This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
That's bullshit though. There's a million YouTubers that record songs at home. That said, just like drawn art, the real slop is the million "rappers" with auto tune who are just shit at making music or lyrics.
Also, this text is blatantly AI and probably fake, but I'm going with the point it's trying to make
Is AI helping people? Yes. Is AI being used as a vehicle for a select few individuals to bet an entire economies worth of value, companies to cut out the lowest common denominator they can in favor of "more efficient" systems, all the while causing unprecedented harm in humanity's intellectual and emotional development? All in the hopes of the next model surely being more capable than a middle schooler with google available to them?
Ah, yes, like this one where (with full awareness and cooperation of the board, which totally doesn't call into question the validity of its ranking in itself) they scored a passing review score? (6/10)
The fact is that if you go look over on places where people discuss their proofreading of publications, the amount of AI-generated submission which are sub-par is held, generally, in an unfavourable ratio to your argument here. Not to mention that the general consensus seems to be that information reliability of the internet and ai is taking a drastic nosedive.
But hey, I'm sure Albania's AI minister is also a stellar step towards truly unbiased and corruption-free form of governing. Or GPT having to have hard coded safeguards about anything bromide and sodium related. Or the absolute mess that is AI relationships... trustworthy on a PHD graduates level you say... surely...
Something that antis do a lot that I don't really understand is give me examples of AI failing at task X or doing a really bad job of it. I don't give a shit how many lazy academics submit AI slop, or how many morons treat ChatGPT as gospel.
You're judging AI by its failures, which is really, really fucking stupid. If you understood anything about how tech develops you should know that a technology will only get better, so you should only ever judge AI (or any other rapidly-improving technology) by its successes. Because even if we're close to the limit on how advanced AI can get, it's still effectively guaranteed that they'll at least improve in reliability. So if AI has proven that it's capable of doing task X sometimes you should assume that in a couple of years it's going to be able to do task X every time. If you assume anything less then you really just don't understand how technological growth works.
Also Albania's AI minister is a publicity stunt to distract from the fact that their current PM is basically a mafioso.
I'm not going to judge whatever tech bros insist will revolutionise the world and supposedly replace all jobs forever by the AI's highest heights. Of course NeuralNetworks can find patterns in protein folding, cancer detection, art and music, it's what it's supposed to do, it's what the technology is and was before it got the AI label slapped onto it to help market it. I'm going to judge it by how often and how badly it fails. I don't care if a worker is going to correctly stack shelves 75%% of the time if the time if it stacks it wrong the other 20% and incinerates the store 5% of the time.
But sure, just one more model bro. Surely it will stop deleting entire drives without that being the exact prompt. At least you're aware enough for what AI is actually being used for in today's day and age.
I'm not a fan of the technology, but that's far overdhadowed by the fact that the technology itself is being misused and marketed as a silver bullet for everything while every tech industry mogul is betting the economy as a whole on it. It would all be infinitely better if people wouldn't screech at "impeding growth" if we aren't pouring every investment into this.
I'm not going to judge whatever tech bros insist will revolutionise the world and supposedly replace all jobs forever by the AI's highest heights.
That's the problem right here. You're judging AI by what dickhead tech bros say about it which is a mistake. Maybe pay attention to what the researchers say about it, instead. I can't believe all these people who just judge something based on what people say about it without even doing the slightest bit of research into the thing itself.
I'm going to judge it by how often and how badly it fails.
That's because you don't have any ability to project those capabilities into the future. You're assuming that development is going to stop sometime soon which is ridiculous.
But sure, just one more model bro. Surely it will stop deleting entire drives without that being the exact prompt. At least you're aware enough for what AI is actually being used for in today's day and age.
More like 3 more models. You realize that ChatGPT launched in 2022, right? In only 3 years we've gone from "can write a paragraph of coherent text" to "can write a scientific paper or solve an unsolved mathematical conjecture"? You have any idea how insanely fast that is? Every new major model release brings substantial improvements in a variety of domains and you're implying that development has stalled?
that's far overdhadowed by the fact that the technology itself is being misused and marketed as a silver bullet for everything
Because you live in an anti-AI bubble and you have no idea what unbelievable impacts genAI is having both on everyday people's lives but more importantly in scientific research and medicine. You only see that which gets clicks (i.e ragebait).
The fallacy of infinite growth is plagueing humanity ever since the industrial revolution. I refuse to participate in blind accelerationism, especially not when business moguls are calling the shots and funding the researchers. Of course the money holders aren't giving the money to the researchers that are saying their investments between a handful of companies are going overboard, that'd mean they lose money. The same way no one in 2008 did deals with valuation firms that didn't give their substandard loans exemplar ratings.
But sure, there is no bubble, ai will continue to grow and all I'm seeing is ragebait because I refuse to believe the technology is the end all be all of all of progress or dangerous for humanity as a whole.
The fallacy of infinite growth is plagueing humanity ever since the industrial revolution.
What fallacy? We've experienced continued growth since the industrial revolution. Technological progress is tantamount to creating something out of nothing, and we know there is yet more technolgy to invent. Why would the growth stop now?
I refuse to participate in blind accelerationism, especially not when business moguls are calling the shots and funding the researchers.
Oh, so you support open-weights AI development then? Glad to hear it.
Of course the money holders aren't giving the money to the researchers that are saying their investments between a handful of companies are going overboard, that'd mean they lose money. The same way no one in 2008 did deals with valuation firms that didn't give their substandard loans exemplar ratings.
Maybe you should actually read some of this research before dismissing it as biased.
But sure, there is no bubble, ai will continue to grow and all I'm seeing is ragebait because I refuse to believe the technology is the end all be all of all of progress or dangerous for humanity as a whole.
Oh, there's definitely a bubble. There was a .com bubble, but the internet still changed the world. A bubble is an economic effect, it has no bearing on the nature of the technology (AI) itself.
It's interesting you bring this up though because it's another example of my earlier point. You're judging AI based pretty much on vibes from your (justfied) distrust of Big Tech. That's a mistake. You can judge the companies, CEOs, etc all you want, go for it. You can even judge companies' implementations of AI technologies both ethically and practically, and I'm right there with you. But ultimately the ramifications of the technology are principally dependent on the nature of the technology itself which is, well, a technical question.
I am genuinely curious here, what field, what journals, and what papers? I ask for two reasons. First, there are a lot of journals that will basically accept anything, so if it's not being published in a reputable journal it probably doesn't mean anything. Second, if that's not the case, I would be curious as to the quality of the paper because in my experience AI really is not good enough at pretty much anything to be writing a paper that contributed to any field in a meaningful way, so I want to see if there is some substance behind these things.
It was 3 papers published in an ICLR conference. They passed the same peer review as the other papers published (the reviewers knew that some of the papers were AI, they did not know which).
Okay I think you didn't read what this said. It's not 3 papers that were published in an ICLR conference, it was 3 papers submitted to an ICLR workshop, only one of which was actually approved (although later retracted because of their ethical concerns), and the people writing this article themselves claim that none of the papers would have been accepted in the actual conference.
That said, I don't think I'm personally qualified to judge the content of these papers as it is far out of the realm of what I am familiar with, but the fact that it is making simple citation errors and often fails to elaborate on key points is a big problem. While the people writing this are optimistic about it, I personally am skeptical that these issues are going to be fixed so easily considering they've been known issues for the past few years now with no real solutions.
I do think AI will probably help a lot in research in the future, and it already does a huge amount if you consider more general machine learning algorithms to be AI, but I don't think that LLMs and AI generated papers are really going to be what we do. A lot of companies have been claiming they have an AI that is "as smart as a PhD", which first off is nonsensical since different PhD's offer different knowledge, but more importantly there still is really no indication to me that AI is going to be capable of producing publish-worthy material in the near future, and especially not in fields that it is less adept in (e.g. my field which is physics, for example).
OK, it's only workshop-level, not journal-level. I thought I remembered a different example of an AI-written paper being accepted in a journal but I can't find it so I'll concede this. I don't really see why that distinction really matters; the difference in model intelligence required to go from conference-level to a paper in Nature is much, much smaller than the difference required to go from a barely coherent paragraph (like was possible only 5 years ago) to where we are now.
Given that an AI has been able to solve several Erdos problems (probably the easier ones but they were still unsolved despite at least some attempts to do so) and meaningfully contribute to scientific papers that were published in proper journals I'm confident we'll get an entirely AI-generated paper that'll knock your socks off before long.
Everything helps some and harms some. The question is, who does it help and who does it harm? When does it help and when does it harm? How does it help and how does it harm?
One testimony doesn't change things. And the testimony you included in your post seems to be AI-assisted as well. It's full of contrastive reframing "not perfect pitch. perfect truth.", rules of three "raw. real. unapologetic.", and on-the-nose poeticisms "I'm a caregiver who refused to die silent."
If the post is fully fabricated by AI, it's a bad look. If the post is only AI-enhanced, the point "one testimony doesn't change things" stands.
What was stopping this person from recording themselves in 30 years? They did not have the time in 30 years to pick up an instrument, but they have the time to make an album using AI? The only thing AI is achieving here is enabling toxic levels of self-pity.
look at the post, he had to work 16 HOURS per shift of caregiving, he was a caregiver since 11, his dad left him and his mom was sick for 15 YEARS before passing away. Then, he had 5 kids of his own. And you expect him to have time?
You have to be trolling. The whole fucking point of art is to express your discomfort and unique stories. You think Dostoyevsky had more time when he wrote notes from the underground? Or do you think the gulag was a fucking salon where everyone had all the free time in the world to create?
Maybe he could've spent some of the time he used making kids to learn to play an instrument? Seems kinda silly to go "I never had time!" but then also like...you managed to find time to have 5 kids tho?
They chose to spend time for other things, that's their choice. But the idea of not having time in 30 years to pick up a hobby? Absolute toxic self-pity and probably lying. That's gullibility to the next level.
You act like having 5 kids wasn't a choice he made. No one forces you to screw somebody and have kids, let alone 5 of them. Also it's not an excuse to sacrifice your integrity. That's like being a chef and using a microwave for all the meals because "I have 5 kids, I don't have time!"
Then don't have the job.
Also many musical artists have been through tragic shit, they still made their own music.
Yes. I really would like to hear this album he “produced.” It’s probably dogshit. And he said he had no musical training, really? Literally just pick up some sticks and make a beat, shit start singing and watching YouTube tutorials on how to sing/beatbox. There are so many music production programs out there, if you have enough free time to mess around with AI on your computer, you can use that time to develop a skill you’re supposedly passionate about.
It’s so crazy to me for someone to say “I want to be a musician” and then use ai to do it. Like, the goal isn’t money here. The goal isn’t to fill a need that a human can’t fill, this is purely a passion project. Do we seriously need ai to do our HOBBIES for us? Thats just so boring like, if I came home and wanted to relax after a long day of work so I pull out my guitar and make up a little song. Just for me, right. Why the fuck would I need ai in this situation. Because my mommy is sick? Bffr
Well while I mostly agree with you, he might have had inspiration to write some lyrics (I suppose the lyrics are handwritten) but he didn't have neither money nor interest(and energy ) in making those lyrics into songs.
It's totally fine to use AI in activities you are not interested in. And those lyrics with shitty AI music do matter something to that person.
I'm not interested in listening that and don't think he's a musician but I see nothing wrong in his actions.
it can be used as a start up but i think it is good to remeber that you could have picked up your phone and recorded the music but idk i want to make games and i do not want to use AI for games i will just have to learn C# as honestly i would feel much better if it was my voice that was played on a recorder instead of an AI generated
My brother, there is no such thing as "i didn't have the time in 30 years". At that point, you just prioritized other things and you never had an interest in pursuing the hobby. Some people chase the image of a musician, rather than actually being one.
Some people chase the image of a musician, rather than actually being one.
As is the case with OOP, with all this "music industry" this, "record deal" that. People who actually want to make music for its own sake just do it, industry be damned.
What if you're just using Suno as an emotional release? That's what I used it for. It helped me a lot through a depression episode and let me pour out my emotions in a way that would have required I start practicing 12 different instruments at once since birth.
Release what? You can pour yourself into something more minimalistic: vocal singing, poetry, singing and one instrument maybe two. Music production today, in something like FL studio, doesn't even entail knowing to play said instruments, you can learn that anytime and compose.
I don't understand what you are releasing exactly since you are just prompting something else to "release it" for you. Without knowing you better, it sounds like you are chasing a weird image of a troubled artist who "expresses" themselves. Self-pity enabling. Not every emotion and act needs to be validated just because "it makes you comfortable", hope you know that.
I've had depression since I was 12 and very much want to make music...but you won't catch me fucking dead using that soulless, emotionless bullshit.
Also that last part was uneeded. Anyone can learn instruments at any age. It's like the excuse "Why start drawing my emotions when I could use air to make heartless Frankensteins of my emotions instead?"
I can't stop you, and fine if it helped you, but man do I hate people trying to justify it. If you're gonna use it, use it, but don't try and fight for it.
I have all the time in about 5-8 years so I can learn how to code but didn't the example have a computer where he could find it so he could have waited tills nighttime when every one is sleeping and then record infront of his computer find free editing software and find notes he liked of the internet and then released it to an app like Spotify
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Does anyone have the actual music?
That's bullshit though. There's a million YouTubers that record songs at home. That said, just like drawn art, the real slop is the million "rappers" with auto tune who are just shit at making music or lyrics.
Also, this text is blatantly AI and probably fake, but I'm going with the point it's trying to make
Ya, as a musician, the industry started sucking in 1995. AI has nothing left to ruin.
But I would totally write music for free for a person like that if they asked me.
I hate the ‘It’s not X, it’s Y’ from AI
I do that natively; it's just how I talk sometimes.
Everyone uses it at times but AI uses it incessantly
Does anyone else not read this as incredibly AI generated text. Can this person not even write his own thoughts down without outsourcing his thinking?
I understand if you need to use an ai spell check or fix your grammar but the entire structure is just blatant "its not x. It's y"
Got that feeling too www the way it's written just gives very heavy ai personality vibes idk how to describe it. Like very 'validating' ish
Where is this proof? All I see is a Reddit post.
"Suno opened the door" Bullshit, indie artists have been publishing their music outside the music industry for more than 20 years.
Instruments cost money and time you know?
If your computer can connect to an AI music service, it can make music in a free DAW with free instruments.
Is AI helping people? Yes. Is AI being used as a vehicle for a select few individuals to bet an entire economies worth of value, companies to cut out the lowest common denominator they can in favor of "more efficient" systems, all the while causing unprecedented harm in humanity's intellectual and emotional development? All in the hopes of the next model surely being more capable than a middle schooler with google available to them?
Current models are already more capable than a middle schooler with google. We're rapidly approaching PH.D graduate with google
Have any of these AIs gotten a thesis accepted and published by an University?
Anyone have news on all those companies that tried to implement AI lawyer representations?
No PH.D theses yet, but there are papers published in legitimate journals (incl. peer review) written entirely by AI.
Ah, yes, like this one where (with full awareness and cooperation of the board, which totally doesn't call into question the validity of its ranking in itself) they scored a passing review score? (6/10)
https://sakana.ai/ai-scientist-first-publication/
The fact is that if you go look over on places where people discuss their proofreading of publications, the amount of AI-generated submission which are sub-par is held, generally, in an unfavourable ratio to your argument here. Not to mention that the general consensus seems to be that information reliability of the internet and ai is taking a drastic nosedive.
But hey, I'm sure Albania's AI minister is also a stellar step towards truly unbiased and corruption-free form of governing. Or GPT having to have hard coded safeguards about anything bromide and sodium related. Or the absolute mess that is AI relationships... trustworthy on a PHD graduates level you say... surely...
Something that antis do a lot that I don't really understand is give me examples of AI failing at task X or doing a really bad job of it. I don't give a shit how many lazy academics submit AI slop, or how many morons treat ChatGPT as gospel.
You're judging AI by its failures, which is really, really fucking stupid. If you understood anything about how tech develops you should know that a technology will only get better, so you should only ever judge AI (or any other rapidly-improving technology) by its successes. Because even if we're close to the limit on how advanced AI can get, it's still effectively guaranteed that they'll at least improve in reliability. So if AI has proven that it's capable of doing task X sometimes you should assume that in a couple of years it's going to be able to do task X every time. If you assume anything less then you really just don't understand how technological growth works.
Also Albania's AI minister is a publicity stunt to distract from the fact that their current PM is basically a mafioso.
I'm not going to judge whatever tech bros insist will revolutionise the world and supposedly replace all jobs forever by the AI's highest heights. Of course NeuralNetworks can find patterns in protein folding, cancer detection, art and music, it's what it's supposed to do, it's what the technology is and was before it got the AI label slapped onto it to help market it. I'm going to judge it by how often and how badly it fails. I don't care if a worker is going to correctly stack shelves 75%% of the time if the time if it stacks it wrong the other 20% and incinerates the store 5% of the time.
But sure, just one more model bro. Surely it will stop deleting entire drives without that being the exact prompt. At least you're aware enough for what AI is actually being used for in today's day and age.
I'm not a fan of the technology, but that's far overdhadowed by the fact that the technology itself is being misused and marketed as a silver bullet for everything while every tech industry mogul is betting the economy as a whole on it. It would all be infinitely better if people wouldn't screech at "impeding growth" if we aren't pouring every investment into this.
That's the problem right here. You're judging AI by what dickhead tech bros say about it which is a mistake. Maybe pay attention to what the researchers say about it, instead. I can't believe all these people who just judge something based on what people say about it without even doing the slightest bit of research into the thing itself.
That's because you don't have any ability to project those capabilities into the future. You're assuming that development is going to stop sometime soon which is ridiculous.
More like 3 more models. You realize that ChatGPT launched in 2022, right? In only 3 years we've gone from "can write a paragraph of coherent text" to "can write a scientific paper or solve an unsolved mathematical conjecture"? You have any idea how insanely fast that is? Every new major model release brings substantial improvements in a variety of domains and you're implying that development has stalled?
Because you live in an anti-AI bubble and you have no idea what unbelievable impacts genAI is having both on everyday people's lives but more importantly in scientific research and medicine. You only see that which gets clicks (i.e ragebait).
The fallacy of infinite growth is plagueing humanity ever since the industrial revolution. I refuse to participate in blind accelerationism, especially not when business moguls are calling the shots and funding the researchers. Of course the money holders aren't giving the money to the researchers that are saying their investments between a handful of companies are going overboard, that'd mean they lose money. The same way no one in 2008 did deals with valuation firms that didn't give their substandard loans exemplar ratings.
But sure, there is no bubble, ai will continue to grow and all I'm seeing is ragebait because I refuse to believe the technology is the end all be all of all of progress or dangerous for humanity as a whole.
What fallacy? We've experienced continued growth since the industrial revolution. Technological progress is tantamount to creating something out of nothing, and we know there is yet more technolgy to invent. Why would the growth stop now?
Oh, so you support open-weights AI development then? Glad to hear it.
Maybe you should actually read some of this research before dismissing it as biased.
Oh, there's definitely a bubble. There was a .com bubble, but the internet still changed the world. A bubble is an economic effect, it has no bearing on the nature of the technology (AI) itself.
It's interesting you bring this up though because it's another example of my earlier point. You're judging AI based pretty much on vibes from your (justfied) distrust of Big Tech. That's a mistake. You can judge the companies, CEOs, etc all you want, go for it. You can even judge companies' implementations of AI technologies both ethically and practically, and I'm right there with you. But ultimately the ramifications of the technology are principally dependent on the nature of the technology itself which is, well, a technical question.
I am genuinely curious here, what field, what journals, and what papers? I ask for two reasons. First, there are a lot of journals that will basically accept anything, so if it's not being published in a reputable journal it probably doesn't mean anything. Second, if that's not the case, I would be curious as to the quality of the paper because in my experience AI really is not good enough at pretty much anything to be writing a paper that contributed to any field in a meaningful way, so I want to see if there is some substance behind these things.
It was 3 papers published in an ICLR conference. They passed the same peer review as the other papers published (the reviewers knew that some of the papers were AI, they did not know which).
Okay I think you didn't read what this said. It's not 3 papers that were published in an ICLR conference, it was 3 papers submitted to an ICLR workshop, only one of which was actually approved (although later retracted because of their ethical concerns), and the people writing this article themselves claim that none of the papers would have been accepted in the actual conference.
That said, I don't think I'm personally qualified to judge the content of these papers as it is far out of the realm of what I am familiar with, but the fact that it is making simple citation errors and often fails to elaborate on key points is a big problem. While the people writing this are optimistic about it, I personally am skeptical that these issues are going to be fixed so easily considering they've been known issues for the past few years now with no real solutions.
I do think AI will probably help a lot in research in the future, and it already does a huge amount if you consider more general machine learning algorithms to be AI, but I don't think that LLMs and AI generated papers are really going to be what we do. A lot of companies have been claiming they have an AI that is "as smart as a PhD", which first off is nonsensical since different PhD's offer different knowledge, but more importantly there still is really no indication to me that AI is going to be capable of producing publish-worthy material in the near future, and especially not in fields that it is less adept in (e.g. my field which is physics, for example).
OK, it's only workshop-level, not journal-level. I thought I remembered a different example of an AI-written paper being accepted in a journal but I can't find it so I'll concede this. I don't really see why that distinction really matters; the difference in model intelligence required to go from conference-level to a paper in Nature is much, much smaller than the difference required to go from a barely coherent paragraph (like was possible only 5 years ago) to where we are now.
Given that an AI has been able to solve several Erdos problems (probably the easier ones but they were still unsolved despite at least some attempts to do so) and meaningfully contribute to scientific papers that were published in proper journals I'm confident we'll get an entirely AI-generated paper that'll knock your socks off before long.
This post (referenced paper) might interest you.
God I hate the way AI writes so much. It's so cliche and corny, it's genuinely embarrassing.
AI generated text for the obviously bullshit story.
Y'all ain't beating the allegations holy shit
We all have to make time. I swear to god everyone is just looking for an excuse to phone it in.
Amen
Everything helps some and harms some. The question is, who does it help and who does it harm? When does it help and when does it harm? How does it help and how does it harm?
One testimony doesn't change things. And the testimony you included in your post seems to be AI-assisted as well. It's full of contrastive reframing "not perfect pitch. perfect truth.", rules of three "raw. real. unapologetic.", and on-the-nose poeticisms "I'm a caregiver who refused to die silent."
If the post is fully fabricated by AI, it's a bad look. If the post is only AI-enhanced, the point "one testimony doesn't change things" stands.
What was stopping this person from recording themselves in 30 years? They did not have the time in 30 years to pick up an instrument, but they have the time to make an album using AI? The only thing AI is achieving here is enabling toxic levels of self-pity.
look at the post, he had to work 16 HOURS per shift of caregiving, he was a caregiver since 11, his dad left him and his mom was sick for 15 YEARS before passing away. Then, he had 5 kids of his own. And you expect him to have time?
Pretty sure the whole post is satire i aint beliving he had 5 kids when lnly free time he had was when he slept
You have to be trolling. The whole fucking point of art is to express your discomfort and unique stories. You think Dostoyevsky had more time when he wrote notes from the underground? Or do you think the gulag was a fucking salon where everyone had all the free time in the world to create?
Get a grip, man.
Maybe he could've spent some of the time he used making kids to learn to play an instrument? Seems kinda silly to go "I never had time!" but then also like...you managed to find time to have 5 kids tho?
They chose to spend time for other things, that's their choice. But the idea of not having time in 30 years to pick up a hobby? Absolute toxic self-pity and probably lying. That's gullibility to the next level.
You fell for the bait lmao, there's no way someone "with no time" has the time to make and raise 5 kids
You act like having 5 kids wasn't a choice he made. No one forces you to screw somebody and have kids, let alone 5 of them. Also it's not an excuse to sacrifice your integrity. That's like being a chef and using a microwave for all the meals because "I have 5 kids, I don't have time!"
Then don't have the job.
Also many musical artists have been through tragic shit, they still made their own music.
Yes. I really would like to hear this album he “produced.” It’s probably dogshit. And he said he had no musical training, really? Literally just pick up some sticks and make a beat, shit start singing and watching YouTube tutorials on how to sing/beatbox. There are so many music production programs out there, if you have enough free time to mess around with AI on your computer, you can use that time to develop a skill you’re supposedly passionate about.
It’s so crazy to me for someone to say “I want to be a musician” and then use ai to do it. Like, the goal isn’t money here. The goal isn’t to fill a need that a human can’t fill, this is purely a passion project. Do we seriously need ai to do our HOBBIES for us? Thats just so boring like, if I came home and wanted to relax after a long day of work so I pull out my guitar and make up a little song. Just for me, right. Why the fuck would I need ai in this situation. Because my mommy is sick? Bffr
Well while I mostly agree with you, he might have had inspiration to write some lyrics (I suppose the lyrics are handwritten) but he didn't have neither money nor interest(and energy ) in making those lyrics into songs. It's totally fine to use AI in activities you are not interested in. And those lyrics with shitty AI music do matter something to that person.
I'm not interested in listening that and don't think he's a musician but I see nothing wrong in his actions.
it can be used as a start up but i think it is good to remeber that you could have picked up your phone and recorded the music but idk i want to make games and i do not want to use AI for games i will just have to learn C# as honestly i would feel much better if it was my voice that was played on a recorder instead of an AI generated
what if you didn't have time like the guy in the post?
My brother, there is no such thing as "i didn't have the time in 30 years". At that point, you just prioritized other things and you never had an interest in pursuing the hobby. Some people chase the image of a musician, rather than actually being one.
As is the case with OOP, with all this "music industry" this, "record deal" that. People who actually want to make music for its own sake just do it, industry be damned.
Exactly
What if you're just using Suno as an emotional release? That's what I used it for. It helped me a lot through a depression episode and let me pour out my emotions in a way that would have required I start practicing 12 different instruments at once since birth.
Release what? You can pour yourself into something more minimalistic: vocal singing, poetry, singing and one instrument maybe two. Music production today, in something like FL studio, doesn't even entail knowing to play said instruments, you can learn that anytime and compose.
I don't understand what you are releasing exactly since you are just prompting something else to "release it" for you. Without knowing you better, it sounds like you are chasing a weird image of a troubled artist who "expresses" themselves. Self-pity enabling. Not every emotion and act needs to be validated just because "it makes you comfortable", hope you know that.
I've had depression since I was 12 and very much want to make music...but you won't catch me fucking dead using that soulless, emotionless bullshit.
Also that last part was uneeded. Anyone can learn instruments at any age. It's like the excuse "Why start drawing my emotions when I could use air to make heartless Frankensteins of my emotions instead?"
I can't stop you, and fine if it helped you, but man do I hate people trying to justify it. If you're gonna use it, use it, but don't try and fight for it.
He had time to have 5 children. Maybe if he didn't purposely have more than one child he could have had some free time.
Also what an insult to musicians throughout history. They made it work, they didn't have lazy shortcuts.
I have all the time in about 5-8 years so I can learn how to code but didn't the example have a computer where he could find it so he could have waited tills nighttime when every one is sleeping and then record infront of his computer find free editing software and find notes he liked of the internet and then released it to an app like Spotify
So, you don't have to know music to be a musician these days. Nice.
You need to know a progression of 4 chords to be a "musician" nowadays
So, you need to know music
Would OP like some wax for his cross?
He forgot something
He can pretend to be making music but no one is gonna listen to it willingly
AI doesn't hurt anyone. If you wanna use it go ahead. Made up sobstories are just as cringe as antis though.