There can be nothing new or original out of AI because all of its inputs are stolen from what already exists. Real creativity comes solely from humans. Also, that clip - the song, singing, and visual - is dreadful in every way.
This needs to be hammered into techbro’s heads until they shut the fuck up about the so-called “AI” revolution.
Still, AI is able to “create” new things by a combination of existing concepts. It can generate a Roomba in the style of Van Gogh for example, which is probably not something that currently exists.
The style of an authors prose is not derivative. Read your favorite book and then tell an ai to write a short story in the style of that author.
Unless you have trully blind taste you are going to notice just how wooden the ai writing is.
An excellent example will be some sort of pulp novel where the author uses canned phrases. Dan Abbnet has a very repetitive style that lends itself well to ai, yet ai can not write a convincing Ciaphas Cain story. Convincing as in, if you showed it to me and i didnt know what ai was, i wouldnt think it was fanfiction.
Is this ability to create something original and non-derivative a basic human ability or is it something that very few are capable of only after many years of developing their ability?
Are you able to right now create something original and non-derivative as an example?
Not to talk down to you, but do you know what prose means? I actually used to not know what that word means so its not an embarassing thing to not know. That might be why I percieve you as “talking past me.” Prose is a writer’s style and choice of language. So purple prose is writing in an overly flowerly and annoying way. Every writer, regardless of talent and skill, has original prose. I think the only amount of practice required to be able to achieve this is to write enough to have a consistent style. So since you completed public school you also probably meet the criteria.
I have done the specific experiment I suggested using Dan Abbnet’s works with Chat GPT because I consider Dan to be my favorite author who makes repetitive pulpy fiction that I think AI idealy should be able to replicate, but it really can’t.
Thanks for sharing this. I wasn’t especially grabbed at the beginning, and honestly, since I had already checked the length, shortly in I didn’t think I would finish it. Maybe just because I was sort of disoriented at the start and not really relating so it was hard to find a foothold. Maybe a quarter of a way into it though it started to come together for me and began really enjoying it. The final scene was quite vivid and it nicely sort of quickly put me into the shoes of the hero and the pride they felt for their accomplishment. The anger toward everything just before succeeding did a good job of making them seem believable. I appreciate you taking the time to write that and share it.
I do not consider myself a writer, but I do find it therapeutic, and it is something that I have a habit of doing at least a little bit of every day, in fact, it is something that I keep track of my “streak” of. I think of prose as the writing version individual etchings that a carver does when forming a block of wood into a sculpture. Any individual one on its own is not often very impressive. But it is the way they come together as a whole that creates something beautiful. I don’t know how inline that is with the accepted definition of the term, and really it isn’t a word that I have much cause for using, or much interaction with in my life.
With the recent popularity of chatGPT there are a lot of people who have just now started paying attention to modern chatbots. Many people see them and assume that how they are now is just how they are, as if we are at some sort of wall, and the things they are still bad at is something intrinsic to the way a computer is able to “think”. These are the people who insist that a human is required to make beautiful or worthy artistic writing. They have made this judgement based on this assumption that what they see now is how it has to be.
There is another group of people, however, that see this very differently, these are the people who have been paying attention to the space a bit longer. They are watching a rapidly accelerating trajectory. They saw how awful, yet intriguing, early gpt2 was with things like AI dungeon, and the enormous leap it took upon the release of gpt3. They watched Replicas morph from being a tacky gimmick to something that had enough of an emotional hold on people to make them distraught enough to cause stickied suicide hotline reddit posts when the owners made the decision to pump the breaks on their capabilities. Something that was perceived as many as “my best friend has been lobotamized and there is nothing I can do about it”. I know, crazy, right?
The newcomers that got washed in with the latest chatGPT wave see this metaphoric car and say it’s no big deal, it’s only going 30km/hr, but what they fail to realize is that .25 seconds ago it was practically parked, and the gas pedal is still very much on the floor. To the people who have been paying attention longer, they don’t see this single snapshot of a slow moving car, they are watching a rapidly accelerating vehicle and wondering if it is gonna hit 60km/hr by the end of the first second or 200, and they are also wondering if the acceleration is going to continue after the second is up and how long it can keep this kind of rapid growth going. Who knows, maybe this new wave came in with no frame of reference, made thir initial gut response and they will end up being right and the more long term observers will be wrong, but that’s almost never how things seem to go. Only time will tell though.
Unless you have trully blind taste you are going to notice just how wooden the ai writing is.
That’s because the state of AI is “not good”. It’s nothing to do with being incapable of originality. Every word in that book has been written somewhere else. Write a book entirely comprised of brand new words and the reader won’t be able to understand it.
Originality is not binary, it exists on a scale. AI is just not very far up the scale just yet.
The problem for a lot of the companies behind these things, is that they've run into problems now their investors want them to turn meat into a black forest gateau.
I'm sceptical if they can manage that feat. But what do I know.
It's not the techbros leading this, it's the BBAs and MBAs that wouldn't know art if Michelangelo came to life and slapped them in the face with the sistine chapel.
Right just as soon as all the people proclaiming that can point to the soul bit of my brain. There is absolutely no reason to say that AI cannot be creative there’s nothing fundamentally magic about creativity that means only humans can do it.
You’re equating creativity to the soul. They’re not the same thing. But we can definitely look at the brain and see what parts light up when perform creative tasks.
Right so why can’t the same sections be simulated? If you accept that the human brain is simply an organic implementation of a neural network, then you have to accept that a synthetic implementation can achieve the same thing.
The idea that the human brain is special is ludicrous and completely without evidence
I mean, I’m not arguing anything other than your false equivalent. I’m sure, at some point, we’ll be able to mimic how the human brain actually works, not just imitate the results. But we’re not even close right now. Not in the same ball park. Not in the same tri-state area. We still don’t really understand how it does what it does completely. We know some of the processes, and understand that’s it’s chemicals interacting with the meat in some way, but it’s still mostly kinda just weird stuff our body does. We’re mostly just pointing at areas that light up with activity when we do a thing and saying “yep, that’s the general area that’s doing stuff.”
And that’s just understanding it, let alone figuring out how to imitate it with technology. And none of those parts of the brain work independently. They’re spread out and they overlap and exchange and change information constantly, all with chemicals. Getting a computer to mimic the outcome is still something we’re far from, but without the same processes, its not really gonna come out the same. We’ve got just… so long to go before we actually get close to simulating a human brain.
And just for fun, I do think this line of yours is funny:
The idea that the human brain is special is ludicrous and completely without evidence
Again, I wasn’t saying anything of any sort, and I’m still not really taking any stance beyond “that shits complicated and we’re not there yet.” But you’re supposing that a “synthetic implementation can achieve the same thing.” … without supporting evidence. This argument was clearly meant for someone else, but it’s not really fair to demand evidence from someone for their claim when you don’t support your own. Jumping to the conclusion that something is impossible is the same as assuming it’s definitely possible. You don’t know that. I don’t know that. No one really knows that until it’s done.
The belief that only humans can be creative is interestingly parallel to intelligent design creationism. The latter is fundamentally a religious faith, but it strongly appeals to the intuition that anything that happens needs a humanoid creator.
I see it an more an inability to analyze, evaluate, and edit. A lot of "creativity" in the world of musical composition is putting together existing elements and seeing what happens. Any composer from pop to the very avant-garde, is influenced and sometimes even borrow from their predecessors (it's why copyright law is so complex in music).
It's the ability to make judgements, does this sound good/interesting, does this have value, would anyone want to listen to this, and adjust accordingly that will lead to something original and great. Humans are so good at this, we might be making edits before the notes hit the page (Brainstorming). This AI clearly wasn't. And deciding on value, seems wildly complex for modern day computers. Humans can agree on it (if you like Rock, but hate country for example).
So in the end, they are "creative" but in a monkey-typewritter situation, but who is going to sort through the billions of songs like this to find the one masterpiece?
Plenty of humans make those judgements about their own creations. And plenty of them get a shock when they release their creations to the masses and don’t get the praise that they expected.
but who is going to sort through the billions of songs like this to find the one masterpiece?
One of the overlooked aspects of generative AI is that effectively by definition generative models can also be classifiers.
So let’s say you were Spotify and you fed into an AI all the songs as well as the individual user engagement metadata for all those songs.
You’d end up with a model that would be pretty good at effectively predicting the success of a given song on Spotify.
So now you can pair a purely generative model with the classifier, so you spit out song after song but only move on to promoting it if the classifier thinks there’s a high likelihood of it being a hit.
Within five years systems like what I described above will be in place for a number of major creative platforms, and will be a major profit center for the services sitting on audience metadata for engagement with creative works.
Right, the trick will be quantifying what is ‘likely to be a hit’, which if we’re honest, has already been done.
Also, neural networks and other evolutionary algorithms can inject random perturbations/mutations to the system which, operate a bit like uninformed creativity (something like banging on a piano and hearing something interesting that’s worth pursuing). So, while not ‘inspired’ or ‘soulful’ as we would generally think of it, these algorithms are capable of being creative In some sense. But it would need to be recognized as ‘good’ by someone or something…and back to your point.
The difference is everyone has a different prospective, remembers some parts forgets others. Some journalists found a trick which revealed ChatGPT training data and it was literally just verbatim stolen data which literally contained a real person’s personal data. You could hack into someone’s brain and they wouldn’t be able to directly recreate anything from memory alone, just watch any “from memory” youtube video.
While it’s true there’s nothing stopping AI from having human-like experiences, the content laundering is the thing corporations actually want.
Except that it’s wrong… AI is capable of creativity. It created the artist name. It’s clearly not a very developed or robust sense of creativity because it clearly just hashed up the name Hanna Montana, and the song is probably likewise just a hashed up existing song, but I’m guessing it probably did a better job of creating an original work than vanilla ice…
I’m sorry, anyone who says these so-called “AI” are capable of creativity are being hoodwinked by marketing. This is an algorithmic probability engine, it doesn’t think and it doesn’t have an imagination. It just regurgitates probabilistic responses from its large data set.
... what do you think imagination is? A gift from God? The probabilities are probably more chaotic, and the data set more biased... but they're the basic foundation of human imagination.
Machine based "creativity" is nascent, and far less unique... but that doesn't mean it isn't a form of creativity.
The human imagination also involves the phenomenal experience. You do not just record the data coming at you and regurgitate it, you experience it and then your experience further changes the data itself. We call this “subjectivity” and it’s where creativity comes from.
I am not saying that machine creativity is impossible. What I’m saying is these LLMs are not creative because they don’t even know what they’re doing and they don’t even know “they” are doing it. There’s no “there” there. No more creative than rolling dice.
and experience is ongoing learning, so if an LLM were training on things after the pretraining period then that’d allow it to be creative in your definition?
but in that case, what’s the difference between doing that all at once, and doing it over a period of time?
experience is just tweaking your neurons to make new/different connections
Experience is ongoing learning through the subjective self. When you experience the color red you do not just record it with your photoreceptors, and your experience of the color red is different from mine because we don’t just record wavelengths of light. We don’t just continue to learn from continual exposure to new data, we also continue to learn from generating our own data. In this way our subjective experience is qualitative, not simply quantitative. I don’t just see the specific light wavelengths, I experience the “redness” of red.
When LLM is trained on that kind of data it just starts to hallucinate. This is promising! I think the hallucination phenomenon is actually a precursor to creativity and gives us great insights into the nature of subjective experience. In a sense, my phenomenal experience of the color red is actually much like a hallucination where I am also able to experience the color’s “warmth” and “boldness”. Subjectivity.
it’s only qualitative because we don’t understand it
when an LLM “experiences” new data via training, that’s subjective too: it works its way through the network in a manner that’s different depending on what came before it… if different training data came before it, the network would look differently and the data would change the network as a whole in a different way
When an LLM feeds on its own outputs, though, it quickly starts to hallucinate. I think this is actually closer to creativity, but it betrays the fundamental flaw behind the technology - it does not think about its own thoughts and requires a curator to help it create.
I’ll believe something is an AI when it can be its own curator and not drive itself insane.
that’s a lack of understanding of concepts though, rather than a lack of creativity… curation requires that you understand the concept that you’re trying to curate: this looks more like a dog than this; this is a more attractive sunset than this
current LLMs and ML don’t understand concepts, which is their main issue
id argue that it kind of does “think about its own thoughts” to some degree: modern ML is layered, and each layer of the net feeds into the next… one layer of the net “thinks about” the “thoughts” of the previous layer. now, it doesn’t do this as a whole but neither do we: memories and neural connections are lossy; heck even creating a creative work isn’t going to turn out exactly like you thought it in your head (your muscle memory and skill level will effect the translation from brain to paper/canvas/screen)
but even we hallucinate in the same way. don’t look at a bike, and then try and draw a bike… you’ll get general things like pedals, wheels, seat, handlebars, but it’ll be all connected wrong. this is a common example people use to show how our brains aren’t as precise and we might like to think… drawing a bike requires a lot of very specific things to be in very specific places and that’s not how our brain remembers the concept of “bike”
current LLMs and ML don’t understand concepts, which is their main issue
This is a relevant issue to the question!
If I take a dose of LSD and paint the colors I hallucinate, is that creative? I’d argue it’s not.
Only when I, the subjective self, curate my own thoughts and sensations can I engage in a creative process. I can think about my own thoughts without going insane (how do the colors make me feel, what do the colors mean?) and that’s a fundamental part of creativity and intelligence. Conceptualization is key to subjectivity.
I don’t think this is far off. I just don’t think we’re there, either, and we should be skeptical of marketing hype.
i don’t agree with that definition of creative… there’s lots of engineering work that’s creative: writing code and designing systems can be a very creative process, but doesn’t involve feeling… it’s problem solving, and thats a creative process. you’re narrowly defining creativity as artistic expression of emotion, however there’s lots of ways to be creative
now, i think thats a bit of a strawman (so i’ll elaborate on the broader point), but i think its important to define terms
i agree we should be skeptical of marketing hype for sure: the type of creativity that i believe ML is currently capable of is directionless. it doesn’t understand what it’s creating… but the truth lies somewhere in the middle
ML is definitively creating something new that didn’t exist before (in fact i’d say that its trouble with hallucinations of language are a good example of that: it certainly didn’t copy those characters/words from anywhere!)… this fits the easiest definition of creative: marked by the ability or power to create
the far more difficult definition is: having the quality of something created rather than imitated
the key here being “rather than imitated” which is a really hard thing to prove, even for humans! which is why our copyright laws basically say that if you have evidence that you created something first, you pretty much win: we don’t really try to decide whether something was created or imitated
with things like transformative works or things that are similar, it’s a bit more of a grey area… but the argument isn’t about whether something is an imitation; rather it’s argued about how different the work is from the original
The same could be said of a lot of creatives. You speak of greater creativity, that which evokes depth and gravity. There is still more shallow creativity. Learning creativity. That which you do before you learn to do better. Kind of what these are doing.
I'm not saying it's good or bad, though the people who hold the reigns definitely don't have the best intentions for their use, but underestimating it is the first step to allowing them to run rampant.
"Never attribute to malice that which you can attribute to stupidity" is the slogan of those who do nothing but look down on others... who underestimate the horrible things the "stupid" can do. Don't assume stupidity just because you don't like something. It makes it that much easier for it to bite you on the ass in the future.
Can you prove that anyone except you exists? I didnt know we can just make something up and then demand to be disproven. You have to prove that a brain does work that way. Do you believe in God? If not, then how are you not a hypocrite?
And here come the techbros to dehumanize themselves.
You and I feel. We don’t just generate outputs from inputs, we experience them. The color red isn’t just a datapoint recorded by photoreceptors, it’s a phenomenal experience that “I”, the self, experience as a being-in-the-world. Further, the color red that I experience is not the same as the color red you experience, even though it’s the same color at the same wavelength. Everything we think and feel relates to everything else, and while I can imagine how you might experience the color red and you can provide me with data points to make it easier for me to imagine it, that imagination will always be tainted by my own subjective experience.
To me it looks like you hold a lot of pride in being a human and consider humanity special. Im here to tell you we are no different from amoebas and giraffes. We just specialize in our complex meat computers.
If you took a psychedelic or a cognitive psychology class you would understand through feel that feel is just the result of you being a meat calculator. Our feelings are the cumulative result of all the inputs and outputs. All at once. Slap some lived experience filters for subjectivity and bam.
Feel is subjective. Not everyone’s a vicious crypto tech bro. Open your mind its a good time ❤️
What I’m saying is LLMs do not actually do that. They’re less creative than most animals, even if they’re more technically capable.
I’m not just a meat calculator, I’m also feedback loop of meat endlessly calculating itself. That’s what subjectivity is. When LLMs do this they hallucinate, and ironically while this is considered undesirable I think that’s actually closer to creativity than the song this AI wrote.
Yes, it is literally impossible for any AI to ever exist that can be creative. At no point in the future will it ever create anything creative, that is something only human beings can do. Anybody that doesn’t understand this is simply incapable of using logic and they have no right to contribute to the conversation at all. This has all already been decided by people who understand things really well and anyone who objects is obviously stupid.
I was agreeing with you. I’m so sick of people thinking that “someday AI might be creative”. Like no, it’s literally impossible unless some day AI becomes human(impossible) because human is the only thing capable of creativity. What have I said that you disagree with? You’re not one of them are you? What’s with all this obsessive AI love?
Yeah the current popular LLMs, absolutely they are, you couldn’t be more right.
We were talking about “AI” though. Are you implying that you think some day AI might be capable of creativity, and that creativity isn’t strictly a human trait?
Even those future “real” AIs are going to be taking in human input and regurgitating it back to us. The only difference is that the algorithms processing the data will continue to get better and better. There is not some cutoff where we go from 100% unintelligent chatbot to 100% intelligent AI. It is a gradual spectrum.
I believe a real AI would be able to generate its own inputs without humans to give it input. It would have an actual subjective experience, able to actually imagine new things with zero external inputs. It could experience the redness of the color red.
Is this how you see human intelligence? Is human intelligence made without the input of other humans? I understand that even babies have some sort of spark before they learn anything from other people, but dont they have the human dna input from their human parents? Why should the requirement for AI intelligence require no human input when even human intelligence seemingly requires human input to be made?
Sorry, lots of questions, just food for thought I suppose.
Yeah, to be clear, I’m not arguing that current LLMs are as creative and intelligent as people.
I am saying that even before babies get human language input, they still get input from people to be made, the baby’s algorithm to make that spark is modled on previous humans by the human data that is DNA. These future intelligent AIs will also be made by data that humans make. Even our current LLMs are not purely human language input, they also have an algorithm that is doing stuff with that data in order to show to us its, albeit relatively weak, “intelligent spark” that it had before it got all that human language input.
Chatbots are not new. They started around 1965. Objectively, gpt4 is more creative than the chatbots of 1965. The two are not equally able to create. This is an ongoing change, in the future AI will be more creative than today’s most creative AIs. AI will most likely continue on its trajectory and some day, if we dont all get destroyed, it will eventually be more intelligent and creative than humans.
I would love to hear an rebuttal to this that doesn’t just base its argument on the fact that AI needs human language input. A baby and its spark is not impressively intelligent. What makes that baby intelligent is its initial algorithm plus the fact that it gets human language data. Requiring that AI must do what the baby does without the human language data that babies get makes no sense to me as a requirement.
Without humans to curate the inputs and outputs, LLMs hallucinate and go insane. I think this is the precursor to creativity, but they need the ability to curate themselves (i.e. the ability to think about their own thoughts) before I’ll call them intelligences.
Yeah, you are definetly onto something there. If you are interested in checking out the current state of this, it is called “AutoGen”. You can think of it like a committee of voices inside the bots head. It takes longer to get stuff out, but it is much higher quality.
It is basically a group chat of bots working together on a common goal, but each with their own special abilities(internet access, apis, code running ability…) their own focuses, concerns, etc. It can be used to make anything, most projects now seem to be focused on application development, but there is no reason why it can’t be stories, movie scripts, research papers, whatever. For example, you can have a main author, an editor that’s fine-tuned on some editing guidelines/books, a few different fact checkers with access to the internet or datasets of research papers (or whatever reference materials) who are required to list sources for anything the author says(if no source can be found, then the author is told by the fact checkers and they must revise what they’ve written) and whatever other agents you can dream up. People are using dwsigners, marketers, CEOs… Then you plug in some api keys, maybe give them a token limit, and let them run wild.
A super early version of this idea was ChatDev, if you don’t want to go down the whole rabbit hole and just want a quick glimpse, skip ahead to 4:25, ChatDev has an animated visual representation of what is happening. These days AutoGen is where it’s at though, this same guy has a bunch of videos on it if you are looking to go a bit deeper.
Oh shit, I thought you had forgotten a “/s” at the end, but reading your other comments this is actually what you believe and how you talk. So… yeah, I’m not going to take someone who cites “people who understand things really well” as a source at face value.
Well then you didn’t read very many of my comments. I made this first comment because the post I responded to was so absurd so I just exaggerated the ridiculousness that they said. Of course AI is capable of creativity and intelligence. If you look at the long back and forth that this sparked you would see that this is my stance. After I made this over the top, very sarcastic comment, OP corrected themself to clarify that when they said “AI” they actually only meant the current state of LLMs. They have since admitted that it is indeed true that AI absolutely can be capable of creativity and intelligence.
No, I didn’t read the entirety of the comments you’ve made, I read your comment and the one you replied to. As a general rule, I (and I’d assume most people) read down a thread before replying, and don’t first look through all of everyone’s comment histories
Alright, no big deal. But yeah, your’re gut instinct was correct when you assumed there was a missing /s. I don’t really like the /s that much, especially in situations where it is so obvious.
If you had read down through this thread first then you would have seen the obviousness of the /s. I don’t think my comment history outside of this thread would have done much since I don’t generally talk about this stuff. I just meant if you had looked more than a couple comments in this particular back and forth discussion.
The anger comes from the fact that companies are using AI instead of hiring artists.
There is a distinction between a human being inspired by an existing piece of art and an ai creating something from other art. The human has to experience it through the lens of the human experience and create using the human body. AI takes multiple pieces of art and essentially makes a collage.
Eh, humans still take inspiration from others even in their original art. Most professionals draw from reference, or emulate styles, or follow some common method. Drawing from a singular source is ethically questionable, but imitating elements from many sources is just part of the process.
Arguably, no human creation is purely original, the originality comes from the creativity of the remix.
I’m not arguing for originality. I’m saying that you can have a human connection with a human made piece of art that, by definition, canon exist for AI art.
I think this is an important distinction. AI can be creative in that it can develop something new and unique, but it will have arrived at it by chance - through random inputs to the algorithm designed to minic evolutionary mutations that end up beneficial.
I agree that (at least for now) it would not be able to develop something out of inspiration or emotion. But that’s because we don’t understand enough about how emotion and inspiration are developed to create an algorithm that cultivates it.
I’ve been doing a lot of using, testing, and evaluating LLMs and GPT-style models for generating code and text/prose. Some of it is just general use to see how it behaves, some has been explicit evaluation of creative writing, and a bunch of it is code generation to test out how we need to modify our CS curriculum in light of these new tools.
It’s an impressive piece of technology, but it’s not very creative. It’s meh. The results are meh. Which is to be expected since it’s a statistical model that’s using a large body of prior work to produce a reasonable approximation of what it’s seen before. It trends towards the mean, not the best.
You have to know how to operate the oven to reheat store bought pie. Generative LLMs are machines like ovens, and turning the knobs is not creativity. Not operating the oven correctly gets you Sharon Weiss results.
and a bunch of it is code generation to test out how we need to modify our CS curriculum in light of these new tools.
I'm curious if you've gotten anything decent out of them. I've tried to use it for tech/code questions, and it's been nothing but disappointment after disappointment. I've tried to use it to get help with new concepts, but it hallucinates like crazy and always give me bad results, some of the time it's so bad that it gives me answers I've already told it we're wrong.
Yeah, I’ve just set up a hotkey that says something like “back up your answer with multiple reputable sources” and I just always paste it at the end of everything I ask. If it can’t find webpages to show me to back up its claims then I can’t trust it. Of course this isn’t the case with coding, for that I can actually run the code to verify it.
GPT-4 is quite impressive, and the dedicated code LLMs like Codex and Copilot are as well. The latter must have had a significant update in the past few months, as it’s become wildly better almost overnight. If trying it out, you should really do so in an existing codebase it can use as a context to match style and conventions from. Using a blank context is when you get the least impressive outputs from tools like those.
I've used gpt 3/3.5, bing, bard and copilot, and I'm not super stoked. Copilot gave me PS DSC items that don't actually exist, which was my most recent attempt at using a LLM.
I might see about figuring out if it can hook into my vs code instance so it's a bit smarter at some point.
I’m excited for how these tools will be used by human creators to accomplish things they could never do alone, and in that aspect it is a revolutionary technology. I hate that their marketing calls it “AI” though, the only intelligence involved is the human user that creates prompts and curates results.
That’s where some of the significant advances over the past 12 months of research have been, specifically around using the fine tuning phase to bias towards excellence. The biggest advance there has been that capabilities in larger models seem to be transmissible to smaller models by feeding in output from the larger more complex models.
So while you are correct that the pretrained models come out with a regression towards the mean, there are very promising recent advances in taking that foundation and moving it towards excellence.
Former musician turned “techbro” here… this music for this shit sounded like MIDI without a virtual instrument to me.
On one hand… I kinda love the thought of the music industry releasing shit like this. It would probably be the final nail in the coffin for the industry as we know it. I really want the “industry” to die. Creativity has been waining in Music since the early 90’s when it started having ties to the for profit prison system.
On the other hand… it scares me that maybe people would actually just accept this horrible shit as the new normal.
I get the sentiment, but don’t really agree. Humans’ inputs are also from what already exists, and music is generally inspired from other music which is why “genres” even exist. AI’s not there yet, but the statement “real creativity comes solely from humans” Needs Citation. Humans are a bunch of chemical reactions and firing synapses, nothing out of the realm of the possible for a computer.
the statement “real creativity comes solely from humans” Needs Citation.
Yeah, I’d actually make a more limited statement. Real creativity requires the subjective experience and the ability to generate inputs solely from subjectivity i.e. experience the redness of the color red. AI could definitely do that, which is why LLMs are not AI imo
Not so much an expert rather than just parroting what I saw, but according to a cursory search, and a Twitter community note I saw from a friend, the voice used by this project is Synthesizer V, which is actually a perfectly legitimate piece of software for using digital voices in music production. If you’ve heard of Vocaloid, or know about Hatsune Miku, SynthV is basically a competitor in that space.
Going back to the community note, the voice used is actually called Natalie, and apparently the TOS of SynthV does not allow use of its voices using a name that’s different to what was given. So they essentially can’t present the Natalie voice as Anna, which they are.
EDIT: I want to clarify that these voice synthesisers like SynthV and Vocaloid are usually based on the recording of someone who has consented to the use of their voice in that regard and has been paid for it. It’s not like the current AI voice cloning trend going on.
No prob! These digital voices have been around for over a decade now, maybe more. Some of them use “AI” to improve the sound of the voice (i.e. support more languages than actually recorded, make it sound realistic) but not in the way that current AI voice trends are going.
How so? It’s pretty good, wait a few years and it will definitely be as good or better than human musicians. If you’re talking as if it is a treat to musicians, they can only adapt and use such techs to push forward. All professions that require reasoning are endangered, not only music.
I am a musician and I like the technology (even wanted to do research on music generation in uni), but I still think the notion that music generation will surpass human capabilities in a few years is naive.
Right now, at the end of 2023, you are seeing barely a year of public interest and widespread development, after maybe a decade of slowly grinding academic experimentation. And already it’s enough to build some Vocaloid knockoff from scratch. You can tell it’s fake, as surely as a seven-fingered hand on some anime girl staring dead into the camera. But if you think all AI drawings still look like that… you should go check.
This isn’t a threat to artists, though. It’s a threat to the industry. Real human beings who want to make art will have more and better tools than ever before. Audiences that want an endless spigot of AI content… won’t need recording studios. You can already run this stuff on your computer. Some networks are getting better by getting bigger, which demands a really fancy computer. Other networks are getting better by getting smaller. Smaller networks train faster, even if they’re deeper, more abstract, and less predictable. They run faster, too, and on lesser hardware.
Hold onto your butts, folks. It’s gonna get weird.
Also, far from the most pressing issue here, but: just say Twitter. You don’t have to respect the stupid rebrand. You know it’s stupid because everyone keeps clarifying what they mean.
The actions of bigots are not a good “golden rule” situation. You are called what you want to be called.
But a business is not a person. Fuck what they want. Businesses are called whatever people recognize.
Same shit goes for Blackwater and Facebook. Reputation is a necessary part of commerce and politics, and escaping it through shell games is idiotic bullshit we should never respect.
This is a good and valid point but in the case of X, the real shit show started after our during the renaming period. Do if you want to point out the idiotic bullshit, I think X is the way to go. Nevertheless, that’s hard to pronounce, like “I re-X-ed your X” sounds like a messed up relationship issue.
It’s not as though the article is any better - bots just wrapping up a comment thread from twitter, cramming it with ads, and presenting it as an article.
Yeah, my blocked website list is growing everyday with websites that are literally just a 4 paragraph summary of a reddit post. 3 of the paragraphs are usually just "user ‘spezcocksucker’ says this but another person disagrees. Here’s the reddit link and 27 ads.
If it gets democratized enough Labels will go the way of the dodo I think, barring legal intervention of course. Why would a radio station pay a label for something they can churn out themselves, heck they need user metrics for adverters anyways, so just set up voting for your favorite songs and get a radio station fine tuned to your audience.
At least better than the same process but done by some mega Corp trying to make a song that can be universally accepted…
AI music can be fire if you use it as a part of the artistic process, not as the end result. It’s just every fucking technocracker wants to replace the artistic process completely so they don’t have to not pay their employees any more. EDIT: Actual AI, not that OpenAI content laundering shit.
Force multipliers are great for forces of good and terrible for forces of evil.
Like wanting to make audio versions of text. Great for increasing access ability for people. Terrible when it’s just to funnel people from the texts authors to your front for money and to serve ads.
To me the biggest problem with it is that it doesn’t understand the relationship between the meanings of the words and the melody of the song. It kinda makes it sound like a bad parody song. I think if you looked at just the lyrics or just the melody they would be quite convincing on their own.
So my bad, this video is not made by the creators of the song, but by an anti-AI person, they added the subtitles, the cutaways to evil robots and the weird message at the end. They are also called “Big Data Analytics”.
Here I am just wondering how much automation went into tuning/tweaking the voice. I’ve made some stuff in Synthesizer V Studio and that’s a big chunk of the work. Being able to load something into an AI and have it give a pass would be awesome.
Just looking at the picture this already seems like amateur work.
As for the music being … Yes it’s pretty flat and unexciting. Realistically lots of today’s music is already a remix of a remix and honestly… quite generic. Bands have been cast for looks for a long time, autotune has been here for ages, and with a better effort in the voice department I don’t see AI artists being far off. I don’t think they will ever completely replace artists here, especially since live events really are a thing of their own but… eh
I think in the context of K-Pop it makes total sense, the music and everything around is anyway just done after a formula which has proven to work very well to sell. While right now you need to put children and teenagers through years of rigorous training and expose them to immense stress and pressure so most of them break, with AI you can easily replicate the same formula and refine much quicker without throwing so many young people into the meat grinder of the music industry.
More money and control for the companies less people killing themselves.
The ones who really burn for the music will make music despite AI music being available. And they also will find an audience, even though it might be smaller.
While right now you need to put children and teenagers through years of rigorous training and expose them to immense stress and pressure so most of them break
Uh… I don’t think that’s a necessary part of the process to making k-pop, or any kind of music. Industry people may think it’s critical to making themselves shit-loads of money, but it’s not important for the creation music or even selling the music.
Yeah, that’s what I meant with the rest of my text that people will make music still, and this corporate breaking the children and teenagers can be replaced by AI.
What I worry about this is mainstream becoming “accustomed” to assemblyline content by AI. What if eventually people start actually consider the conformity to be good thing and originality deviant? Of course there will always be people who dont care what other think but vast majority of people seems to at least on some level be very conscious about it.
Imagine being the weird one just because you don’t like ai generated crap
When you think about it, that’s pretty much the history of boy bands, going all the way back to the Monkees. The faces were carefully chosen for demographic reasons, the songs were written by the labels and targeted for specific demographics, the faces’ histories were largely constructed fictions (and published through “unauthorized” fan magazines and books that were ghostwritten by the labels and laundered through other publishing companies). The only real difference is that now software is being used for it rather than marketing teams.
Have you seen the movie WALL-E? The people on the space-ship they’re consuming engaging content all day long, nobody is creating anything anymore, so all this must been created by the AI. I’m just trying to say that it’s not a novel idea. Writers and artists have been imagining this future for ourselves for a long time.
How to make line assembled pop music even more sterile and devoid of soul. Now at one thousandth the cost! But wait, how are CEOs going to molest child artists when they aren’t real?!
Good thing the stuff people call AI now isn’t and never will be capable of emotion, that way I can call it and things it generates stupid and bad and worthless without anyone getting offended :3
Add comment