AI singer-songwriter ‘Anna Indiana’ debuted her first single ‘Betrayed by this Town’ on X, formerly Twitter—and listeners were not too impressed.
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.
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.
This’d explain why inexperienced users of ai would inevitably get mediocre results. Still takes creativity to get stolen mediocrity.
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.
What version are you using?
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.
It trends towards the mean, not the best.
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.
Also, the process supervision work to enhance CoT from May is pretty nuts.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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 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.
Ummm don’t humans learn exactly the same way?
For the thousandth fucking time, NO.
‘AI’ doesn’t feel joy, sadness, pity, entertained, or inspired when learning from others. Not even inspired to steal.
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.
For now.
And don’t forget, humans are also trained on the inputs of others.
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 information. 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.
Such a wonderful, thoughtful, creative retort. You must be an AI chat-bot.
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.
“Roomba in the style of Van Gogh” is a new combination of existing things, but it can never create something truly original. Derivative.
What is an example of something that is truly original and not derivative?
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
what have you seen that wasnt there before
i mostly have qualms with the quote i have no illusions about the levels of discussions around ai
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 don’t think, the human brain is special either, but we are still two big steps ahead IMHO:
- We can perceive what we’ve generated, to judge whether it’s good or bad.
- We perceive many, many inputs throughout our lives. Not just text, visuals, audio, but also taste, smell, touch and more. To be simultaneously creative and relatable to humans, AIs would need to be equipped with these concepts and would need to be given ‘memories’, which are fleshed out with all these kinds of input.
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?
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.
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.
Can you prove your brain is more than a algorithmic probability engine albeit a powerful one?
… 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.
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?!
That’s pretty amazing.
The song sucks, but here was the cutting edge of AI music just seven years ago.
That it’s gone from some nightmarish fever dream mashup to wannabe pop influencer levels of quality in less than a decade is pretty crazy, and as long as there isn’t a plateau in the next seven years we’ll probably be in a world where AI generated musical artists have a popular enough following that they will have successful holographic concert performances by 2030.
I over and over see people making the mistake of evaluating the future of AI based on the present state while ignoring the rate of change between the past and present.
Yeah, most of your experiences of AI in various use cases is mediocre right now. But what we have today in most areas of AI was literally thought to be impossible or very far out just a number of years ago. The fact you have any direct experiences of AI in the early 2020s is fucking insane and beyond anyone’s expectations a decade earlier. And the rate of continued improvement is staggering. Probably the fastest moving field I’ve ever witnessed.
Call me crazy but I absolutely preferred the fever dream mashup that you posted.
Technically we already have things like Vocaloid, which aren’t AI yet, but do have their own holographic concerts that are popular in places like Japan and China. So having an AI artist come on stage and sing be too farfetched for me, despite the fact I’d hate it because it’s a soulless entity devised by the corporate fascists. As for the quality of AI generated songs, no clue, but I can totally see them just ripping off up and coming human artists and then sending cease and desist letters to them for “StEaLiNg Ai GeNeRaTeD mUsIc” that was originally stolen or just stealing popular vocaloid songs and piggybacking off of every single person they can for profit.
A useful razor for the near future:
Copyright exists to encourage human creativity.
Keep in mind, though, AI progress is often more like punctuated equilibrium.
Each new approach gets you much further, and polishing each approach gets you slight improvements until the next approach comes along. Improvements to chatgpt might plateau until the next big breakthrough architecture. Or maybe not.
The fact that AI can produce this is impressive as to where we have come with AI. But can this actually threaten human artists?
In the United States, a federal judge ruled in 2023 that AI artwork cannot meet federal copyright standards because “Copyright law is ‘limited to the original intellectual conceptions of the author’.” With no author, there is no copyright.
~~https://www.makeuseof.com/copyright-rules-ai-art/~~ See u/Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 's article below.
“The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work,” the office said.
Under current US law, that song is probably now in the public domain. If the law changes, that could mean that in the future, music charts potentially could be filled with AI songs. As it stands, this is most-likely a public domain music machine cranking out music that anyone can use royalty-free. It depends on the interpretation of the courts.
The threshold for how much human input counts as “authorship” is extremely low. Photographers get copyright over pictures they take when their sole contribution to the image is aiming the camera and pushing a button. Most AI-generated art involves a lot of human input in the form of prompting, selecting outputs, and then often tweaking or splicing them together in various ways.
But even if by some weird twist US courts do rule this sort of thing to be public domain, why wouldn’t this “threaten human artists?” Having awesome AI-generated art being public domain seems like the best of both worlds to me - you get awesome art and it’s legally unencumbered. How would a human artist compete with that? Their art would be more expensive and you’d have all kinds of limitations on what you can do with it.
If the autogenerated art becomes too close to copyrighted art, then you’ll have humans suing AI generators.
George Harrison’s My Sweet Lord is very similar to He’s So Fine by the Chiffons. And that was an easy case. But some cases in requires deeper analysis, such as Lana Del Ray’s Get Free.
In January 2018, singer Lana Del Rey claimed that Radiohead were suing her because of alleged similarities between their 1992 debut single Creep, and her song Get Free, from her 2017 album Lust for Life. The band’s publishers Warner/Chappell subsequently denied taking legal action, but did confirm requesting credit for “all writers” of Creep.
The Guardian spoke to a professional composer to analyse the songs, who noted that the chords used are rare in pop music, and the melodies bear an uncanny resemblance, although in conclusion “imagined the similarities are unintentional”.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20190605-nine-most-notorious-copyright-cases-in-music-history
If AI is sampling, then how do you defend it being unintentional? While all Radiohead sought was credit on the writing (in this case), would humans (whose livelihood is being threatened) be so generous with an AI composition? And if the music industry is threatened by AI, they will lawyer up.
The mistake you are making is in thinking that the future of media will rely on the same infrastructure as what it’s been historically.
Media is evolving from being a product, where copyright matters in protecting your product from duplication, to being a service where any individual work is far less valuable because of the degree to which it is serving a niche market.
Look at how many of the audio money makers on streaming platforms are defined by their genre rather than a specific work. Lofi Girl or ASMR made a ton of money, but there’s not a single specific work that is what made them popular like with a typical recording artist with a hit song.
The future of something like Spotify will not be a handful of AI artists creating hit singles you and everyone else want to listen to, but AI artists taking the music you uniquely love to listen to and extending it in ways that are optimized around your individual preferences like a personalized composer/performer available 24/7 at low cost.
In that world, copyright for AI produced works really doesn’t matter for profitability, because AI creation has been completely commoditized.
With no author, there is no copyright.
So old characters such as Mickey Mouse are all fine to use as the authors are dead?
The authors may be dead, but they did exist. The work had an author.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
If you’re going to use a character some human ever created, hire a lawyer. The House of Mouse has their own lawyers.
Lots of hostility, but that’s to be expected. Research has shown that humans generally like AI-generated content as long as they don’t know it’s AI generated content, and when they find out they switch over to hating it.
It’s simply bias. It’ll go away eventually.
I mean, even if this song was coming from a human it’d be derivative, boring, and worthless.
If anything, the fact something comparable to mediocre human YouTube musical artists is being AI generated is the thing that is wild and impressive. The song itself in isolation is beyond meh.
I mean, even if this song was coming from a human it’d be derivative, boring, and worthless.
Quite a lot of music pumped out by labels is.
