424
Google is embedding inaudible watermarks right into its AI generated music (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
97 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 91 points 2 years ago (10 children)

People are listening to AI generated music? Someone on Bluesky put (paraphrased slightly) it best-

If they couldn't put time into creating it I'm not going to put time into listening to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think I’d rather listen to some custom AI generated music than the same royalty free music over and over again.

    In both cases they’re just meant to be used in videos and stuff like that, you’re not supposed to actually listen to them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    Fun fact: Steve1989MREInfo uses all of his original music for his videos.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    People are using AI tools to do crazy stuff with music right now. It's pretty great

    Human performance but AI voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbbUWU-0GGE

    Carl Wheezer covers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65BrEZxZIVQ

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Can it be much different from the mass-market auto-tuned pap that gets put out today?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    The singers of that music actually have to use their voice to sing into a mic compared to someone on a computer typing in a prompt.

    As much as I dislike modern pop music, I will definitely say they put in more work than the people who rely solely on an AI that will do all the work based on a prompt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Yikes. TIL you think music sounds good based on how much time went into making it, not how it actually sounds.

    Can't wait for you to hear something you like then pretend it's bad when you find out it was made by AI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (32 children)

    This assumes music is made and enjoyed in a void. It's entirely reasonable to like music much more if it's personal to the artist. If an AI writes a song about a very intense and human experience it will never carry the weight of the same song written by a human.

    This isn't like food, where snobs suddenly dislike something as soon as they find out it's not expensive. Listening to music often has the listener feel a deep connection with the artist, and that connection is entirely void if an algorithm created the entire work in 2 seconds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
    •
    load more comments (32 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't think that's OPs point, but it's interesting how many classic songs were written in less than 30 minutes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    As someone that's more than dabbled in making music, the best tracks I made all came out rather quickly, they still needed a lot of work to finish/polish but tracks that I would spend hours coming up with the core elements would usually be trash and end in the bin, the good stuff would just....happen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (6 replies)
    • load more comments (3 replies)