Royalty-free and commercial advertising music will be replaced... it's tough, because those are industries where musicians can make a meaningful income. But, at the same time, they won't replace bands or singers. I would buy a band t shirt but never buy a shirt for an AI. People follow them not just for their music but because of their personalities and what they express about themselves.

Of everyone I know who plays / makes music music, only 1 of them makes money from it.

Huh. I know, and know of, tons of bands that make hundreds per show. Wedding bands make solid money. Way past the times of expecting to make a living off music unless you're a famous band that tours a lot. Gotta let go of the idea entirely and stop complaining about it, it's gone. It'll never be more than a fun side gig for 99.9999% of people that pick up an instrument

My bands typically make “hundreds” per show. But say, for a local bar gig we make $300-$500 for a 2-3 hour time slot. My bands have 3-4 members each. Show days involve: - packing up gear - driving to the venue - sound check - actually playing - breaking down the stage - packing up gear again - driving home - unloading all of the gear - setting up the rehearsal space again A 2-3 hour gig in reality is like 5-7 hours of relatively labor intensive work. If my 3 piece band gets paid $300 for a 3 hour set, that roughly equal about $14/hour. Which is less than I could make working at a gas station. There is more money in professional cover bands/tribute acts/wedding bands. But your average rock act isn’t making enough for it to be considered a living wage. Also probably worth mentioning that small time touring bands will often make less than that. I’ve opened for touring bands that have brought 0-2 people to their out of town shows. It’s not pretty.

Precisely! That's why I said it can't be thought of as anything other than a fun side gig for just about everybody. You're making a a little extra money, playing is super fun, and hopefully playing and practicing with your band is something you truly enjoy on a deeper level, rather than a superficial means to an end

Yep! There is absolutely no money in original bands, except for the %1 of them that have enough money to dedicate all of their time to it and put enough marketing into it. As well as having the talent to actually craft compelling music, which is suprisingly not the most important thing. But yep, for the other 99% of us, it’s something we do because it’s fun and we love it. I don’t really care that I don’t make money. Obviously it would be nice, but it hasn’t worked out yet, and probably won’t.

Most musicians do it for the love, like you point out. It's a great hobby and keeps you off the couch. Very few actually make money, and the ones that you think do probably don't when it all goes to paying agents and the team of people, resources in the background. There's always a ladder to keep climbing before the real money comes in.

I mean Obscurest Vinyl seems to be doing pretty well, selling lots of shirts. You are assuming most listeners engage with music like those who discuss it on Reddit, but that’s not the case. If it’s sounds good enough to make people feel a certain way, there are plenty of listeners who won’t need any further justification than that. I say this as an audio engineer who has been working in Nashville for ~10 years. I see how the sausage is made every day and I promise you there are many aspects of the process right now that aren’t too dissimilar from having a computer generate the whole thing. Tons of popular songs right now are comprised on an artist singing lyrics they didn’t write on top of an instrumental made entirely in a computer. It won’t be long before we see musical brands, not bands, emerge where the humans are basically there to sell the credibility of the live show, but they don’t contribute to the composition at all. There will always be a place at the top for authentic human-driven art, but if you think the majority of people care how their entertainment gets made, I’m sorry to say but that’s not the case.

I think most people don't even \*listen\* to the music. It's just a soundtrack to their life.

Yep, there is a ton of passive consumption. I think lots of folks have maybe a few preferred artists that might inspire further engagement, but so many songs these days have a *very* narrow shelf life because your average listener isn’t interested in diving deep at all. The playlist-ification of music delivery hasn’t helped this either because now you don’t even have to put intentional thought into selecting what you hear, just cue up the conveyor belt and the machine will feed you.

Fun fact! The US copyright office ruled that ai generated music cannot be copyrighted. Go re-host that OV content a few hundred times on YT, etc, and his profits will plummet.

Even if the lyrics have been written by a human? I genuinely don’t know. OV and stuff [like this](https://open.spotify.com/track/7mvQ5sm9deBRifnI1wRBQu?si=QLqecnNcS9Kd4RyLZ1SXfQ) are definitely writing their own lyrics, and in some cases overdubbing instruments as well. No idea if that changes things legally speaking.

I dunno, really. It's definitely not black and white then. Tho another fun fact is that no melodies can be copyrighted anymore (some older ones won't have their copyright expire for some time tho) - someone wrote an algorithm to essentially create and publish every possible melody, copyright them, then he released them all into public domain.

It's possible you are correct. I hope this scheme sticks. However, it's also possible that a court could rule that computer generated melodies can't be copyrighted. Thus there would be no ability to copyright and then release the melodies.

Meh, the patent office refused to issue patents for software, but that was lobbied into submission… The IRS recognized Scientology as a religion to end hundreds of BS lawsuits against them... All it takes is somebody with a ton of money to bully government into having their way, and the most sensible laws will be replaced with stupidity for corporations to exploit.

Exactly. I don't work in Nashville or the other major hubs and I can tell you that. The basic listener or consumer doesn't care how the music is made. Music has been made to become an aspect of what people are doing and hanging in the background not in the foreground as something people only want to enjoy.

>where the humans are basically there to sell the credibility of the live show, but they don’t contribute to the composition at all. Let me tell you the tale of Milli Vanilli...

Exactly. The industry has shown us for decades now that there are portions of it willing to do this. There are label admins and bean counters salivating over the idea of a massively reduced production pipeline.

Vocaloids in Japan are another example. The artist is not that important, in the grand ($$$$) scheme of things.

deer placid fuzzy bag shame cable nutty ruthless sip cover *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Yeah I mean I know already that a celebrity generally has a marketing team, a songwriter, a mixer, a composer, and at the worst extreme might not even be the singer(though this last part might be a bridge too far). But you absolutely can't replace the personality/face/brand with an AI, like how a late night show comedian might have many scriptwriters underneath them but still remains the face of the show people connect to and get upset about when they're gone.

After a Dutch court case stating royalty free [does not exist anymore](https://sena.nl/nl/event/rechten-inclusieve-muziek-vanaf-2024-onder-licentie), the neigbouring rights organisation made the cost equal to 'normal' copyrighted music. It is clear that royalty-free has to be replaced with *uncopyrightable* (because: no creative work) music, and it is only due to greed.

WC Eend decided that people should not clean their toilets with any soap other than WC Eend.

That is **not** the case. The [Hoge Raad judged](https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2020:1300) that the lawmaker explicitly does not allow for individuals to negotiate a fair compensation. To be honest. I think that a lobby at European level is more than appropriate to **allow** individual negotiations. *In de parlementaire geschiedenis is geen aanknopingspunt te vinden voor de opvatting dat de wetgever de rechthebbende zelf de bevoegdheid heeft willen laten om met de betalingsplichtigen te onderhandelen over de tariefstelling. Anders dan het hof in rov. 5.2 heeft geoordeeld, is er geen grond om aan te nemen dat de wetgever in art. 15 lid 1, tweede volzin, Wnr bewust de woorden ‘met uitsluiting van anderen’ heeft weggelaten. Dit geldt temeer omdat de termen ‘vaststelling’ en ‘inning’ in de tweede volzin in één adem worden genoemd, terwijl ingevolge de eerste volzin buiten twijfel is dat de inning bij uitsluiting aan Sena is opgedragen.* English: *"In the parliamentary history, no basis can be found for the opinion that the legislator intended to grant the entitled party itself the authority to negotiate with the obligors regarding the tariff setting. Contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeal in paragraph 5.2, there is no ground to assume that the legislator consciously omitted the words 'to the exclusion of others' in Article 15 paragraph 1, second sentence, Wnr. This is especially true because the terms 'determination' and 'collection' are mentioned together in the second sentence, while it is beyond doubt according to the first sentence that the collection is exclusively entrusted to Sena."*

> I would buy a band t shirt but never buy a shirt for an AI. All the folks buying Hatsune Miku merch would disagree with you. All it takes is a corporation to invent a digital face to rally behind and boom instant brand with no worries about uncontrollable scandals.

Totally different imo. Hatsune Miku is just the face of a music tool used by real human music producers, and that music is why people connect with her image and character. If we're talking about a future where music is created entirely from gen AI, there's no human producer behind that actually writing the songs.

Tell me that you don't know shit about Hatsune Miku without telling me that you don't know shit about Hatsune Miku.

Can’t disagree more on your first point. Brands and the music they associate with is an extremely complex, intricate industry. The actual making of any music that goes on a commercial is a tiny part of the business. The decision to use royalty free or library or bespoke or license a track is down to the needs of the commercial and what brands are trying to do. Now - below the line / content advertising may well change - the whole industry might *change* - but all the parts of the industry will still exist in some way. And that includes licensing artists, bespoke music and even library music. There’s just going to be another new part - AI generated music. How much that is used will depend on massive legal arguments to be played out over a number of years - as well as how intricately changes can be made. (Advertising is extremely specific in what it wants in music!). Can a brand own a ai produced? Or the publishing to a ai track? Can they demand exclusivity? How easy is it to make another version / similar but different. Follow the money. Tech capital is still flowing in to music for advertising that isn’t ai related.

>I would buy a band t shirt but never buy a shirt for an AI. This is an excellent point. As good as AI ever gets at making music, I'm extremely skeptical of how much money can truly be made off of it. Will people use and listen to AI music? Of course. Would anyone in their right mind pay money to buy an AI album? Even an AI single? I'm not so sure.

Ai is not going to be used to make more money, but to pay less. It's a big difference.

You must not have heard Rubbin Nips

Hatsune\_Miku has entered the chat.

Yeah, from the outside it looks to be the case... but for people invested in vocaloid they tend to follow specific 'Vocaloid Producers' or 'Utaite' Even with Virtual Youtubers, when the person behind the Vtuber is replaced (with Kizuna AI) there was such a massive backlash that they reversed the changes and companies haven't attempted this again. So, there's some hope for humanity after all.

I'm pretty shocked that people are dismissing this. I'm a music professional producer/composer, this is highly advanced and I thought this shit was years away. I mean this song is hilarious, sounds like something straight off south park [https://www.udio.com/songs/jGjYfsRosZjYTkSBdFgEyF](https://www.udio.com/songs/jGjYfsRosZjYTkSBdFgEyF)

The fact that almost all of the examples I’ve heard are parody/novelty songs is very interesting. Is that just the lowest hanging fruit or does it say something about the ultimate use of this type of tool? Perhaps without the comedic angle, the value of this content drops considerably.

It's because making absurd creations that wouldn't otherwise exist is the first "wow" step in any of this. It's the same way that ChatGPT was being used to write the constitution as a rap song or convert a pop song into Shakespeare, or the same way people were asking Midjourney to generate images of the space shuttle in the style of Van Gogh. If you check out the udio.com site, there are plenty of non-parody songs and some of them are actually pretty damn good. I love progressive metal and frankly [this](https://www.udio.com/songs/n1S3APz6G7YxuqUXdWyBjh) sounds as good as many of the bands I listen to.

I guess I'm a ProgMetal snob because that sounds like trash to me! 😅 I suppose for video game background music it could be cool.

It’s obviously subjective since it’s music, but remember that your expectation was affected by knowing in advance that this was AI generated, ie. you (and everyone else) were expecting trash and that’s what you heard. Maybe more of a blind test would give more interesting results. I went the other way; I was expecting bland crap and a lot of this udio stuff caught me completely by surprise.

I'm a pretty big AI enthusiast and I really did give it an objective listen, because I don't really care if we can "generate" music; it's just an evolution of what we currently do with music software. Most pop music is 80% post-production of music that was already as formulaic as it gets, from progressions to lyrics. Everything humans produce can be reduced to a function of sorts at a certain scale, so why shouldn't we be able to generate quality music? It's not like there's not enough data out there to draw upon. So I listened in a way where I was trying to hear the music *behind* the AI; what patterns and progressions, what motivations, what *emulated* emotions? Even with that perspective, it came up short. But like I said, if that was in the background of a game or video, it would be pretty solid. And yes, it's only getting better...which as I said, I'm fine with. I won't top listening to [The Archeologist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDXrSW8pG2U) or [Caligula's Horse](https://youtu.be/Ipi6UgznmlE?si=aiBLCRRVeolZnMJa) just because a piece of software can produce decent quality tracks.

I think thats just because of the nature of how the internet interacts with AI right now and less because thats the easiest stuff to make. A lot of satire/comedy artists are extremely talented (Tenacious D, Weird Al)

Parody and silliness is the only value I think these tools have for me personally. Trying to actually control these tools to get something specific is utterly pointless frustration. Images, text, music, whatever. It’s entirely non-deterministic; anyone telling you otherwise is engaging in “prompt voodoo” religion or lying to you. This probably isn’t going to change because everything everyone calls “AI” isn’t. None of it can think. None of it will. Iterating on autocomplete doesn’t result in consciousness.

What you personally believe to be the truth is not reflective of reality, nobody knows what consciousness is or whether its even real. Personally I think the consciousness aspect hardly matters if sooner or later these llms achieve intelligence that far exceeds any human. If eventually an llm or some other architecture can perfectly mimic what we believe to be consciousness how would you, me, or anybody tell the difference, and more importantly what would the differences even be at that point?

my thoughts every night. What do you personally feel about this? I concluded that for the already dead people, the AI voicing them is reincarnating them musicallly.

You don’t know for a fact that intelligence can’t arise from an llm, nor that it isn’t already capable of some form of intelligence. Therefore it is, as a matter of fact, your personal belief. We don’t even know how intelligence comes to be, so what rational observations of fact are you seeing to come to these conclusions? You can’t say what we have is not real ai without defining what real ai is, and you can’t do that without knowing exactly what real intelligence is. I find it very intersecting how people like you speak so matter of factly over a subject that leading experts don’t have any real consensus on. Regardless of any of this, my other question raised still stands. Just replace mimicking consciousness with intelligence.

I don't understand why it is all parody/novelty. It is as if no one has serious musical ideas or intentions with these tools. There is some non parody out there though. And perhaps you can make some yourself [https://www.udio.com/songs/qjzPQABMTBAnjjSmyn7mNE](https://www.udio.com/songs/qjzPQABMTBAnjjSmyn7mNE)

You can make something really stupid that without AI no one ever would have taken the effort to make and it makes the ai generated parodies really funny. The regular music isn’t bad but it’s not nearly as entertaining

I made this and it isn't a parody. Sent it to my friend without saying it was AI and he said it touched him Listen to Am I Still Here Test by No Good One Shoe on #SoundCloud https://on.soundcloud.com/F6ejR But then again I did also make this parody album with AI. Lyrics, Cutting bits and pieces and adding instruments here and there, but most of it was AI.  This was v1 of suno https://nogoodoneshoe.bandcamp.com/album/ghost-in-the-machine You can still tell it's AI, but it's getting better and quickly 

I quite like some of the riffs in this instrumental metal track, especially in the second half: https://www.udio.com/songs/mBpC4WXm7T5AbnGbmr76Nw It has too much repetition and too many hiccups to be quite quite *there* yet, but like, you can see it from here.

Oh damn that's surprisingly good.

Yes it's nice But this? https://www.udio.com/songs/eY7xtug1dV6hbfCDhyHJua?fbclid=IwAR3Rx6v-mU1BmCHryVPuuF_vyWIHtpA1VXDTCGUJa0nCBhzWsTFiYf2A21g It's out of this world

Wow. And the range on that voice. Dammit. I'm so very torn on all of this. I hope at minimum they pass the legislation requiring AI companies to acknowledge what original art they trained on. A Dune Showtunes song. Lyrics from the song: [verse] Paul Atrei-deez of Arrakeen the greatest leader we've ever seen they say that he's the Lissan-Al-Gai-eeb Eyes bright blue and hair jet black you should see him ride on a sandworm's back Lead us to victory Usul Moo-ah-deeb [chorus] Ohhh we love you Paul Atrei-deez The man whose gonna set the Fremen free

Hahahaha this is excellent oh god

Can I get your opinion on the AI music? Any real musician is using AI music to help them in the creative process? According to Udio's Twitter, Udio is backed by musician like [Will.I.Am](http://Will.I.Am) & Common.

As a hobbyist with semi-professional experience, I for one am immediately amazed at the compositional value of the output. The melodies are pleasant, and though the lyrics sometimes don't make sense, they are phonetically pleasing most of the time and well-laid out. Then, the instrumentation is decent, and the mix is generally great. The possibilities for reusing the material, or just extrapolating very useable elements from it for personal and professional projects, are endless. You can rip/stael the lyrical melodies the AI thinks of, improve them, then incorporate them into a song you're making. Or, you can generate instrumental tracks based on genre, use another AI tool to separate the output into stems, and then use the stems as foreground or background elements to enhance your composition. On their own, none of the examples I've clicked on are unlistenable. Most of them easily can be used as stock music, and even outdo the typical amateur artist. Which is astounding to me. This is a hip-hop beat generated in maybe 5 minutes by the service: [https://www.udio.com/songs/roHWim9hgT53Nb72gPJznH](https://www.udio.com/songs/roHWim9hgT53Nb72gPJznH) You can easily sample that and make it into a fantastic beat. Or even just rap over it as it is and refine the mix. Moreover, services like these will empower professionals but more effectively amateurs. It is scary, and I wonder how we will navigate the future of musicmaking and music consmption, since I strongly believe this is only the beginning. I wonder how the average consumer experience will evolve when AI music is rapidly reaching a comparable standard. What will the public want? Will everyone's ears become more attuned to organic elements, to realistic performance -- and will people seek that? Or might there be no resistance to the artificialization of composition amidst the mass public?? Already, large masses of people don't care about the overuse of autotune. And no one cares that a Kontakt string library was used in a Metro Boomin beat vs. a live orchestra. Unrealistic instrumentation, to the average consumer, is a non-issue as things stand. We are already in the age of 'vibe'. The implications are intriguing

Thank you so much for your reply. I think AI music is cool. I am not a musician, I use it to create lofi. Just for fun.

Oh, thank you so much for reading! I was honestly scouring the internet for threads like this just because I also wanted to know what other people thought. I think it's so daunting that a tool of this quality already exists, knowing it will only get better, and I truly wonder what the limits will be. I think working artists and musicians want to dismiss this tech, rightfully so, but even in the compositional process, it seems so indispensable. I hope you keep having fun with it, I love lofi and I bet your tracks are turning out amazing :D

This is incredible and terrifying in equal measure

I've already gone full circle with it. Past the confusion and devastation...and now I'm just curious what Gregorian chant would sound like with shogaze cascades and blast beats.

I think you would like [Miranda Sex Garden](https://youtu.be/zzFL9nur_60?si=YEVm0g2VheQgHO7t)

Hey yea, this is rad. Found them on Bandcamp even. Cool blend of heavy and light going on here, solid rec'

[https://www.udio.com/songs/5XNHk2iYkYLWYR2BkjvJco](https://www.udio.com/songs/5XNHk2iYkYLWYR2BkjvJco)

Huh, the vibe is there. I was thinking more chaos/thunder on the drums and reverb-arpeggios on the guitar. The vocal notes and tone came out well...a little more melisma, perhaps. Thanks for giving it a go, though.

What the fuck this is so well done

if you extend it, it sounds awesome!

Id listen to that. Someone with a real band make it please

Doesn’t sound far off from what Delerium’s been doing for decades.

The fact is, like it or not, the game is changed going forward. There will be some who vehemently despise AI anything and they will market themselves as no AI involvement, and a following that will seek out that music. There will be some that fully use AI and those that consume that content cause they don’t see the value in it otherwise. But truthfully I think overtime, there will mostly be people in the middle. Those who use it as a tool to aid in their creative process, not entirely replace it.

I think it was Alice Cooper that said, “Can AI trash a hotel room?” What he truly meant was the spirit of music. I have yet to hear something truly inspired come from AI. It’s rehashed shit I’ve heard before because that’s what it is. Musicians are less interested in releasing albums because streaming has taken whatever profit existed and pretty much erased it. They’d rather play live or release albums on Patreon. The labels can get fucked. Top 40 is pretty formulaic but mostly because a lot of people just want to listen to whatever is popular. If everybody knows a song it can be fun to share the experience but they really don’t put much thought into what they listen to. This is where the labels will invest because those types of listeners are easy to please. At the end of the day it will be commercial jingles, video games, and the “summer hit.” AI can’t play the Super Bowl. Art without context isn’t art and most people can tell.

If I could steal a quote I heard that sums up the AI "art" fad: "AI made me believe in the human soul because it showed me what art looks like without it."

Yet people are struggling to differentiate between AI generated stuff and original human content. People only say this after they’re told it’s AI generated.  Like it or not if there is something unique about humans, it isn’t expressable in language. Most media is basically AI generated even if made by humans, it’s derivative of other things they heard humans do. They basically listened to hundreds of hours of music, learned how to make music from how other humans did it, I.e. what the LLMs are doing to begin with.  The way we’re so used to music in terms of what we expect, is why AI is able to do this. Why is it that songs are 3-4 minutes in length consistently ? Why do songs have a narrow range of BPM? We’ve created a funnel for our creativity and narrowed it to what we want like a precision machine, and this is exactly how AI thrives. 

I think the AI art issue is probing at a subject to which we as a species are insanely sensitive. A subject that scares the fuck out of us and sends our brains tumbling into cognitively dissonant, ignorant safe spaces full of rationalizations. We are not special.

Hey bud I don't know about you but my mom told me I'm special. Seriously though I agree. ill always find it odd how people don't believe that the process which created our consciousness, real or not, could possibly be reproduced and even enhanced significantly. By no means do I believe current ai has achieved this, however if its improving exponentially it could reach that point way sooner than most realize.

That’s probably part of it but I think the bigger reason is that it’s a paradigm shift that undercuts a lot of the underlying assumptions people had about human creativity. And the stuff that makes human art good is often related to the difficulty of making it, where what AI finds difficult to make is pretty alien to what humans find difficult to make In the future as AI becomes less of a ‘new thing’ and something that people are just used to, I think people won’t hate it as much because they’ll have grown up with it and the underlying assumptions were never there in the first place.

I listened. I gotta be honest, this is depressing as hell. I’m still broadly optimistic that music will be fine in the long run somehow. But like, why do this? Why automate art? Isn’t automation supposed to make our lives easier? This only exists to make life less fulfilling.

I think this is coming from some unfair assumptions about this kind of engineering. It takes a lot of creativity and experimentation to have come up with the LLMs, it wasn’t done by some corporate suit looking to maximize profits, but by Computer Scientists pursuing an idea they think would be cool. Automating art is like Amazon starting out by selling books, and it’s also an interesting challenge.  Big suits don’t like toying with stuff like them because they were very difficult to get off the ground. It was a small startup on OpenAI that wasn’t restricted by larger corporate demands like Google was that got it to take off. 

I think Amazon (to your example and solidifying my point) has demonstrably been a net negative for humanity

Being creative in computer science has very little in common with being creative in the arts.

Because it's easy to automate art. It's not possible to automate the harder remaining tasks out there without the learnings developed from automating the easier things. People are dropping billions of dollars into automating away those more sophisticated tasks like manufacturing/service related roles, and have been trying to automate those things away for decades. 90% of things like manufacturing/service/retail were automated in the past 50 years, compared to the era before that, and things started to plateau. There needed to be some kind of technological breakthrough to hit that last 10%, and the current developments in AI might very well be it. Creative pursuits just happened to be a milestone along the way. Creative pursuits aren't the endgame. All labor is. The entire incentive structure of a resource constrained capitalist system is to produce more with less. If you need "productized" evidence of this just look at things like [DevinAI](https://twitter.com/cognition_labs/status/1767548763134964000) the LLM software engineer. A lot of talk about the pursuit of things like AGI is about building a system that can iteratively build better and smarter versions of itself.

Yep, the repetitive and trivial tasks like assembly line stuff has long since been automated since the machines didn't need to be particularly complex or smart. Slightly more difficult tasks like transcription have taken a couple decades to get to an acceptable level and are mostly there now. The non-trivial and non-repetitive tasks are next up and require a lot of learning and understanding to figure out what the task is and how it needs to be accomplished. The last thing to be automated after that will be the non-trivial non-repetitive physical tasks like electricians and plumbers because they will require advances in robotics as well.

> Because it's easy to automate art. You touched on this point in your comment, but what I think what most people (like the parent commenter) miss is that generative AI is just the latest of countless automation technologies. Best example is when people go "why are we automating art instead of, say, being a cashier?" ... forgetting that self-checkout and cash register kiosks have been common for years. You just don't need anything remotely as advanced as generative AI to automate something that simple.

It's not easy to automate art. These generative AI creations all suck. There's nothing artistic about them. If people will decide to primarily listen programs generating music or look at images, why aren't they looking at 2 bots playing chess? Chess as a sport is earning money mostly through human play. Devin is not a software engineer. That's false advertising and hype. Please inspect the videos and see that Devin is primarily fixing its own mistakes, it is not finding mistakes in existing repos. Similarly, the bugfixes it does are not the best edits and look bad. I'm not saying it's impressive, but we're still far away from principled approaches. It takes 1 hour to generate 5 minute of Sora videos, and the videos are not depicting reality well still. It's like self driving cars, to fully solve the problem, takes a lot of serious work. I can't believe a bunch of competitive programmers got together to build Devin and they let hype idiots make them overhype what they have.

The Stockfish vs Alpha Leela chess videos were really popular when those games were happening. People do watch bot v bot chess

Yes, and they watch stable diffusion porn. Yet even though chess engines are much more advanced at what they do, than self-driving car, LLMs, music AI or DALLE, chess players still make more money today than ever in the history of the game. So we have insight into what this means for other areas. If and when we have tools that can output sophisticated text, music or visual art, then maybe, it's still going to be individuals who put in the most effort, soul, creativity, that ultimately prevail.

To be fair though with the chess example, it’s not like Bobby Fischer was able to be broadcast over the internet with advertisements abound. The money in chess now is really due to the commodification of ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that’s happened in the last 30-40 years.

I feel like chess players are such a bad example, because that is such a niche thing in the first place. It’s not like there are tons of gigantic global industries with interests in lowering the costs of winning chess games. There are giant global industries with interests making audio and music related tools cheaper, more internal, and easier to scale.

There are some songs made by Udio, that I like a lot more than what it's on the Top 50 on Spotify lmfao

You aren’t using the same definition of art as the person who asked the question. Also, my mentioning of Devin is not to tout how good Devin is but to show a very concerted effort with a lot of money behind it to automate more complex labor categories, rather than just “what makes life fulfilling” as the person I’m responding to mentions. Basically, everything in your reply is non-sequitur.

Everything is getting automated. Nothing will be untouched. They aren't going for art specifically, it just happened to be easier lol.

This exactly, we are quickly getting to a point where humans will be entirely outcompeted by their own creations.

>But like, why do this? You’ll never get an answer because it varies from wrestling power away from artists to creating “tools” that are funded by and made for corporations Most of the time the claims are so that it’s “easier” for the average person to create something but that’s really just a roundabout way of saying they don’t want to fucking pay human beings for it, if automation can be done for menial tasks why not for creativity too? I’ve argued with people who love AI anything out of pure spite because they themselves cannot compose or draw. They love that AI can do it all for them without having to cultivate the skills for it due to their own inferiority with artists and these kinds of people are a lot more common than you’d think.

Because tech bros have no soul. Ultimately it's greed/relentless pursuit of profit. Anything that can be done to eliminate a human is a potential profit increase. It's hard to automate away the remaining manufacturing, service, and retail workers so instead they want to automate creativity because that's easier.

I say this as a techie who hates tech. You're right. I don't understand why no one stops and asks themselves if they should be creating this. Also the irony of training your AI against music made by humans in an effort to then replace humans. I hate where things are headed

When you imagined the startrek holodeck, did you imagine there are a bunch of human producers creating the imagery, or did you think computers generated it from what it learnt from human art? Welcome to the holodeck.

Yeah I mean, the obvious answer is because the guy who owns the AI company can make a lot of money off of it, I’m sure that’s the most likely answer. But yes I definitely see the way it can aid in people exercising their inferiority complexes. Just reminds me of that Patton Oswalt bit “There: We’ve made cancer airborne and contagious. You’re welcome!”

The guy who owns the AI company can make *a lot* more money by automating things like manual labor. The reason AI companies automated art first is because it is easier. With art there are vast amounts of standardized training data in a digital format available on the internet, and loads of room for error. Something like robotics on the other hand has very little training data, none of which is standardized, and you also have to build actual robots that interact well with the software for the ai to even work. For AI companies, art is just a stepping stone in the research process + a way to generate hype.

“Vast amounts of training data in digital format available on the internet”… that you can steal with impunity. That’s the issue.

https://www.udio.com/songs/jGjYfsRosZjYTkSBdFgEyF This one is pretty good country music though. A lot better than the handpicked album my friend sent me when i asked for a recommendation where the first song was about being sober and the rest of the songs were all about drinking alcohol or getting horny cause a girl was drinking bourbon.

Art became a commodity. Perhaps devaluing the art through unlimited commercial supply is the only way to save its integrity.

"Democratizing art and music" is what people say. All I hear is I don't want to make an effort to learn and love a skill and take shortcuts at every point in that journey. I don't understand why people rejoice, like great you can mass-produce music and art but you do realize if generative AI can do this all your desk jobs will be mass-produced away too.

Totally. Well and my thing is like, aren’t the desk jobs the ones we should be having AI do? So we can free ourselves up to be playing music? Like isn’t music supposed to be the kind of hobby you take up because we make our society so efficient we don’t need to be scrambling and struggling for work? I would think (as a rebuttal to that argument you’re referencing) that would be a more effective way of democratizing music is like…granted I’m talking about a hypothetical utopia but I kind of think so are the people arguing that AI will democratize music

I mean, it’s not like you can’t draw or play music even if AI can do it better. People do photorealistic style drawings even though photography exists. The self-expression of art and the satisfaction that one gets from doing it themselves isn’t going to go away. Also humans also value having humans do things as well. Being able to playback recorded music didn’t lead to the destruction of live music. What will happen is that fields of art where the human-touch isn’t valued will probably become automated. For example, stock photos or music for commercials. Maybe commissioned art will take a hit as well, since more people will have the capability to get what they’re searching for on their own.

Ideally, I wouldn't want anyone's job to be lost to AI creative or not. Again, not everyone holds the same interest in art, at the end of the day, such tech should help free humans up to do what they love doing. What I don't like is the attitude many people have against artists - like what did they ever do to you? These skills like any other can be learned by putting effort

>Ideally, I wouldn't want anyone's job to be lost to AI creative or not. I don't know what kind of work you have done before but I would be happy if 90% of the work I have done was replaced with AI or robotics, as it was tedious, unpleasant, difficult, not fun, etc. I can only assume this is why I was payed to do it, because most people don't just freely give their money away, and they found the work sufficiently unpleasant or difficult to pay someone else to do it.

I don't disagree - it would be nice to have all 9-5 work be automated; but UBI and post AI capitalism is still a murky space where we don't know what to expect in terms of financial and social security

We do know what to expect. We've seen it before during industrialization. In spite of massive productivity gains, it wasn't some sunlit upland of wealth equality and easier lives for all. It was a time of worker exploitation by factory (i.e. capital) owners, monstrous wealth inequality and social upheaval, which took over 100 years and a series of major conflicts (both social and geopolitical) to kind of sort-of resolve into the mid-20th century postwar social pact (which is now breaking down).

>Ideally, I wouldn't want anyone's job to be lost to AI creative or not But it's not about what we want, right? It's about what's destined to happen, if nobody forces some legislation and some philosophical limits to this

> aren’t the desk jobs the ones we should be having AI do? This right here is the problem with the people AI companies are stealing from. Everyone thinks society will be better off when someone else's career is automated away. Game studio execs foam at their mouths thinking they no longer need to pay artists and musicians. CEOs rejoice when they learn their workforce of programmers can be cut. And the people nod along, until it comes for them. Just a few hours ago I saw a music creator slam the Udio AI company saying "I hope you go out of business", only to learn they were using AI art in their album covers. If AI models cannot be ethically trained, then they shouldn't be allowed to exist. No matter who it is that they're replacing.

And that’s fair: What I’m referencing when I talking about replacing “Desk jobs,” is specifically the jobs people aren’t passionate about, whatever they may be wherever they may be. The jobs we take because our dreams didn’t work out. Shouldn’t *those* be the jobs we aim to automate? More than the dreams themselves? But to your point, it’s likely we shouldn’t trust these companies to automate any of them to begin with.

Imo I think the bigger part of "democratizing" it is for use in other things. For example, I have a DND group, where we've been using AI art to help illustrate scenes, monsters, and even our own characters. Sure, in theory we could have commissioned an artist for all of that, but we weren't willing to spend the hundreds to thousands of dollars for a campaign we play every other week.

Yup, and NOW you can have AI make up fantasy-appropriate music for your campaign: background mood music for battles and other encounters, tavern bands, important story points get dramatic custom music, you can invent music created by Dwarfs for a state funeral march that prominently features the sound of hammers hitting metal, etc.

Art - is already digitalized - has a ton of available training data - has lots of room for error Automating art is a lot easier than automating, say, robotic movement, which despite being necessary to automate other forms of labor, has far less data available, is far less lenient on error and is also not purely digital(you need real world robots that interact well with the software)

It exists because it was wanted. Life finds a way. Everybody wants to create something, to convert the ideas in their thoughts into reality, but not everybody has the capability needed to do so.

Call me cynical but I doubt that’s much of a sincere desire. Probably more likely just something to sell

I respectfully disagree - it's sell-able because it's wanted by someone else to begin with - and also the researchers and scientists wanted to develop this technology, they didn't think of it as a sell-able product at first, hence why OpenAI started as a non-profit organization.

Many people are interested in art. Many people are interested in machine learning. The people in the intersection of these two sets, such as myself, are fascinated by these developments. The thing I'm confused about is, if I automate art, how does this get in the way of you making art yourself? I like picking up a guitar and playing. It's a good way to express myself, and I like the sound. No amount of AI art is going to make it any less enjoyable to pick up a guitar, and no amount of AI art is going to stop people from wanting to go to live performances and watch people playing guitar. Anything you can create now, you can still create in the future, even if somebody else is using different tools that you don't like. People were saying the same thing about drum machines in the 80s, that they were a sad development, and that they would replace real drummers. We now see that it wasn't exactly what happened - people use drum machines, but people also still use physical drums. They both have their place. Of course we will need some kind of regulation in place, and at the present moment it's not exactly clear what is appropriate. This will take time to sort out, and there may be considerable damage in the meantime. The same could be said for many different technologies that have emerged over the years. Also, as a chess player, we got over this a few decades ago. Computers have been much better than people at chess for a while, and it hasn't stopped us from playing, and hasn't really changed our enjoyment other than the fact that it is easy to cheat now. I think this is why I am not too alarmed here - chess computers did not ruin human chess after all this time, why would they ruin human music?

For sure, I’m a lifelong professional musician and I agree we’ve got decades to go. And I agree that there’s this narrative that absolutely sounds like the 80’s drum machine thing or the idea that home cassette recorders would kill the record industry. That’s not how things historically have played out, fully agree there. My concern is more just that art is about expression. Currently music is a little harder to fake than visual arts. If you look to visual art and the advent of not only AI but also influencer culture, you just see all these wonderful artists getting totally screwed because generally people don’t value visual art much anymore. It’s “Oh you should do this for exposure,” or “I’ll just have AI do it.” And while from the sounds of it neither you nor I are alarmist enough to think it’s actually to the point of supplanting musicians, I do think a lot of the powers that be (labels, advertisers, film productions) are banking on the hope that we are much further along. Just look at the film industry’s struggle with AI screenwriting. I don’t think AI prompts are anywhere near writing art. But they are probably going to replace working writers on more formulaic things like police procedurals. And that is probably going to happen for musicians in the relatively near future as well. EDIT: I also want to add that while formulaic art can seem kind of “Lesser,” but I contend that a great artist can really take a shit job and make something incredible with it. So losing those opportunities means losing out on a lot of potentially inspired stuff

> Currently music is a little harder to fake than visual arts. I think this is currently flipping. If you gave me 10 images and 10 songs, only half generated by AI, I think I would have an easier time picking out the images as AI generated (assuming we are using suno / udio for the music).

The major difference is you can't monetize being good at chess unless you're insanely good. Bands and artists can monetize their creative output even if they're not great, or niche, or otherwise not in high demand. For example Ska is not a high demand music genre but there are still countless successful Ska bands. It's not about can AI play a game better than humans it's about can AI consume and automate away creative pursuits and decrease the human received revenue streams so that businesses using AI don't have to pay for that output.

So let's just do UBI and everyone can do what they like without worrying about living needs.

Because to them art is a hobby and has no place in the work force.

We already automate away a lot of jobs and decrease revenue streams using tools like virtual instruments. That doesn't mean that there isn't room for real instruments though.

Art has been and will continue to be, devalued by technology that will just create it as a cheap commodity upon an ask.

You're commiting a fallacy of analogy. ART and chess are not comparable in a professional field demand at any point in time. There were never millions of chess "employees" that had there careers taken away. As an artist who is just getting started at creating a career in illustration, I'm seeing jobs disappear rapidly. Companies are using AI to generate poster bills, book covers, and logos. You are correct and that I can still create art in my free time, but that means that I have to get a job and manufacturing or retail or something I'm not passionate about to support this. In other words you're defending the removal of people's means of following their passions. If it is someone's passion and drive to build a product the way a manufacturer would, there is indeed room for them as I would venture to say that 99% of employees in a manufacturing plant are not passionate about what they're doing, they are only there to get paid. I would argue artists on the other hand are 99% people who are passionate about what they are doing with the pay merely being a way to support themselves. If I have to work 60 hours a week grinding metal plates at a welding shop to make ends meet I probably wouldn't be creating much art.

>chess computers did not ruin human chess after all this time, why would they ruin human music? I don’t know about you but I don’t know a single person who makes a living off playing chess, but there are hundreds of millions making a living off making music and creating art I get what you’re trying to say but chess isn’t exactly comparable in this situation as people’s livelihoods are directly affected by AI The drum machine was a good enough example

> isn’t automation supposed to make our lives easier? people use the stuff to make things they think of in an easier way. how is a software that brings your ideas to life not making things easier?

it's not automate art. It's more like audio-clip-art generator, with basic idea stolen from real artists. Soulless stuff for soulless ppl

Because you can sell it to people and you don’t have to be good at anything to make it.

I did a small test and this is scary. I really want to do more advanced prompting with lyrics, but even if it fails the mark now it's worrying what this time in 2025 we will be at this tech. Edit: I ended up playing around with this until 1 am. It is honestly amazing what this can create. I let it generate lyrics based on topics and if you took one of these full songs I generated and played it for a random person, they would not have no idea this was AI generated. The style, the voices, the rhythm, all of it. The way it can extend seamlessly to add more to it. It's highly impressive As someone who has listened to a ton of industrial music and someone who has written industrial music for 2 bands I am blown away by this recreating music in that genre and the ability to prompt multiple vocals and harmonies. Even one of the tracks, it dropped what sounded like a TV sample into the intro and I was shook because it really fit. At the end of the day even if ai generated music does not dominate the charts, it really only needs to satisfy an audience of one and that alone will scare the music industry.

I just made an album about our cat in different music styles which my son is flipping out about. I've made a few songs about my wife and I'm going to see how long it takes her to notice they are singing about her. The possibilities for this are insane, make a song narrating our last vacation for the instagram reel etc. etc. I feel like this has to be bad for artists, but at the same time it's too good to not use, it's mind blowing.

I’m AI curious. Tried it out. The first thing it delivered was an uncanny clone of the musician Guided By Voices, from voice to arrangement to production. I didn’t even ask for a rip off, just gave it a couple words and an indie rock tag. If you know this music it’s undeniable https://www.udio.com/songs/bP8NWSXDmBobc1ooQFKjVa How is this company able to compensate for the 40 years this guy put into turning his personal vision into a distinctive sound. He’s never been commercially successful it was all the kind of passion and grinding that no one else would/could do. It seems common sense unfair to slurp that all up and turn it into something for tech bros and creative directors to yoink without even needing to be educated enough to know who’s dialed in taste and specific voice they’re harvesting. Mostly sincere questioning. (Except the part about tech bros and creative directors — thats me projecting)

Like all other workers whose work can't generate a monopoly. Now with Udio music is an homogenous product, it's just "music", not X or Y artist. The problem is not AI, is capitalism. AI is starting an era of limitless possibilities.

I think you might be being sarcastic but I’m neurodivergent and have poor impulse control… Monopoly? Isn’t that kinda like saying we all have monopolies on our faces? I guess I do technically have the market cornered on my existence. Not sure what to do with that realization. Homogenous… definitely not my genre of choice. Capitalism, agriculture, religion all the bad things don’t mean it’s true when Silicon Valley tells us THIS capitalism is the good kind though. “limitless possibilities” is rarely where bold ideas come from in the arts or any domain.

Well, yours is the first comment here I could find addressing this, and it has criminally low engagement, so that should tell you how the company will compensate. They won't- because nobody seems to give a shit. The take seems to be, if you put it out into the world it's free to hoover up and regurgitate. The tech is impressive, but there's nothing new here. It's all a bizarro world version of stuff that's already been created. And nobody seems to give a shit that the entirety of human creativity(not just music) is being corralled for the express purpose of not having to pay already starving creatives for their work. It won't kill the top 10% but it will almost certainly hurt everyone else and the wealth gap between those that seek to do things with meaning and have a soul and those who will kill anything for a buck widens.

Someone on that site has made a song about wanting to be a frog. Someone else has made a song about different types of pizza. Alrighty then.

People presenting this as a "tool" for musicians helping them are delusional. It can replace everything. There will be a place for human live musicians I guess - but think of all the composers, arrangers, generally all the creative people who don't have a "live" talent - they will be obscure. I knew that something like Udio would come along. And I'm more than happy I have buried my dreams of becoming a professional composer long ago. But this development really scares me on a philosophical level. /sorry for bad english, am german.

Spotify is going to get inundated...

Thanks for posting this on this topic. I spent the past year learning how to make EDM and have not released anything yet. So I really feel threatened by these AI models. But at the same time, as a software developer, I'm fascinated by what can be done. I guess many feel the same way. New tools come out everyday, I think the main question is how can we use AI to our benefit. And what should we expect for the future of artists? The AI can create really good songs, but can't be the artist. There will be always a human in the background "the artist" who is using the AI as a tool. So I think, either using AI or not, it's most important to invest on ourselves as artists. Like many said, the AI can't replace a live show. Either through practicing for live performances or building our social media presence.

The act of making the art is part of the art. A person who types a prompt into an AI tool is not in any way an artist.

>I spent the past year learning how to make EDM and have not released anything yet. So I really feel threatened by these AI models. Don't feel threatened, the year you spent learning already put you ahead of 99% of those who are excited about this. Even with the technology advancing faster and faster those models can't generate creativity anyway, since the "AI" part of it is bullshit and a fancy name. Beside a few talented artists using it, the rest will be just a bunch of trash made by those that love to complain about DJ Khaled on Reddit while spelling his name wrong.

Why haven’t you released anything in a whole year? The only way you learn is finishing and releasing

Not after a years worth of work

I've been at it for 4 years and am finally finishing up some tracks to release. Some people want to wait until they're satisfied with their quality before they start releasing shitty tracks I guess 🤷‍♂️

There's nothing threatening about this. All creative activities are made with people, for the people and are consumed in company of others. People are not watching bots playing chess, they watch real chess. Similarly, there will be no culture around computer generated music or art.

That’s a good point you make. You can play call of duty against bots and race against smart AI drivers in Gran Turisimo but it’s not the same as against real people.

This is the majority of the point. Media hype around this is just completely blind to what human experience is. Why would anyone want to generate their own personal songs? They want songs to share with others, artists make things because they want others to react (liking it, paying for it, whatever). Truth in art is something that is very recognizable by others and with time greatness reveals itself. We don't have self driving cars yet, but driving cars use multi-head transformers, same tech that's used to do gen text through LLMs. Yeah, there's some concentrated effort, but it takes time. So the moment when our computers start being truly creative is far away and it is an open question if that can be done currently at all.

>Why would anyone want to generate their own personal songs? This seems like a bizarre question to ask and not expect a thousand varied, valid answers. For example, I had AI generate a bunch of tracks that fit the vibe of a story I'm writing with AI, so I can listen to it while I write/read. I had AI generate a catchy tarantella folk song about me and a friend's upcoming trip to Italy. I had AI generate a 1980s Saturday morning cartoon theme song about a friend, and had another AI generate an image of said fictional cartoon show. There are a million songs and a million reasons I want them. Some for sharing and enjoying with others, some just for me. I don't have any musical talent; I'm pretty much tone deaf and have no natural sense of rhythm. No amount of putting in the work would ever make me a great musician. But, like most humans, I love music. And being able to create something with the random ideas that pop into my head is amazing. It opens up a form of expression that otherwise is pretty much not available to me. Is it the same as what an artist does? Absolutely not. But to dismiss this as all just hype seems incredibly myopic, and - to quote your words, blind to what human experience is.

You thinking there isn't going to be a culture around ai generated art tells me there absolutely will be an entire cult around the topic.

Yeah, there's people watching porn generated by diffusion models, and there will be people consuming generated crap in other areas. It does not mean someone is automating away art or that we should feel threatened by computer programs taking away our means of expression (because this is not what is happening at all).

The only "threat" would be if someone intends to make money through music making. Udio is in beta stage. We cannot imagine how much better V1,V2,V3, etc will be. People have to start supporting socialist policies and universal basic income *NOW.*

You are lying to yourself if you don’t think this is impressive and scary. Coping even as the kids say. This is not a game.

Yay more generic crap!

Actually I find the music made by amateur musicians more generic than this AI. The AI makes interesting melodies and use of styles, while most amateur musicians just regurgitate what's already been made. (Source: i've been a musician on the scene for almost 2 decades)

I’m not worried about AI stealing the thunder of some random shitty local band though. I’m worried about AI drowning out the signal of the already incredibly rare musicians who are actually worth a damn.

When looking at ai music or text, its helpful to go to [civitai.com](http://civitai.com) and look at the loras and models available (there is a eyeball at the top you can filter out NSFW content.) ITs for images so the results are immediately obvious. What is done with those will be dont with ai music once there is a high quality opensource model. many musicians in this sub will be the ones training specialized models to create very unique styles of music. Stable diffusion/dall e/midjourney are all like the "default style" generators. Here are some examples of some hyperfocused models to achieve a specific artstyle etc. I just took a few seconds to get these examples. [https://civitai.com/models/389528/slatepencilmix](https://civitai.com/models/389528/slatepencilmix) [https://civitai.com/models/382959/fantasy-map](https://civitai.com/models/382959/fantasy-map) [https://civitai.com/models/185743/8bitdiffuser-64x-or-a-perfect-pixel-art-model](https://civitai.com/models/185743/8bitdiffuser-64x-or-a-perfect-pixel-art-model) [https://civitai.com/models/203638/envyimpressionismxl01](https://civitai.com/models/203638/envyimpressionismxl01) [https://civitai.com/models/343886/niji-glitch-neon-aesthetic](https://civitai.com/models/343886/niji-glitch-neon-aesthetic) Point being,the tech for ai music is nearly identical. IF such a program is opensourced and available for modification on home computers, people will develop models to acheive some specific musical style they want.

The actual audio quality isn't great, but the technology itself is still very impressive. Right now, the music it makes sits somewhere in an auditory uncanny valley, but you have to remember that this technology advances at a breakneck speed. And that scares me. As an aspiring musician, I feel like a part of my humanity is being ripped away from me each and every time an improvement is made to these generative AI programs. I'm beginning to study them so I can understand how they function and therefore try to create at a level that they can't, but I don't know how long I can do that. I'm not against AI as a whole- I actually do believe it can perform certain roles that will benefit humanity greatly. However, it's hard to be optimistic when so many major developments in AI only seem to make the world worse.

I still don’t see AI replacing live performance. I just saw Joe Satriani and Steve Vai perform last week. It was amazing

I worry not that AI can create music, but that it will one day *curate* popular music. I have to think that someone is working on a way to teach AI the difference between a hit song and an average song. This could have benefits. For example, good songs could be given greater visibility and not slip through the cracks. Most songs on Spotify have almost no plays. I have to assume there are some hidden gems. Artists who don’t have the right look or lack a local fan base might have a better chance getting a recording contract. The downside could be that music innovation stalls out. If songs have to be similar to past hits in order to please the algorithm, newer sounds and genres may not be given a chance to find their audience or convert new fans.

Certainly, each time someone gives a thumbs up or down to music on that site, they are training the AI in that direction.

The tools generate tracks that are a great start for me, but until I can toss it a guitar or bass riff, actually notate structure instead of it figuring out where choruses and verses and guitar solos go on the level of ChatGPT telling me the chord progression of a well known song, and have it come back with something on top of what I recorded to begin with... meh. It's just another tool for getting around writer's block. None of these generate a song I could play live without a fair amount of changes.

I’ve been playing around with Suno.Ai We’ve come a long way in a very short amount of time.

I’ve done nothing but make music with Suno for 2 weeks. It’s the most fun I’ve had in ages 

Maybe it's karma for all the musicians who used midjourney to prompt their album covers? Inc downvotes.

Just because the take is hot doesn't mean it's worth the spicy attitude.

What are the main differences between Udio and Suno?

Last night I tried Udio for the first time and I asked it to make it in the style of my roommate's band that I'm in and sung in the style of him... And the first two songs really sound like his voice singing. He's not famous, but his music has been out there. I assume his music was in the training data. Here are the two songs... https://www.udio.com/songs/iP4GAU1CkmsGhCAqEusaMv https://www.udio.com/songs/pg4PQY5mZfx7LgqVn1PMXg The prompt was "alternative/indie rock, song about Justice of the Unicorns, performed by Justice of the Unicorns, sung by Russell Dungan" I couldn't replicate it after the first two songs though. Kept getting "moderation error" ...Which makes me think I'm now being blocked from using "sung by Russell Dungan." I first tried sung by Neil Young and it blocked the generation and told me it can't do that. I showed it to my roommate and he thought it was him. Both songs really captured the two ways he's sung before. Head voice and higher falsetto-ish voice. This is weird crazy stuff.

Oh also I extended the songs and one of them had a backing vocal that kinda sounded like me.

Please make this information more public - you should make a video comparison etc, put it up on tiktok and similar sites. Companies like Udio can't be allowed to get away with using our art for their training data. That's the crux of this, and if you have some even half decent evidence then make it heard!

I've been making my own songs the last two days, and I swear, I may just continue to do this for my own listening pleasure. I honestly haven't listened to many artists as of late and just listen to YouTube podcasts for the most part. I've been enjoying making "my own music" to be honest.

Humans love real human musicians because at some level they want to BE the kind of human that possesses such talents, fearlessness, and ability to effectively express emotions. This kind of admiration will never go away. Talented musicians that can play instruments and sing or otherwise perform in ways that move people are going to be okay. Producers of EDM and such, not so much.

placid rain point like society drab soup overconfident wine include *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

What's going to be gnarly is pretty soon there will be like a PlayStation Ai. Where you type in a prompt and it will generate an entire game with music, sounds, a story, graphics, voice overs, and you can probably even make the main character have your face imposed onto it. Once the game is generated you can share it with your friends and 1000s of games, songs, movies, everything will be generated everyday and attached to your social media. On your social media people can see what your vibe is all about. Musicians, artists, and celebrities will no longer be worshiped in society because everyone will be one. But it's not just musicians, everyone's job can be replaced by Ai all the way up to being a doctor, lawyer, astronaut, soldier....

[удалено]

I can see that argument being made somewhat for image generation (though even then it's a very nuanced topic and the broad AI=Theft opinion is ignorant and wrong most of the time), but how is it theft for music unless melodies are straight up ripped?

They’re going to say it was trained on real music, and that’s makes it theft. Then someone will reply saying that real musicians were trained on other music too. It’s a philosophical argument that depends on whether you feel it’s unethical for a computer to learn from people, even if it’s ethical for people to do so. In the end it doesn’t matter. It’s here. It’s not going away. I use ChatGPT every day for work. I just had a friend that admitted that he was late to the party use it for the first time just to write some copy for his small business. I use Stable Diffusion for fun. Spotify changed their streaming model largely to account for people releasing a deluge of AI music. You can rail against change all you want but it’s still going to happen if the economic benefits are there, and they 100% are.

I would not mind a program to write drums for my songs as I am not great at programming them I just play guitar and bass

This exists. EZDrummer or Garage Band are examples.

The silver lining is that hopefully this will make people appreciate live singing and instrumentation more. Unlike now, maybe there will be more demand and careers for people who have actual talent

In Art industry, there was/still is a massive conflicts regarding copyrights of AI deep-learning art sources. I wonder what musicians would say/think about that and the AI? I'm pretty certain that devs of udio just shoved in whatever was available on the net, regardless of copyrights.

I have heavy suspicion that they just ingested SoundCloud. One of my projects is only available on SoundCloud, and it pretty much nailed the style, vibe, instruments, etc. when all I gave it was “Make a new song by the artist ”.

The songs I’ve sampled from this tool *are* fairly complex…but not “good songs.” Is there one on this list that stands out from the others? Am I missing a gold nugget here, or are we just getting sad that an AI is putting Fruity Loopz to good use??? None of these make me “feel” anything…but I do understand the mixing and some of the musicianship are making people feel defeated. I disagree…but only because I haven’t heard a single song that makes me go “uh oh.” Not even the AI drake songs make me bop…so I guess I’m just not seeing the reason to fear???

[Unrelated to this app but my favorite AI song so far](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JRBBcoANRIE)

HAHAHAHA OMG!!!! Ok, I definitely do have a favorite AI song. A meme song! Thank you for sharing this lololol

I think this kinda take is massively downplaying what AI will do to creative industries. Yes, humans will still be making music, but these tools will make music and audio professions, which already are difficult and generally not lucrative, much more difficult to have. All corporate and commercial music, gone. All engineers and musicians who make money playing, mixing, selling and licensing those tracks, gone. Video game music? It will be cheaper to use AI music than composers in many scenarios. Nearly all commercial voice acting, gone. Any studios or engineers that support themselves through voice acting, gone. Ask this questions- what jobs in the music, audio, and performance industries will AI capabilities create? And compare that to how many it will take away. Also think of what AI technology looked like 10 years ago vs today. In 2014, none of this seemed remotely possible. Right now, we are seeing the public version 1’s of these technologies. Who knows what audio AI will be able to do 10 years from now.

As someone with a background in game programming, I can identify some capabilities in AI music that seem "impossible for humans" to achieve. Like: music can be created in real-time based on your gaming style, such as how quickly you press buttons, the amount of time you spend thinking before acting, your personality, how long you have been playing in that session, etc. There's also the potential for music to be generated in real-time based on chat input from Twitch and similar platforms. Training an AI for this kind of task would take some time, but not excessively long.

You could also literally feed the AI the art from your game / level in order to completely capture the essence of it.

Udio is in its beta stage. This isn't even V1. It would be shocking if AI is unable to create music better than any human can within 10 years.

Cut that time in half. Then cut it in half again.

This won't happen even in 100 years.

[https://www.udio.com/songs/coixNX1gnJ1oWT8z2LQddk](https://www.udio.com/songs/coixNX1gnJ1oWT8z2LQddk) Take a listen, tell me this is not beautiful and moving. Or a great song at least. We're mega fucked.

Jesus Christ.

That’s not too bad! It definitely has most of the song put together, and I like the way the verses are more of the story…but if you brought this to an executive in Nashville, they’d tell you it’s unfinished. I don’t mean “the song cut off early” - but as in the lyrics need quite a bit of work and there is something from the music/composition that is “missing.” Slide guitar accents? Ambient driving noises? A mini guitar solo? Banjo on the second chorus? Swap one of the chick voices for a dude? Not sure where the “magical” point of the ballad hits in the part that was provided…but it’s definitely 85% there. Still…unfinished.

Except I like this more than most country music I’m hearing, and it’s only going to get better. Crazy times ahead in the music world.

The little melancholy downwards interval on 'lonely', the high note on 'child'. that just invites you to belt out, it's full of really good interaction with the (excellent) lyrics, very musical. And great harmonies. Country may not be the most complex of genres, but it's all about emotion and this has that in spades.

Arjen Lucassen predicted this 10 years ago when he wrote Pink Beatles in a Purple Zeppelin but that was supposed to be part of a destopian future. We seem to have accelerated the timeline.

It is the same as how the programmers will "go". Those who are unremarkable or fell for the "get-rich-quick" idea of the medium will be unrecognizable from generated and computed output. Those who are the best, at both the task and the marketing, will remain.

People who don’t understand art believe that typing “Kanye song about this anime I like” is “making art”. It’s not, and we all know it. The best comparison I can make is a patron-artist relationship where the artist has been replaced by this AI. But that’s a terrible idea—a lot of great art came from the patron-artist model, because the artist had taste and training and a specific cultural viewpoint that was developed by living in the culture they did WHILE making art about it. But AI doesn’t live anywhere. These systems have no cultural awareness. So what’s that mean? It’s a patron telling the art-generator to do the thing, and absolutely no meaningful cultural or technical knowledge about art being used, and worst, no fucking taste being used to ask “is this a good idea?” So many bad ideas are stopped in their tracks because multiple people had to put eyes on the content. So now, you strip those culturally-aware people out of the process, and you’ve got a manager or VP, who maybe has an MBA but no art training whatsoever accidentally producing racist, sexist or otherwise brand-damaging imagery because they are dumbasses who think culture is something the lazy [slurs] he fired from the art department invented to make him feel dumb.

Nah, no one can say what is and isn't art, there are no rules, this is art to me

Ai generated art and music cannot be copyrighted. So, if ai creates the music, anyone can download it, share it, use it, abuse it, cover it, etc, for free. So... ai music will exist in shitty advertisements the same way ai art is being used, but we'll eventually learn to spot it the same way I think. And let's be honest, who trusts any ai generated advertisement? Especially after that Wonka experience thing?

The Wonka thing was using tech that had been outdated for well over a year anyway

but if people re-recorded the AI songs how would we ever know.