this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
424 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

59466 readers
3132 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Google is embedding inaudible watermarks right into its AI generated music::Audio created using Google DeepMind’s AI Lyria model will be watermarked with SynthID to let people identify its AI-generated origins after the fact.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SweatyFireBalls@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My own feelings on the matter aside (fuck google and all that) this has been something chased after for a long time. The famous composer Raymond Scott dedicated the back end of his life trying to create a machine that did exactly this. Many famous musical creators such as Michael Jackson were fascinated by the machine and wanted to use it. The problem was is he was never "finished". The machine worked and it could generate music, it's immensely fascinating in my opinion.

If you want more information in podcast format check out episode 542 of 99% invisible or here https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-4/episode-one-piano-player

They go into the people who opposed Scott and why they did, and also talk about the emotion behind music and the artists, and if it would even work. Because the most fascinating part of it all was that the machine was kind of forgotten and it no longer works. Some currently famous musicians are trying to work together to restore it.

The question then is, if someone created their life's work and modern musicians spend an immense amount of time restoring the machine, when the machine creates music does that mean no one spent time on it? I enjoy debating the philosophy behind the idea in my head, especially since I have a much more negative view when a modern version of this is done by Google.

[–] WillFord27@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like the machine itself would be the art in that case, not necessarily what it creates. Like if someone spent a decade making a machine that could cook FLAWLESS BEEF WELLINGTON, the machine would be far more impressive and artistic than the products it made

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

i mean, where do you draw the line necessarily between the machine and what it creates? the machine itself is totally useless without inputs and outputs, not to say art needs utility. the beef wellington machine is only notable on its ability to conjure beef wellington, otherwise it's just a nothing machine. which is still kind of cool, I guess, but the beef wellington machine not making beef wellington is kind of a disregard for the core part of the machine, no?

[–] Smokeless7048@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That was a great episode of 99PI. Would love the machine restored.

IIRC, It's not so much that it made music, but that it would create loops through iteration to inspire people. He wanted it to make full busic but it was never close to that

[–] SweatyFireBalls@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah I think you're right, and it was apparently actually random. The longer it would play a loop the more it would iterate. Such a cool thing to exist