you like it, add it to your favorites, etc., then later find out it was AI. Do you stop enjoying it? If so, why?
I would. I have a difficult time separating art from the artist and couldn't currently bring myself to willingly listen to AI music. Mostly because it's a soulless conglomeration of what "good music is supposed to sound like" rather than art created by an actual human who has something to say. But to be fair, I feel the same about any pop or country hit that is churned out for the sole aim of getting a hit.
I’d stop listening to it in simple protest. I want to hear music made by people. I have no interest in ai crap. If we keep allowing ai then the real artists will cease to exist. The young people won’t pursue a career in music. Why would they?
F ai
The young people won’t pursue a career in music. Why would they?
MIDI didn't stop people from playing instruments. Digital art didn't stop people from painting. AI can't put on live performances.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like AI taking peoples' artistic jobs any more than anyone else, but I do think this is a bit of an extreme take.
The industry does not necessarily care if someone's music is digital or acoustic, but it WILL care if they have to pay you for it.
And that’s the point. Ai means basically no one is getting paid. But the industry is making money.
F ai
It makes indie scene significantly harder to get into. For every mildly successful indie artist, there's thousands of those who failed to break into the scene, now they have to compete with not only their competitor that is more famous than them, they have to compete with 0 effort music from 0 effort producer. It kinda like how game dev is getting harder and harder to get into, as the competition is getting tougher and people expectation is getting higher, even though they don't have to compete with AI slop that plays and looks like a Ubisoft game yet.
Of course, people who persevere or talented will eventually pops up from the sea of slop, as vocaloid doesn't kill japanese indie scene. But then vocaloid is entirely different thing than what the current AI issue is.
Hatsune Miku has been putting on live performances for decades. There’s no reason at all why an AI-generated musical act couldn’t too.
The horrific actions of Ian Dankins made me unable to listen to Lostprophets songs, so if I don't immediately spot the "underwater" quality of genAI songs...
Note that I submitted a San Francisco Chronicle article about this yesterday. One thing that came up during the discussion is that while there may be a lot of people streaming the song on Spotify, at least according to one source, the Billboard chart that was topped was a small-volume one, so it may not be as significant as it sounds.
Volume aside, I find Billboard charts equivalent to JD Power awards as they've always been rigged via payola schemes and the fact that nearly the entire nation's radio stations are owned by a single company iHeartRadio/Clear Channel. The music industry is picking winners and losers not the listening public.
This may be different with streaming but that platform makes it really easy to rig the system with bots.
I don't use spotify but I wonder how many plays were because the next song algorithm "decided" that these songs will now be heard by everyone.
Can someone make some AI music to counter the alt right AI music?
If you're looking for AI-generated anti-AI music, we've got that (mildly NSFW).
I can offer a curl terminal log output in death metal, from my favourites, if it helps.
I'm sure you could, if you want.
They're either using one of those or a similar service.
I don't think that it's gonna be all that rewarding, though.
I mean, do you really want to be trying to get in a yelling match with someone else over politics, each trying to drown the other out?
Yeah I was thinking why not make some punk rap antifa song similar to Bob Vylan.
If AI generated slop raises to the top of the charts, it tells a lot about the perceived quality of the human-made slop there.
Yes, masses like simple shit. Fast food, superhero movies and simple tunes with easy to understand lyrics.
Turns out a lot of people like how it sounds.
Also, I think the less interesting question is where it is today and more where it's going to be in, say, five years, if you figure that development continues.
And might be possible to explore more long-tail stuff if production costs drop, or even do stuff customized to a single listener. I mean, we can't economically have humans do that.
Oh yeah? Tell me more about the long tail. Do you have a pitch deck you can show me?
God, I fucking hate this shit.
Do you have a pitch deck you can show me?
What?
The "long tail" refers to niche areas with only a few people who want something in a market. It's talking about the graph of a distribution of potential consumers for something.
Like, there's normally a lot of people interested in a few things. You can sell a blockbuster to them. But then there's this long tail of people interested in small, niche areas. If you can bring more of them together or reduce production costs, it starts to be viable to make things for them as well. The Internet is often described as bringing people with those niche interests together, so that people on that long tail become numerous enough to make something for. Bringing down production costs has the same sort of effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail
In business, the term long tail is applied to rank-size distributions or rank-frequency distributions (primarily of popularity), which often form power laws and are thus long-tailed distributions in the statistical sense. This is used to describe the retailing strategy of selling many unique items with relatively small quantities sold of each (the "long tail")—usually in addition to selling fewer popular items in large quantities (the "head").
The long tail was popularized by Chris Anderson in an October 2004 Wired magazine article, in which he mentioned Amazon.com, Apple and Yahoo! as examples of businesses applying this strategy.[7][9] Anderson elaborated the concept in his book The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More.
Anderson cites research published in 2003 by Erik Brynjolfsson, Yu (Jeffrey) Hu, and Michael D. Smith, who first used a log-linear curve on an XY graph to describe the relationship between Amazon.com sales and sales ranking. They showed that the primary value of the internet to consumers comes from releasing new sources of value by providing access to products in the long tail.[10]
Before a long tail works, only the most popular products are generally offered. When the cost of inventory storage and distribution fall, a wide range of products become available. This can, in turn, have the effect of reducing demand for the most popular products.
Some of the most successful Internet businesses have used the long tail as part of their business strategy. Examples include eBay (auctions), Yahoo! and Google (web search), Amazon (retail), and iTunes Store (music and podcasts), amongst the major companies, along with smaller Internet companies like Audible (audio books) and LoveFilm (video rental). These purely digital retailers also have almost no marginal cost, which is benefiting the online services, unlike physical retailers that have fixed limits on their products. The internet can still sell physical goods, but at an unlimited selection and with reviews and recommendations.[31] The internet has opened up larger territories to sell and provide its products without being confined to just the "local Markets" such as physical retailers like Target or even Walmart. With the digital and hybrid retailers there is no longer a perimeter on market demands.[32]
You have to have at least a certain number of potential sales before it becomes worthwhile for a human to address a niche. If the cost falls, then new niches become viable to sell to. So now you can make, say, R&B aimed specifically at teenage female Inuits or something.
Gonna stay on YouTube with my subscriptions (music) and on my CDs and Vinyls.
"Slop" feels like a weird description when it's something widely loved and appreciated. Like, either you mean it in the snobby "most people don't understand real art" sense, or what's not slop?
Compare to when it's used to describe, like, one of those SEO clickbait sites, which are full of hallucinated answers to whatever you were looking for. Nobody likes that, but it's hard to shut down.
Most people don't understand art, as most people also don't understand chess. It's important to accept that art is not something you can understand just because you like it or not, that's not the same thing; in the same way that's important to accept that a move made by a grandmaster chess player cannot be judged by someone who doesn't understand chess at a deep enough level. Science follows a similar conundrum, people don't understand even the most fundamental level of a certain field beyond their high-school knowledge and they still believe themselves capable of judging what science is.
We, as humans, and as a society, must learn to accept our own shortcomings and take pride in not having an opinion about something that we do not understand enough. It's fine to listen and like some tunes, but that does not give you the qualifications and knowledge to judge the quality of music and art. For that, you'd have to go deeper, and then you would also become a "snob".
So are you an art fan who thinks 4'33" is a work of genius? Or one of the ones who thinks it's garbage? I'm almost tempted to go for visual art where these controversies are more common; musicians are actually pretty chill about it most of the time. (And I'll avoid the derogatory term if we're discussing whether it's good, as opposed to just if someone in particular is doing it)
Scientists come to consensus, and update that consensus in sync as new discoveries are made. Art fans do not. There's also anthropology showing the existence of non-Western systems of music completely different from and alien to our own, divergences between systems within Western music history, and a long history of new kinds of music associated with minorities being deemed "wrong". Meanwhile, other people have known beauty is subjective continuously since Plato.
All that adds up to gatekeeping art being done for essentially the same reasons people gatekeep anything.
Without any info on how they compile the "Top 50 viral" list, I'm not sure how significant this really is.
Never heard of that chart before, so this feels like it was just an easy article for click farming.
Yeah this is all bit click bait. That broken rust song topped the digital sales charts, which is basically tracking Apple Music downloads. No one buys music anymore. They topped it with 3000 sales at a dollar each.
ai music is only good for memes, messing around and trying out things humans couldn't possibly do. I can't understand why anyone would want to listen to "normal" ai music.
all 67 comments