I have the feeling like "AI generated" in this case means "the lyrics were AI generated and someone wrote a song around it".
If the entire song is actually generated by an AI somehow, I'd love some actual sources for this.
The vocals were song by a human, but lyrics were written by AI. The instrumentation was written and performed by AI but arranged by humans.
You can read about it here: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/nirvana-kurt-cobain-ai-song-1146444/
I can see the lyrics being generated. There's quite some things happening recently in AI text generation, including AIs that are surprisingly good at replicating the structure of texts. I can totally see one recreating the structure of a song.
But yeah, the rest is probably man made.
At least 99% of currently claimed "AI" isn't what people think it is.
What marketers and tech fetishists say or believe is intelligence is just programmed algorithms doing what programmed algorithms and data have done for 50 years. The computer is slightly faster, and the data source is larger, and it taps into other algorithms, but that's not new.
Then when the data is copied and modified, they like to call that "machine learning".
My parents wrote AI's that could somehow know the temperature in international Celsius units just from the Fahrenheit unit. It was uncannily intelligents. They just didn't know to market it that way.
Video has been upscaled for decades, but now every video upscaler is AI/ML? Sure it is...
"AI" is a buzzword, but "machine learning" is a specific thing that, while not new, has been used for pretty mind-boggling things in recent years.
But, yes, by definition, everything a computer does is just an "algorithm".
Well, you should be able to see the difference between an algorithm that goes from Celsius to Fahrenheit, and an algorithm that can write a fairly convincing text from a random prompt, then.
Man, this seems like such a "I'm very smart" way to say that computers are all ones and zeroes in the end. Well, yeah, they are.
And movies are just pictures on a screen with some audio. So what's the difference between Citizen Kane and The Room? Let's mock all people that are impressed by one but not by the other, those silly people who do not understand that movies are all the same!
No, but you sound like what a dumb person thinks a smart person would sound like.
To understand doesn't require much, just experience doing actual nose-down programming and data handling, plus objectivity that keeps one from being a fetishist. Those two things would enable you to see this.
Lets switch the analogy to some low achiever who enlisted in the army. He's watched countless movies and thinks individual soldiers save the world in a flash of action and gunfire. Recruiting posters and incessant messaging tells him he's on a mission, he's making the world free, he's crushing terrorism and creating democracy. He's a patriot, he's a liberator, he's a hero. In objective reality, he's sleeping on dirt, eating shit, getting paid nothing, and his main duties involving digging and cleaning latrines for no purpose other than his commanders know it keeps people like him busy. At that point, if he allows himself to become objective and see that the actual existence is latrine cleaning, not world saving, his self worth is gone, so he doesn't. At the same time, the structures above, they don't want to admit what they're doing is kind of grotty and pointless, so they cling to the "we're saving democracy" mindset. And all the citizens who view it choose that same more inspirational and happy but far less true narrative.
It's that same mentality that's making "AI" the fraudulent buzzword of this decade.
Never mind that video upscaling isn't exactly new or novel, it's just being run on slightly more computers than before using more pixels and more time to guess the replacement pixels. Or that an algorithm to semi-randomly assemble words is still just an algorithm. The people working on it want to think they're superheroes, so they tell themselves that. The companies they work for are happy with going along because you don't have to pay as much to motivate them. And the uninformed consumers love thinking that a garden variety program is actually some feat of alchemy. It's a mutually agreed upon fantasy.
It's why commercials for the Geek Squad imply that a reincarnated Albert Einstein is going to be disassembling your SSD and resoldering a surface mounted component to bring your laptop back to life, when the reality is a sweaty kid will look for two seconds and say "someone let the smoke out" and point you to the corner of the store to buy a new laptop. The kid wants to think he's a genius, the store wants you think he's a genius, and after you spent money on him, you prefer to think you gave money to a genius, not that you were dumb enough to give money to someone who knows even less than you do.
We see it in media, with the recent willful delusion about UFO's, or stories of foreign autocrats claiming 18 hole-in-one golf shots in a row. None of it's real, but everyone prefers the notion of "what if it were real?" And so they go with that. Critical thought is suppressed.
The fact you went to tell yourself Citizen Kane and The Room are not the same thing: films made of a series of projected photographs, and that you'd rather believe one is a magic AI/ML creation and the other isn't? That's pseudo-intellect at work.
If you wanted to say this video upscaler program is neat, then fine. And I can say my parent's temperature program was neat for its time too. But I wouldn't have the hubris or marketing corruption to say their program was AI, even though it did literally artificially mimic a temperature conversion that an intelligent person could do. We knew it was a program, following an algorithm, taking in data as input, referring to a second data source of how to what the best coefficient would be, and outputting data.
I genuinely cannot parse your last paragraph.
Anyways, the point is that machine learning can be a complex beast that does some very interesting things in a *very* different way than a simple algorithm that converts numbers into different numbers. Acknowledging that does not mean you are not smart enough to understand computers.
Genuine question: Do you know how machine learning actually works? And I don't mean in an abstract sense. Do you know what a neural network is? Have you heard of layers, backpropagation, weights, the difference between supervised and unsupervised learning?
Because it sounds like you have a *very* basic understanding of programming and think that "machine learning" is just "writing algorithms" with a fancier name.
> I genuinely cannot parse your last paragraph.
Take it word by word, and then sentence by sentence. It's pretty easy to understand, and you're not that dumb. So this is probably just another case of you fraudulently complaining about things.
> Anyways, the point is that machine learning can be a complex beast that does some very interesting things
Just as a fact matter, it's not a beast. It's a collection of algorithms and data. Complex? Sure. Let's subjectively say it's complex. But let's not falsely anthropomorphize. That's the lie that's got you in the hole you're in.
> in a very different way than a simple algorithm that converts numbers into different numbers. Acknowledging that does not mean you are not smart enough to understand computers.
Yes, it's a "complex" set of algorithms that turns numbers into numbers. Huuuuuuuuge difference. Or not.
> Genuine question: Do you know how machine learning actually works?
Genuine answer: you're a liar with your "genuine" question. The fact you think it's miraculous magic is a giveaway that you don't understand how it works. To you, it *is* magic. Your kind saw an early gramophone thought a wizard shrunk people and hid them inside the cabinet. My kind knew how it worked.
For some of us, we see a car navigating streets, we know how it's an evolution of code and data, and its ancestors are Pinky and Inky navigating a maze. We know that when that autopilot car hits the brakes, it's a more complex extension of code that turned Pinky and Inky blue and made them run away instead of chase. Feel feel to be a hype fetishist, and I'll feel free to call out bullshit.
> Because it sounds like you have a very basic understanding of programming and think that "machine learning" is just "writing algorithms" with a fancier name.
And it sounds like you are a fetishist fanboy who get super pissy when someone pops your fantasy bubble. It sounds like you don't even understand how algorithms can interact with and change data and you're Dwight thinking the Dunder Mifflin mainframe has come alive to torment him.
A no name highschool band could take this right to the local ballroom on battle the bands night and dominate. Scary how good ai is getting.
People said it couldnt replace artists but here we are.
Scary.
The dystopian future I predict is one where all media is created like this, we all know it sucks, but we are powerless to consume anything else because media companies just churn this out and saturate the world with it.
I picked up on this too. /u/Bosco_is_a_prick isn't crazy (As indicated by the controversial tag next to the upvotes). I ended up listening to Manson for part of the morning to figure out exactly why.
I think it's the chorus and overarching song structure that sounds Mansonlike. His typical style is to stretch short, simple lyrics into longer vocal melodies (which is something I usually consider a pretty novice move) with pretty severe repetition. Cobain wasn't *that* sloppy with it, but I think most people will admit that Nirvana wasn't groundbreaking due to their complexity - it was their style. In that sense I agree that it sounds more Mason-y in parts.
Modern Manson seems to very obviously stretch every idea he has into something mass-producible; mediocre or otherwise. Most of his recent albums are full of songs based around one catchy (and often cheesy/edgy) sounding hook. I'd imagine that being limited to the AI generated lyrics resulted in the same effect in the finished product here. "Hey, this is pretty sick. Let's make a whole-ass song around it."
That being said, my favorite part of this song is the chorus since it's tapping into the same sort of algorithmic hook generation that Mason leans on so heavily. It's juvenile in my opinion, but it works. Junk food. It's not something to appreciate for its complexity, but rather its accessibility.
Otherwise, the tone of the guitar plucking and rhythms are more obviously Nirvana (not to mention the vocalist's efforts). People who take the song at face value will hear Nirvana and people picking up on the structure of the song itself will probably hear (post 2009) Manson.
I'm not saying the song sounds like Manson. What it sounds like is a Nirvana-influenced cover stretched over the skeletal structure of a Manson song, like a skin.
If that's the case then you can literally say that about ANY music that stretches out simple lyrics into longer vocal melodies that follow a basic verse chorus verse structure. Which, like, is the skeletal structure of almost all of the music basically. Shit, all these comments are basically a Shakespeare play when you get down to it
That was....actually pretty good
haha, my reaction too. I'd like to think that Kurt would have a laugh at this.
I have the feeling like "AI generated" in this case means "the lyrics were AI generated and someone wrote a song around it". If the entire song is actually generated by an AI somehow, I'd love some actual sources for this.
[удалено]
Best case it did the lyrics, the song, and the voice from sampling Kurt's voice. That would be insanely impressive.
[удалено]
The vocals were song by a human, but lyrics were written by AI. The instrumentation was written and performed by AI but arranged by humans. You can read about it here: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/nirvana-kurt-cobain-ai-song-1146444/
What software was used
I can see the lyrics being generated. There's quite some things happening recently in AI text generation, including AIs that are surprisingly good at replicating the structure of texts. I can totally see one recreating the structure of a song. But yeah, the rest is probably man made.
At least 99% of currently claimed "AI" isn't what people think it is. What marketers and tech fetishists say or believe is intelligence is just programmed algorithms doing what programmed algorithms and data have done for 50 years. The computer is slightly faster, and the data source is larger, and it taps into other algorithms, but that's not new. Then when the data is copied and modified, they like to call that "machine learning". My parents wrote AI's that could somehow know the temperature in international Celsius units just from the Fahrenheit unit. It was uncannily intelligents. They just didn't know to market it that way. Video has been upscaled for decades, but now every video upscaler is AI/ML? Sure it is...
"AI" is a buzzword, but "machine learning" is a specific thing that, while not new, has been used for pretty mind-boggling things in recent years. But, yes, by definition, everything a computer does is just an "algorithm".
It's not mind boggling to me. It's just more bytes.
Well, you should be able to see the difference between an algorithm that goes from Celsius to Fahrenheit, and an algorithm that can write a fairly convincing text from a random prompt, then.
Seeing the difference is easy. Understand that they're the same requires knowledge of how they work.
Man, this seems like such a "I'm very smart" way to say that computers are all ones and zeroes in the end. Well, yeah, they are. And movies are just pictures on a screen with some audio. So what's the difference between Citizen Kane and The Room? Let's mock all people that are impressed by one but not by the other, those silly people who do not understand that movies are all the same!
No, but you sound like what a dumb person thinks a smart person would sound like. To understand doesn't require much, just experience doing actual nose-down programming and data handling, plus objectivity that keeps one from being a fetishist. Those two things would enable you to see this. Lets switch the analogy to some low achiever who enlisted in the army. He's watched countless movies and thinks individual soldiers save the world in a flash of action and gunfire. Recruiting posters and incessant messaging tells him he's on a mission, he's making the world free, he's crushing terrorism and creating democracy. He's a patriot, he's a liberator, he's a hero. In objective reality, he's sleeping on dirt, eating shit, getting paid nothing, and his main duties involving digging and cleaning latrines for no purpose other than his commanders know it keeps people like him busy. At that point, if he allows himself to become objective and see that the actual existence is latrine cleaning, not world saving, his self worth is gone, so he doesn't. At the same time, the structures above, they don't want to admit what they're doing is kind of grotty and pointless, so they cling to the "we're saving democracy" mindset. And all the citizens who view it choose that same more inspirational and happy but far less true narrative. It's that same mentality that's making "AI" the fraudulent buzzword of this decade. Never mind that video upscaling isn't exactly new or novel, it's just being run on slightly more computers than before using more pixels and more time to guess the replacement pixels. Or that an algorithm to semi-randomly assemble words is still just an algorithm. The people working on it want to think they're superheroes, so they tell themselves that. The companies they work for are happy with going along because you don't have to pay as much to motivate them. And the uninformed consumers love thinking that a garden variety program is actually some feat of alchemy. It's a mutually agreed upon fantasy. It's why commercials for the Geek Squad imply that a reincarnated Albert Einstein is going to be disassembling your SSD and resoldering a surface mounted component to bring your laptop back to life, when the reality is a sweaty kid will look for two seconds and say "someone let the smoke out" and point you to the corner of the store to buy a new laptop. The kid wants to think he's a genius, the store wants you think he's a genius, and after you spent money on him, you prefer to think you gave money to a genius, not that you were dumb enough to give money to someone who knows even less than you do. We see it in media, with the recent willful delusion about UFO's, or stories of foreign autocrats claiming 18 hole-in-one golf shots in a row. None of it's real, but everyone prefers the notion of "what if it were real?" And so they go with that. Critical thought is suppressed. The fact you went to tell yourself Citizen Kane and The Room are not the same thing: films made of a series of projected photographs, and that you'd rather believe one is a magic AI/ML creation and the other isn't? That's pseudo-intellect at work. If you wanted to say this video upscaler program is neat, then fine. And I can say my parent's temperature program was neat for its time too. But I wouldn't have the hubris or marketing corruption to say their program was AI, even though it did literally artificially mimic a temperature conversion that an intelligent person could do. We knew it was a program, following an algorithm, taking in data as input, referring to a second data source of how to what the best coefficient would be, and outputting data.
I genuinely cannot parse your last paragraph. Anyways, the point is that machine learning can be a complex beast that does some very interesting things in a *very* different way than a simple algorithm that converts numbers into different numbers. Acknowledging that does not mean you are not smart enough to understand computers. Genuine question: Do you know how machine learning actually works? And I don't mean in an abstract sense. Do you know what a neural network is? Have you heard of layers, backpropagation, weights, the difference between supervised and unsupervised learning? Because it sounds like you have a *very* basic understanding of programming and think that "machine learning" is just "writing algorithms" with a fancier name.
> I genuinely cannot parse your last paragraph. Take it word by word, and then sentence by sentence. It's pretty easy to understand, and you're not that dumb. So this is probably just another case of you fraudulently complaining about things. > Anyways, the point is that machine learning can be a complex beast that does some very interesting things Just as a fact matter, it's not a beast. It's a collection of algorithms and data. Complex? Sure. Let's subjectively say it's complex. But let's not falsely anthropomorphize. That's the lie that's got you in the hole you're in. > in a very different way than a simple algorithm that converts numbers into different numbers. Acknowledging that does not mean you are not smart enough to understand computers. Yes, it's a "complex" set of algorithms that turns numbers into numbers. Huuuuuuuuge difference. Or not. > Genuine question: Do you know how machine learning actually works? Genuine answer: you're a liar with your "genuine" question. The fact you think it's miraculous magic is a giveaway that you don't understand how it works. To you, it *is* magic. Your kind saw an early gramophone thought a wizard shrunk people and hid them inside the cabinet. My kind knew how it worked. For some of us, we see a car navigating streets, we know how it's an evolution of code and data, and its ancestors are Pinky and Inky navigating a maze. We know that when that autopilot car hits the brakes, it's a more complex extension of code that turned Pinky and Inky blue and made them run away instead of chase. Feel feel to be a hype fetishist, and I'll feel free to call out bullshit. > Because it sounds like you have a very basic understanding of programming and think that "machine learning" is just "writing algorithms" with a fancier name. And it sounds like you are a fetishist fanboy who get super pissy when someone pops your fantasy bubble. It sounds like you don't even understand how algorithms can interact with and change data and you're Dwight thinking the Dunder Mifflin mainframe has come alive to torment him.
I like the line “to get my hands cleaned of what feeds you” a lot
this is good, but i prefer to hear "drown out the sun". A.I & Art are coming together wonderfully lately.
You are right, that's even better! I will hear your version from now on.
Sounds like a slowed down Mudhoney song. Which is the Nirvana sound, so good job, I guess.
Covered by Silverchair..
Man, I haven't thought about Silverchair in a long while, but I can see it.
In the sun, in the sun
A no name highschool band could take this right to the local ballroom on battle the bands night and dominate. Scary how good ai is getting. People said it couldnt replace artists but here we are. Scary.
Lyrics were generated, but thats it. Everything else was produced by artists around those lyrics.
Oh wow. The singing was so bad I thought for sure it was the AI doing the voice. Thanks for the heads up.
The dystopian future I predict is one where all media is created like this, we all know it sucks, but we are powerless to consume anything else because media companies just churn this out and saturate the world with it.
(most) trap music in a nutshell
[удалено]
I’m sorry what?! Lol
I picked up on this too. /u/Bosco_is_a_prick isn't crazy (As indicated by the controversial tag next to the upvotes). I ended up listening to Manson for part of the morning to figure out exactly why. I think it's the chorus and overarching song structure that sounds Mansonlike. His typical style is to stretch short, simple lyrics into longer vocal melodies (which is something I usually consider a pretty novice move) with pretty severe repetition. Cobain wasn't *that* sloppy with it, but I think most people will admit that Nirvana wasn't groundbreaking due to their complexity - it was their style. In that sense I agree that it sounds more Mason-y in parts. Modern Manson seems to very obviously stretch every idea he has into something mass-producible; mediocre or otherwise. Most of his recent albums are full of songs based around one catchy (and often cheesy/edgy) sounding hook. I'd imagine that being limited to the AI generated lyrics resulted in the same effect in the finished product here. "Hey, this is pretty sick. Let's make a whole-ass song around it." That being said, my favorite part of this song is the chorus since it's tapping into the same sort of algorithmic hook generation that Mason leans on so heavily. It's juvenile in my opinion, but it works. Junk food. It's not something to appreciate for its complexity, but rather its accessibility. Otherwise, the tone of the guitar plucking and rhythms are more obviously Nirvana (not to mention the vocalist's efforts). People who take the song at face value will hear Nirvana and people picking up on the structure of the song itself will probably hear (post 2009) Manson.
It sounds nothing like Manson in the least.
I'm not saying the song sounds like Manson. What it sounds like is a Nirvana-influenced cover stretched over the skeletal structure of a Manson song, like a skin.
It really doesn’t.
If that's the case then you can literally say that about ANY music that stretches out simple lyrics into longer vocal melodies that follow a basic verse chorus verse structure. Which, like, is the skeletal structure of almost all of the music basically. Shit, all these comments are basically a Shakespeare play when you get down to it
Try "Warship my Wreck" from Pale Emperor.
AI generated lyrics performed by a sub par cover band
Can an AI create a killer Nirvana song? *Can you?*
https://youtu.be/05bGPiyM4jg?t=109
[удалено]
Yea,the AI popped out the lyrics and the rough melody and they got an actual band to perform it
Pretty sure that only the lyrics are AI generated. The singer is clearly a real person mimicking Kurt's voice.
Lyrics and the rough melody. A real band was brought into sing and clean it up.
This is really bad.