Genuine concerns regarding AI generated music

[100_PERCENT ROEMER]

Howdy OCR.

If you haven't played with SunoAI or at least heard of it, it's a gamechanger!

However, please don't assume that when I say it's a "gamechanger" that it's changing the game for the better.

A quick example: I generated these four "Super Metroid Remixes" in less than 5 minutes with just a couple of genre tags and the "problem" is that they're actually "good" for the most part. The first two even auto-generated a fitting title without any input using only the prompt "supermetroid redbrinstar remix".

Shadows of Zebes - Iteration 1

Shadows of Zebes - Iteration 2

Sample Ambient Track - Iteration 1

Sample Ambient Track - Iteration 2

*links removed to follow forum policy, play with the AI yourself*

Of course, the bitrate is low, and the tracks abruptly cut off, and there's occasionally some unwarranted dissonance and, and, and... all of that will get refined within a few short months to the point where AI generated music is indistinguishable from human created music. I personally think that this is largely due to SunoAI unlawfully using the music of countless artists to train their model and I can only assume that they will get sued eventually, but the genie is out of the bottle regardless.

What does OCR think of AI generated music and what mechanisms (if any) does it intend to put into place to ensure that submitted tracks are written/built/performed by human hands? I guarantee you that with a couple of beers and a lazy afternoon that I could generate a track that meets all the submission standards and is comparable in quality to the "genuine" music produced and posted here which scares the shit out of me, if I can be frank about it.

Any thoughts?

Edited April 14 by 100_PERCENT ROEMER
links removed

[Liontamer]

We don’t want A.I. music: 

 

We don’t have a means of easily or accurately identifying A.I.-created music; if there are free services for that, let us know.

The two “Red Brinstar” A.I. prompts that you linked as examples didn’t spit out any actual arrangements of that theme. Would have to try other VGM-related prompts to see how much of a threat they are.

 

[100_PERCENT ROEMER]

Thanks for the clarification, I should read the announcements sometime, hah.

I don't think there is any form of reverse search for AI generated audio yet.

I played with with the Red Brinstar theme some more and fed a few results from one model into a different model and used a mic with some filters to record back into another model to give a new result and... yeah there's some steps involved but none of it requires any form of musical skill or theory. I was just clicking buttons on a browser and waiting for it to compile, and after about an hour of playing around I got the source material notation to play in a specific "genre" and it sounded "good".

It's pretty scary, all things considered.

If you take a few extra steps to obfuscate the AI generation, at what point is it "authentic" music (or impossible to tell otherwise), at what point is it just "sampling", at what point is it...?

[linkspast]

Honestly, 


To me as a consumer, I don't think I know the difference or would care even if I would . Creatives will and will likely resist the AI change as long as possible ( maybe with good reason)
but to me, I click a link and I listen, and if its good then good. Theres a lot of not good Music made by a human, is it better than AI music cause it has a story behind it? Not objectively. 
 It's like playing online games, especially 1v1 like a CCG, is a bot or a player, I honestly wouldn't know, especially if it gets good enough 

What is more important to me is to get the benefit of the music, even if its more deeper than just to listen and enjoy it I think AI music can still too pull on an emotion.
Im probably in the minority Especially here, cause I can't make a song to save my life, But people are so stubborn, that no matter what they will always try so hard to pick the traditional music generation over the AI.
In guitar building ive heard that people listen with their eyes, I think that principle is the same here.   

[100_PERCENT ROEMER]

7 hours ago, linkspast said:

Honestly, 


To me as a consumer, I don't think I know the difference or would care even if I would . Creatives will and will likely resist the AI change as long as possible ( maybe with good reason)
but to me, I click a link and I listen, and if its good then good. Theres a lot of not good Music made by a human, is it better than AI music cause it has a story behind it? Not objectively. 
 It's like playing online games, especially 1v1 like a CCG, is a bot or a player, I honestly wouldn't know, especially if it gets good enough 

What is more important to me is to get the benefit of the music, even if its more deeper than just to listen and enjoy it I think AI music can still too pull on an emotion.
Im probably in the minority Especially here, cause I can't make a song to save my life, But people are so stubborn, that no matter what they will always try so hard to pick the traditional music generation over the AI.
In guitar building ive heard that people listen with their eyes, I think that principle is the same here.   

(Full disclosure, I've been studying and playing music for nearly 30 years and producing for fun for half of that, and I've never even once used a loop or sample in my tracks, let alone AI generation)

You're not wrong in that "if it's good, then good". That's how art is and I'm 100% in agreement that if the music sounds good, it's good. The problem I have (and others have) with AI is twofold:

1. With generative AI, it's just a matter of time before AI algorithms utilize AI generation to self-produce "music" without human prompting. This "music" will then flood the internet faster and farther than any human could possibly produce, even with an army of spambots at their disposal. Who is going to filter all of the crap from the good stuff if the crap is self-replicating? Even today, with more humans than ever before producing good music (and total garbage) with human hands, there is still an upper limit, a human limit, on the amount of material that is produced on a daily basis. When the streaming sites/algorithms start self-producing AI music, everything made by human hands, good and garbage alike, will be drowned out forever with AI-regurgitated tonal spam. And as a side note, it also completely undermines the concept of commissioning artwork. Why pay someone and wait when you can get something "good enough" with auto fill? A real bummer for those who rely on commissions to make ends meet. When people talk about "AI stealing their livelihoods", it's a legitimate concern.

If the amount of material exceeds the amount of time that every human on earth can dedicate to listening, then of course people will never be exposed to "genuine" and "original" music. It's just a numbers game at that point and whichever AI can produce the biggest number of tracks and capture the largest audience will win, even if the AI generated "music" is just a non-original rehash of the material it was trained on. AI music is essentially a race to the bottom and do you really want to spend your limited time as a conscious being consuming the lowest quality non-original art? If you do, that's all fine and well, but it will also financially reward and therefore promote AI music above and beyond human artists because AI doesn't cost anything more than a little bit of electricity. With the profit incentive in place, human artists will be further disincentivized to pursue their craft and will inevitably be priced out of the game even if they can manage to catch a handful of fans.

I'm fine with AI replacing monotonous labor in a factory. I'm NOT fine with AI replacing human artists. It's simply too 1984 for my tastes.

2. The current AI models like SunoAI are only able to generate convincing "music" because they were trained on material without the consent of the creating artists which is a violation of copyright law. I'm not a lawyer, but I guarantee you that SunoAI will get sued into oblivion in relatively short order, or at least ordered to retrain their model on material that has no copyright (classical music, free licensed music, etc). It's really a slap in the face of the artists and there will be some form of retaliation in response. In the meanwhile, I'm sure that there will be legions of "influencers" punching generate on whatever AI model is the flavor of the week and advertising themselves as "musicians" to their subscriber base even though they have zero talent or skill simply because the models produce music that is "good". Do you really want an entire generation of "artists" clicking ctrl+A -> Generative Fill? Is a future devoid of original thought and creativity in art really the future we deserve?

That's not to say that AI doesn't have its place in music production! For example, I came across this Ocarina of Time in the NES soundfont and while it sounds "good" and it's cool and I like it and it's music and, and, and... There's nothing original in the notes playing or were there notable changes to the soundfonts used. It probably took some time to produce but it doesn't require musical skill, just monotonous button pushing until the desired result is compiled. AI could easily reduce the monotony of rehashing midi files (or generating them from a track wholesale) with new sounds and I don't see any issue with that because it's simply improving the productivity of a producer as long as credit is given to the original artists (and in this case it was).
 

Anyway, just my 0.02. I'm not opposed to the tech, but I am opposed to people using the tech to steal from artists and fill the world with spam.

Edited April 16 by 100_PERCENT ROEMER

[Dj Mokram]

12 hours ago, 100_PERCENT ROEMER said:

With generative AI, it's just a matter of time before AI algorithms utilize AI generation to self-produce "music" without human prompting. This "music" will then flood the internet faster and farther than any human could possibly produce, even with an army of spambots at their disposal.

Why pay someone and wait when you can get something "good enough" with auto fill? A real bummer for those who rely on commissions to make ends meet. When people talk about "AI stealing their livelihoods", it's a legitimate concern.

I'm fine with AI replacing monotonous labor in a factory. I'm NOT fine with AI replacing human artists. It's simply too 1984 for my tastes.

Quoted for emphasis.This is pretty much a reality in the web/dev sector already.

Now with voice cloning, music industry majors won't hesitate to copy-paste an artist voice and generate a fictional appearance to broadcast to billions for 1/100 of the cost. Fake AI-fluencers are already fooling hundred of thousand of 'perfectly sane' human beings.

Likewise in the game industry. None of the execs cutting massive corners, firing humans in droves mass-exodus style, will think twice about pushing a button if it can instantly generate an entire game's soundtrack (or a full game, period) for a fraction of the cost/time it would take a philharmonic orchestra to do so. And they will still sell it full price. And people will still buy it.

TLDR: let's all enjoy the 'good times' while AI drinks up the oceans and turns the planet into a giant desert, for fun and profit.

[100_PERCENT ROEMER]

3 hours ago, Dj Mokram said:

TLDR: let's all enjoy the 'good times' while AI drinks up the oceans and turns the planet into a giant desert, for fun and profit.

“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”

Frank Herbert, Dune 1965.

[linkspast]

 I cant respond to everything you've said, but basically I agree, especially about the part about the AIs basically hijacking others work without their consent. That to me is the biggest issue, and moral gray area. 
where is the line between inspired and infringement. 
In regards to OCR i think ( at least when I started listening) i think there was a %50 ratio or something like that.  I think  Corridor Digital had a video about this, at least in regards to AI video a  bit back

[Hypnotikid]

I worry some electronic music producers and artists with skill can perceive AI as a threat. AI doing images and music just feels... wrong...

AI should only be used as assistants and companions, not a new form of something a user can claim as their own.

If something is done by AI, the user should credit it as [AI] work. What is sad is, not many do. 

 

Could any DJ or any EDM producer think that AI might produce something as good or better by taken it from other well-known artists?? Can they detect it?? Can they avoid it??. I am neither of these, but even I see the red flag here.

 

I am against using AI as anything other than help and assistance, but how can sites detect what is AI and what isn't??.. AI isn't going anywhere though, I just don't know the lengths it is willing to go at this point.

Edited April 19 by Hypnotikid

[TwilightMajorabeats]

I don't really like the idea of A.I. generated music because, to me, it kinda hinders people like me who want to get back into making music, and quite frankly, it is hard enough with finances and etc.

Edited April 24 by TwilightMajorabeats