[HN Gopher] Stable Audio: Fast Timing-Conditioned Latent Audio D...
___________________________________________________________________
Stable Audio: Fast Timing-Conditioned Latent Audio Diffusion
Author : JonathanFly
Score : 313 points
Date : 2023-09-13 10:00 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stability.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (stability.ai)
| colesantiago wrote:
| This is yet another amazing release from Stability AI.
|
| Will be adding this to my SaaS side grift and introduce generated
| music you can listen to while you're chatting with your PDFs.
|
| Can't wait for the next one.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| i want something that can take in a song and transform it into a
| different genre
| jncfhnb wrote:
| The bluegrass one is super weird. I can't identify exactly why.
| zzbzq wrote:
| I can identify a bunch of things. The chord structure jumps all
| over randomly in a genre that usually does the opposite. The
| banjo is clearly not an actual banjo being strummed/frailed,
| but a weird agglomeration of bright toned instruments including
| both frailed/scruggs banjo and dobro, and maybe harmonica and
| fiddle creeping in. The AI doesn't know it's making a
| combination of instruments, so where it's trained on
| instruments blending, it thinks it can produce pre-blended
| sounds. I guess maybe this is more like a return to being a
| child hearing music for the first time with no preconceptions
| or expectations.
| smat wrote:
| You are right it feels off.
|
| The position of the guitar in stereo is all over the place,
| higher frequency elements appear to come from the left while
| other parts are more centered.
| ewan251 wrote:
| I think the super weird part is that it's not great? I
| understand this is most likely very impressive technologically
| but musically it is disjointed, inconsistent and fake sounding.
| Most of the "music" examples have weird phrasing and confusing
| harmonic rhythm.
|
| Kudos to stability.ai for achieving this as I am sure it took a
| lot of effort and this is a huge leap forward in terms of
| generation of audio by generative AI.
|
| However as a musician (BMus and MMus at 2 different
| conservatoires) I think it's important to say that the job risk
| being experienced by creative writers will not be extending to
| musicians... yet.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| I feel like music composition is a fundamentally hard task
| for AI. Music production seems like it should be a lot easier
| but I haven't seen that
| viraptor wrote:
| From what I've seen in the generated tracks so far (this
| one and others), they're pretty good locally, but just
| ignore the overall composition. For example any generated
| blues tracks will have the vague blues feel, but won't keep
| the 12 bar style. The bluegrass example here doesn't even
| seem to keep to 4/4 (or is extremely fluid about it...).
| Maybe one day someone will add a higher level "what's the
| current section, how far are you into it" inputs to that
| model to get something better - literally preparing the
| structure first and then filling it in. That should get
| much better results for context like "you're playing blues
| in A with quick change and generating bars 3-4, match the
| previous bars in style".
|
| I mean, chatgpt knows how to plan this out https://chat.ope
| nai.com/share/976077c0-138b-4363-8065-3c8eed... Painting in
| that picture should be much easier than generating
| something freeflowing. Generating a good structure isn't
| that hard for most styles, because you can literally use
| the same pattern and do a few random changes that keep the
| key. (See lots of pop songs using the same 3/4 chord
| progression)
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Yes, and surprisingly so. I _never_ would have guessed we
| 'd have AI stock photographs before AI muzak.
| stef25 wrote:
| Same for the death metal
| benesing wrote:
| Also, the music is not bluegrass as much as it is old-time, a
| confusion that continually irritates old-time players.
| jnwatson wrote:
| The AI seems to understand 4/4 time but doesn't understand
| groupings of 4 measures into phrases. It definitely doesn't
| understand ABABACA or even the basic parts of a song.
|
| It is the musical equivalent of a meandering paragraph.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Absolutely. And all AI for music I have seen suffers that
| problem.
|
| It makes me wonder whether the music generation should be
| stratified -- a coarse model lays out where parts like verse
| and chorus are, what distinguishes them, how to transition,
| etc., and then a finer-grained model fills in the details.
| skilled wrote:
| Relevant,
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37493741
|
| https://www.stableaudio.com/
| coldcode wrote:
| It's interesting tech but none of the musical pieces impressed me
| (I play multiple instruments and have written and arranged
| music), most sounded too repetitive and not very imaginative.
| This is also an issue with diffusion based art AI in general, its
| good at a limited set of things but gets rather repetitive after
| a while. I could see using this as background music where quality
| is not important, like in games, though I doubt you could run the
| AI generator inside a game, you could generate it as a asset.
| People like Hans Zimmer and Ludwig Goransson have nothing to
| worry about.
|
| Singing would an interesting experiment, but I don't see that
| here.
| Art9681 wrote:
| The real test is when this stuff is out in the wild and no one
| tells you it's AI and the thought doesn't cross your mind. Of
| course it's not impressive nor surprising when the answer was
| given up front.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| I disagree with your diffusion based art assessment, and I
| think it's probably colored by what most people seem to want to
| make with it. Just as with regular art, you need some sort of
| vision to go beyond what everyone else does. Prompting "pretty
| girl wearing sexy clothing" for the umpteenth time isn't new.
|
| AI art gets rid of the technical skill step but the rest is
| there, although you may luck in to something at random. If
| you're using ControlNet on Stable Diffusion or training your
| own models you have a lot of control over the output as well.
| zone411 wrote:
| Yes, while working on my AI Melodies Assistant project, it
| quickly became clear that generating a pleasant but boring
| music isn't too difficult. To create a catchy tune, an element
| of surprise is essential. In the end, I was able to use it as
| an assistant to compose 60 melodies that I'm happy with
| (https://www.melodies.ai/)
| dylan604 wrote:
| Yeah, the "rock drums" example was like a student in a
| practice. I'll be impressed when it can sound like Danny Carey.
|
| From all of the hype, I want to be impressed with results.
| Instead, we get these mediocre at best examples of what it can
| do. They are not good sales pitches to me.
| hoosieree wrote:
| Hate to break it to you but there is a vast market for
| mediocre content, and even Danny Carey has a bad day once in
| a while.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I think you've confused the vast market's forced acceptance
| of mediocre because that's what's available with their
| wanting the mediocrity. Proof of that is seen with the
| emergence of places for affordably licensed royalty free
| options. The quality of production and styles today
| compared to those from the 90s/00s is amazing. There's been
| a few options on these sites that I would play in a set as
| DJ. This ain't yo momma's needle drop selections.
| chpatrick wrote:
| Sir, your dog can talk!
|
| Yes, but not very well.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You joke, but even those videos of people saying their dog
| can talk is just like this. It's cute because it's a real
| dog making sounds we really want to believe when it's just
| them mimicking sounds because they get pettin's and treats.
|
| What I want is "AI" to do something impressive. Why are we
| trying to make the system generate the sounds itself? We
| don't make artists do that, we give them instruments. Give
| the models actual instruments, and then have it play them
| like a real artist. I will be much more impressed with an
| AI that understands composition and scoring, use of musical
| voices, key signatures. That would still be generative. I
| guess I just don't understand the point of the direction
| being taken. It's like a solution looking for a problem.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| We work with what we have. We don't have a lot of
| recordings of the physical movements of musicians; we
| have recordings.
|
| Similarly, we don't have recordings of the actions of
| painters; we have finished paintings -- but if you're not
| impressed with what AI can do in the visual sphere, your
| standards are, to put it mildly, high.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I'm not really sure how to take this. We absolutely have
| recordings of instruments. You can buy them as complete
| sets. You train on complete recordings, and then tell it
| how to use the sampled instruments to compose a song in
| the style of the trained data. Building something to make
| a waveform that looks like another waveform just seems
| like a very odd direction to take.
|
| Yes, my standards are if it isn't at least as good as
| what's available now, what's the point.
| chpatrick wrote:
| Well, we found with Midjourney et al that these models
| can work very well despite having no pre-conceived or
| symbolic notions of composition, color theory,
| perspective or anything. Yet they can produce really good
| results in the image generation space. It's the same idea
| here, except much earlier days.
|
| In the same way, many successful musicians can't read
| sheet music or know music theory, they just know how to
| produce something that sounds good.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >In the same way, many successful musicians can't read
| sheet music or know music theory, they just know how to
| produce something that sounds good.
|
| Right, because they can operate the instruments that make
| the sound with natural talent, but they don't have to
| draw the waveforms. Audio generation is much different
| than image generation. It's just very odd to me.
| cwillu wrote:
| I thought "Prompt: 116 BPM rock drums loop clean production"
| wasn't bad, but I'll grant that most of the rest would be an
| excellent way of showing (for instance) a death metal fan what
| their favoured music sounds like to those who don't have an ear
| for it :D
| Maschinesky wrote:
| I'm surprised that you even leap to people like Hans Zimmer and
| others.
|
| The people we need to worry about are aallll of the people
| earning a living for everything else like background music for
| Indi games, Ambient music etc.
| mpsprd wrote:
| >where quality is not important, like in games
|
| I don't believe that's a good example. Video game music is an
| important part of the gaming experience, but its often taken
| for granted or overlooked.
| PatronBernard wrote:
| What I haven't seen done well by these generative AI's so far
| is structure (having a chorus, a verse, a bridge, ...) and
| harmonic movement/progressions (except for maybe a V-I or I -
| VI - ii - V) And those two be things are exactly what makes a
| song interesting and non-repetitive.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| OpenAI's jukebox -- now 3 years old -- is creative and non-
| repetitive. Witness, for instance, its jam on Uptown Funk
| here:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCaya74_NHw
|
| Or the changes shortly after 1:15, 2:15 and 2:40 in these
| extensions of Take On Me:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3yOrUJ0SzY
| riskable wrote:
| I thought the, "epic trailer music intense tribal percussion
| and brass" was pretty good. Rather, good _enough_ for something
| like a video game where the game engine is dynamically
| generating music based on the present situation in the game.
|
| I could easily find that music entertaining if it started
| playing the moment my character triggered a trap and suddenly,
| "the floor is lava" or my character enters a scene with the
| quest of winning over one of the love interests =)
| Cloudef wrote:
| Is the extreme metal music lacking from the training set? Why do
| the extreme metal examples always sound horrible?
| rafaelero wrote:
| Because metal sounds horrible.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Metal is especially hard to mix in a way that keeps the voices
| distinct and clear. Maybe the training catalog includes a lot
| of low-budget metal.
| jasbur wrote:
| It's interesting that the Death Metal was the hardest to
| reproduce. I conclude that it's the most fundamentally human of
| all genres.
| Ninovdmark wrote:
| The sound sample seemed to fit the 'vibe', but lacked any
| discernible definition. Could it be that it's too sonically
| dense to easily reproduce? Perhaps this could be improved with
| a more tailored training set.
| awestroke wrote:
| I think it was just the genre that was the least represented in
| the training data
| chankstein38 wrote:
| It sounds more like break core haha
| dontreact wrote:
| Well... they hardly tried all genres :)
|
| It sounds like it can't handle lyrics or semantics that well so
| I suspect any genre where the lyricism is important would also
| be quite mushy and recognizably AI
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| The Beatles seemed to be the hardest music for JukeBox to
| emulate.
| jacooper wrote:
| Everything looks very convincing apart from the airpane pilot and
| the sound effects. They sound very weird as if one is
| hallucinating
| wiz21c wrote:
| The airplane is super convincing as an encrypted Empire
| communication :-) (see Star Wars episode 5 IIRC)
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| The airplane one just sounds like a foreign language over a bad
| intercom, I think that could still be useful for some stuff.
| xpe wrote:
| Perhaps because generating good white noise requires
| randomness without autocorrelation or detectable patterns.
| stared wrote:
| I would love to use it for background music when I am working. I
| have specific tastes that depend on the task, mood, energy level,
| and ambiance.
| k12sosse wrote:
| If you're not attuned to Cryo Chamber (label), check them out.
| Maybe not fitting all use-cases, but a strong and deep
| catalogue.
| naillo wrote:
| I keep thinking back to when we didn't have stabilityai and it
| was just google and meta teasing us with mouth watering papers
| but never letting us touch them. I'm so thankful stability
| exists.
| [deleted]
| Tenoke wrote:
| Stability is great but Meta's MusicGen is available with code
| and weights while this isn't so that's a really odd place to
| make that comparison and complaint.
| waffletower wrote:
| Unfortunately MusicGen's output quality isn't strong enough.
| I applaud Meta for open sourcing it. The audio samples
| released for Stable Audio show much more promise. I look
| forward to code and model releases. I built out a Cog model
| for MusicGen and took it for a fairly extensive test drive
| and came back disappointed.
| Taek wrote:
| Before stable diffusion, nobody released weights at all. Meta
| et al only started sharing their models with the world when
| they realized how fast a developer ecosystem was building
| around the best models.
|
| Without stability, all of AI would still be closed and
| opaque.
| Tenoke wrote:
| >Before stable diffusion, nobody released weights at all.
|
| That's not true. There's been a lot of models with weights
| from every player before Stability.
|
| >Without stability, all of AI would still be closed and
| opaque.
|
| Most GANs (the practically spiritual predecessor to
| diffusion models) for example were available. Huggingface
| existed and has realistically done more to keep AI open.
| And again, this specific release we are talking about by
| Stability is _not_ Open.
|
| Stability is great but you are re-writting history and
| doing it on the release where it makes least sense to do
| so.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Nah. Dunno where this is coming from but infamously no AI
| models were released by big players for years. Rewind 18
| months and all you got is GPT-3.0 that no one seems to
| care about and Disco Diffusion-y type stuff.
| thomashop wrote:
| You are looking at a very short part of recent history.
| It has not been like that at all.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I'm all ears. I was "in the room" from 2019 on. Can't
| name one art model you could run on your GPU from a FAANG
| or OpenAI before SD, and can't name one LLM with public
| access before ChatGPT, much less weights available till
| LLaMA 1.
|
| But please, do share.
| thewataccount wrote:
| Openai - GPT2 2019 -
| https://openai.com/research/gpt-2-1-5b-release
|
| Google - T5 - Feb 2020 -
| https://blog.research.google/2020/02/exploring-transfer-
| lear...
|
| Both of these were and still are used heavily for on-
| going research and T5 has been found to be decently
| useful when fine-tuned.
|
| Weights were available for both.
| refulgentis wrote:
| See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37501964
| smoldesu wrote:
| > Can't name one art model you could run on your GPU from
| a FAANG or OpenAI before SD
|
| Google published dozens to promote Tensorflow:
|
| https://experiments.withgoogle.com/font-map
| https://experiments.withgoogle.com/sketch-rnn-demo
| https://experiments.withgoogle.com/curator-table
| https://experiments.withgoogle.com/nsynth-super
| https://experiments.withgoogle.com/t-sne-map
|
| The list goes on. Many are source-available with weights
| too.
|
| > can't name one LLM with public access before ChatGPT,
| much less weights available till LLaMA 1.
|
| Do any of these ring a bell?
|
| - DistilBERT/MobileBERT/DeBERTa/RoBERTa/ALBERT
|
| - FNet
|
| - GPT2/GPT-Neo/GPT-J
|
| - Marian
|
| - MBart
|
| - M2m100
|
| - NLLB
|
| - Electra
|
| - T5/LongT5/T5-flan
|
| - XLNet
|
| - Reformer
|
| - ProphetNet
|
| - Pegasus
|
| That's not comprehensive but may be enough to jog your
| memory.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I understand your point.
|
| The gap in communication is we don't mean _literally_ no
| one _ever_ open-sourced models. I agree, that would be
| absurd. [1]
|
| Companies, quite infamously and well-understood, _did_
| hold back their "real" generative models, even from being
| available for pay.
|
| Take a stab at a literal definition: - post-GPT2 LLMs
| (ex. PALM, PALM2) - art like DaLL-E, Imagen, Parti
|
| Loosely, we had Disco Diffusion for art, and GPT-3 for
| LLMs, and then Dall-E, then Midjourney. That was over an
| _entire year_, and the floodgates on private ones didn't
| open till post SD/ChatGPT.
|
| [1] thank you for the lengths you went to highlight the
| best over a considered span of time, I would have just
| said something snarky :)
|
| [2] I did not realize FLAN was open-sourced a month
| before ChatGPT, that's fascinating: we're stretching a
| bit, beyond that, IMHO: the BERTs aren't recognizable as
| LLMs.
| smoldesu wrote:
| All good. I've also been working on LLMs since 2019-ish,
| so I wanted to toss a hat in the ring for the
| underrepresented transformer models. They were cool (eg.
| dumb), fast and worked better than they had any right to.
| In a lot of ways they are the ancestors of ChatGPT and
| Llama, so it's important to at least bring them into the
| discussion.
| hofstee wrote:
| https://github.com/google/deepdream
| astrange wrote:
| > Can't name one art model you could run on your GPU from
| a FAANG or OpenAI before SD
|
| CLIP could be used as an image generator, slowly.
|
| > and can't name one LLM with public access before
| ChatGPT, much less weights available till LLaMA 1
|
| InstructGPT was available on OpenAI playground for months
| before ChatGPT and was basically as capable as GPT3,
| people were really missing out. Don't know any good
| public models though.
| waffletower wrote:
| In the image generation space, weights were never released
| for ImageGen and Dall-e, but yes you can find weights for
| more specialized generative models like StyleGAN (2, 3
| etc). Stable Diffusion was arguably one of the most
| influential open model releases, and I think the
| substantial investment in StabilityAI is evidence of that.
| astrange wrote:
| There were open reproductions of DALLE1 like ruDALLE.
| smoldesu wrote:
| GPT-2, GPT-J, XLNET, BERT, Longformers and T5 were all
| freely available before Stable Diffusion was even a press
| release.
| vhold wrote:
| Stable Diffusion 1 _contains_ a model OpenAI released. The
| CLIP encoder that was trained on text /image pairs at
| OpenAI.
|
| https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5
|
| https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-
| diffusion-v1-5/blob/m...
|
| Uploaded to Hugging Face Jan 2021
|
| https://huggingface.co/openai/clip-vit-large-patch14
| seydor wrote:
| Stability def helped push things forward , it even probably
| showed them that open source is inevitable
| refulgentis wrote:
| Nah it's not because without the releases of
| Stability/ChatGPT it'd be the same situation. Cool nihilism
| though
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Is the source for this available? I found no mention of it on
| the page.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| It says source is coming
| hoosieree wrote:
| Humans take a long time to get good at art; in the meantime they
| still have to eat.
|
| So they compete with generative AI for a fixed number of jobs.
| The AI is cheaper and faster. Humans stop training to become
| artists.
|
| Without new training data, the generative AI models stagnate.
| Progress in art stops globally, forever.
|
| But for a brief glorious moment, we were able to say "huh, that's
| not bad".
| phone8675309 wrote:
| This is by design - the capital that backs modern art isn't
| doing it for love of the art but for money.
|
| For fine art, it's a way for them to launder money and keep it
| out of bank accounts where it can be seized trivially.
|
| For mass art, it's about selling to enough rubes to make a
| profit.
|
| Neither are impacted by a stagnation in art. If anything,
| they're aided by it - suddenly the art you bought to launder
| money retains its value because it's no longer the flavor of
| the week with the arts crowd.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| I still consider OpenAI's JukeBox (now at least 2 years old!) far
| and away the most creative music AI. But the combination of
| coherence, sound quality and creativity of this model is (to my
| knowledge) easily best in class.
| 4RealFreedom wrote:
| The sound quality of Jukebox is muddled. There are many
| inconsistencies. The loudness of vocals and the quality of
| instruments really stand out and not in a good way. Hard to
| talk about creativity because it's so subjective but I've found
| it lacking in all AI music including JukeBox. Don't get me
| wrong - this tech is amazing.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| It's mushy and inconsistent, absolutely. But it also comes up
| with wild yet coherent changes that I've seen from nothing
| else.
|
| At this comment I listed a few instances:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37499067
| [deleted]
| naillo wrote:
| This is gonna be great to finetune on. There's only so many
| boards of canada/aphex twin songs out there but I wish there were
| more and this will let us generate more.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| This is not the way.
| naillo wrote:
| Why not? Mostly for private use in my case. SDXL has created
| some beautiful works of art in my experiments and I would
| love to have a similar experience in the music world.
| wokwokwok wrote:
| Come on, be creative and make something new instead of
| copying someone else.
|
| It's just kind of lame imo.
|
| "Mostly" private use? Mmm. :thumbs down emoji:
| naillo wrote:
| I meant private use and maybe share with a few friends. I
| actually agree with you that we probably shouldn't
| finetune on great artists and try to sell the output
| without modification or added creativity. Private or
| close friends sharing is fun and life enriching and
| inspiring though in my eyes.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| Boards of Canada came to their sound because in their
| youth, the brothers had to move to Canada for a time.
| Even though it was only a couple of years their
| experience made an indelible mark on them--particularly
| school days watching old National Film Board of Canada
| tapes on worn VCR heads.
|
| When they moved back to Scotland and started their music
| they started incorporating both the machinery and the
| sounds from the tapes in their compositions. And they
| could play their compositions live. It was quite the rig.
|
| It's not just entertainment. It's communicating a very
| specific feeling and perspective. Keep learning and
| create, don't be satisfied with just copying.
|
| The biggest difference here is in the doing. You have to
| grow into one mode over time and energy spent, the other
| is immediate gratification with minimal personal energy.
|
| Everything valuable comes during the course of that
| process of growing and committing energy. And it's so
| good. Don't deny yourself.
| naillo wrote:
| I get that. I think it's really cool what they did and
| when musicians put in time and energy into making amazing
| tracks. I get enough satisfaction from my normal coding
| job though, I don't have time to dedicate my life to
| music like they have. So from that perspective I'm just
| happy that it's possible to get more music like that
| type. Just a cool thing that exists in the world now, but
| I still think working hard to realize an artistic vision
| is also cool, separately.
| 93po wrote:
| there is very little creativity in most music already
|
| (Axis of Awesome - 4 Four Chord Song)
|
| https://youtu.be/5pidokakU4I?t=52
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| Do you know where the sounds came from that you like so
| much? I think such a perspective is only reachable if you
| do not.
|
| I recommend learning about that before deciding it's
| satisfactory to reduce it to an algorithm suited for
| copying.
|
| It'll enrich your life. Endless copies will not. They take
| that music, that emergence of order out of chaos, and
| return it back to chaos.
|
| It's void.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| Does this model support / "understand" concepts of spatial audio?
| For example, something like "an alarm moving around you in a
| circle".
|
| When AudioGen was announced this was my first question, but from
| what I've been able to test the model just ignores spatial audio
| prompts.
|
| Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any discussion or
| interest in online discussion about the importance / significance
| of spatial audio. Why not?
| cheald wrote:
| My guess is that it's not a very interesting problem because
| it's not particularly difficult to add spatial dimensions to
| arbitrary audio - after all, it is already commonly done in
| video games. All you have to do is manipulate the multichannel
| outputs with an understanding of the spatial positioning of
| each channel's speaker location relative to the listener and
| some basic trig.
| Jerrrry wrote:
| Dolby wouldn't appreciate it.
| gyumjibashyan wrote:
| This is crazy tech!
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| So.... Wait for llama for audio and train your own voice to
| having to call you friends by text and the software instead of
| actually saying the words? This is going to be nice for
| authentication, proving to a third party that you are yourself
| PcChip wrote:
| it's funny how they're all very impressive except the death metal
| skybrian wrote:
| As an amateur musician, I'd be more interested in these tools if,
| along with the text description, they took as input a melody or
| chord progression or performance data. Maybe ABC notation or a
| MIDI track? Anyone doing that?
|
| Other cool things would be a way to generate a sampled instrument
| from a text description, or to generate a new track given a text
| description and all the previous tracks for other instruments.
| There could be a new generation of audio tools that let you
| generate placeholders or better for everything.
| l33tman wrote:
| The analogue from stable diffusion would be ControlNet, where
| you can train a superimposed model on auxiliary data, this
| should be possible to do with chords for example, just like you
| can do with human poses, 3D depth maps etc in stable diffusion
| using controlnet
| emadm wrote:
| It's coming
| _sys49152 wrote:
| gamechanging stuff for sample based rap producers. havent been
| able to log-in yet but i think a good benchmark to start off with
| is to see if it can replicate the 'al green' sound from the early
| 70s - very distinct sounding production - drumless and
| instrumental.
|
| you dont need 45 or 90 straight seconds of a coherent song
| rendered. just need to dip in the 45 sec clip and cut out 4
| seconds here, another 4 there. reroll those cuts through stable
| audio, keep rolling, keep rolling. cut up and get a pile of clips
| together. arrange, layer, voila - you saved money on paying
| royalties for sampling.
|
| the lofi melodic sample on the stability page was passable.
| thought the bluegrass one sounded great actually. imagine being
| able to program bluegrass like rap.
|
| edit: oof. fully trained on a licensed commercial dataset from
| AudioSparx. muzak in, muzak out.
| randcraw wrote:
| I wonder if it makes sense to generate a combo of instruments
| rather than individual voices and then combine those with an
| arranger DNN. I would think it'd be much easier to capture each
| instrument's transients and dynamics that way, much less allow
| more subtlety in how they combine, like allowing the lead voice
| to shift among instruments, or even let the listener choose how
| each voice expresses stylistically and how they should combine.
|
| Trying to do all of that in a single DNN, much less parameterize
| it useably seems overly ambitious (or will be of more limited
| value ultimately).
| kherud wrote:
| Thank you for sharing! On a tangent: I'm wondering if there are
| any good open source models/libraries to reconstruct audio
| quality. I'm thinking about an end-to-end open source alternative
| to something like Adobe Podcast [1] to make noisy recordings
| sound professional. Anecdotally it's supposed to be very good. In
| a recent search, I haven't found anything convincing. In my naive
| view this tasks seems much simpler than audio generation and the
| demand far bigger, since not everyone has a professional audio
| setup ready at all times.
|
| [1] https://podcast.adobe.com/
| cosmok wrote:
| I have had a lot of success with this:
| https://ultimatevocalremover.com/ for de-noising
| joshspankit wrote:
| There seems to have been a fork in the road:
|
| On one side the tech for literal denoising has stagnated a bit.
| It's a very hard problem to remove all noise while keeping
| things like transients.
|
| On the other side, AI is being rapidly developed for it's
| ability to denoise by recreating the recording, just without
| the noise.
| earthnail wrote:
| In our denoiser (see other comment), we worked on combining
| these two forks. That's how we can mathematically guarantee
| great audio quality.
|
| This combination was non-trivial as training old school DSP
| denoisers is not easily possible. We'll describe the math
| needed in our paper. We hope our publication will help the
| wider community work not just on denoising but also tasks
| like automatic mixing.
| earthnail wrote:
| We've been researching an audio denoiser for music that we will
| present at the AES conference in October. Description page:
| https://tape.it/denoising
|
| We'll also publish a webapp where you can use the denoiser for
| free. Mail me if you want beta access to it (email in profile).
|
| It won't be open-source though, although the paper will of
| course be public. It will also only reduce noise, and not
| reconstruct other aspects of audio quality. However, it can do
| so on any audio (in particular music), not just speech like
| Adobe Podcast, and it fully preserves the audio quality. It's
| designed exactly for the use case you want: to make noisy
| recordings sound professional.
| white_beach wrote:
| denoising seems to fail in the guitar and vocals example
| earthnail wrote:
| Can you clarify where it fails? It's designed to remove
| stationary noise only, and removes it very well in the
| guitar and vocals example.
|
| Generally speaking, if you have other sounds that you don't
| want in the audio, we don't remove them - it's hard to
| decide from a musical point of view whether you want a
| certain sound or not. To give an extreme example: a barking
| dog probably doesn't belong into a Zoom conference, but it
| may very well belong into your audio recording. Removing
| such elements would be a creative decision.
|
| The guitar and vocals example has certain clicks in the
| background that we don't remove - but the stationary noise
| is gone. Existing professional (and complex) audio
| restoration tools like iZotope RX don't remove those
| clicks, either. It's a conservative approach, sure, but in
| return you can throw any audio at it and it always improves
| it.
| haywirez wrote:
| Are you sure the demo sound files are correct on the website?
| Couldn't appreciate any glaringly obvious differences between
| the original and denoised with studio grade headphones here.
| Or, the originals aren't noisy enough.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| It's not open but Nvidia has RTX Voice for free if you have and
| Nvidia card.
|
| Only weird thing it's designed to be used real time but I've
| had some luck on cleaning up voice recordings replayed back
| through it via audio routing.
| hubraumhugo wrote:
| Now imagine Spotify using this to generate individual earworms
| for everybody based on their personal tastes (likes, playlists).
|
| Yes, AI is partly hype, but had someone told me this even two
| years ago, I wouldn't have believed it.
| joshspankit wrote:
| This is why it's _vital_ that AI is openly available. Imagine a
| world where Spotify is the only company that can do that, and
| they use it to make sure they never pay royalties again.
| bee_rider wrote:
| How is Spotify for finding new music based on your tastes?
| I've only used Amazon and Pandora; Amazon is quite poor,
| Pandora is pretty good. I suspect (although, without proof)
| that if a service can't suggest new music, it will have
| trouble generating new music as well.
|
| Anyway, I very much would rather run this sort of thing
| locally. You could just manually set your taste profile.
| Plus, music can be quite personal, imagine you start
| listening to too much music inspired by The Cure and suddenly
| Amazon starts advertising black makeup and antidepressants or
| something like that, it would be too disconcerting.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| > How is Spotify for finding new music based on your
| tastes?
|
| I haven't tried any alternatives really, but so far for me
| I'd say decent. I put on an album, and once over it'll play
| similarish stuff. If I don't like a song I'll skip it and
| it seems to incorporate that feedback.
|
| Only thing is that it doesn't seem to be too adventurous
| and it adheres rather strictly to the local context.
| Meaning, if I played a stoner rock track, it'll continue
| suggesting stoner rock and not much else, even though I
| have quite varied music favorited in my library.
|
| Overall though I've found a lot of new bands I enjoy that
| way so, positive experience for me.
|
| edit: as an example, here are the two most recent ones it
| suggested where I ended up buying the albums on Bandcamp.
| Both have quite few monthly listeners (1-2k), so not what
| I'd call mainstream.
|
| SUIR https://open.spotify.com/artist/6zOeQ2hyNfqi9UMHtyTSlF
|
| Mount Hush
| https://open.spotify.com/artist/13clfeXxTPsDsqzSlLIBZJ
| seanw444 wrote:
| I'll +1. I'm generally a FOSS guy, so if Spotify hadn't
| helped so much in discovering new music that I really
| enjoy, I'd be potentially acquiring music via
| questionable means and just playing them as audio files
| directly.
|
| There are two companies that have done well by Gabe
| Newell's "piracy is a service problem - not a price
| problem" position: Valve/Steam (who also contribute to
| FOSS through Proton and SteamOS which I heavily
| appreciate), and Spotify. Spotify makes discovering and
| aggregating music so easy that the alternatives don't
| seem appealing.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| Similarly to others, I haven't really used other things in
| a LONG time but Spotify's Discover Weekly playlist is
| usually a list of bops that I enjoy a lot. I frequently end
| up adding a huge portion of them to my liked songs and to
| regularly used playlists!
| riskable wrote:
| I've tried Amazon and Pandora. Spotify is so vastly
| superior at finding music I like it's in an entirely
| different league.
|
| Having said that, starting about a year ago (maybe ~1.5
| years?) Spotify started inserting _obviously_ paid
| promotion tracks into my auto-generated "Daily Mix _n_ "
| playlists and it seriously bothered me. When my playlists
| are made up of very specific genres of EDM and suddenly a
| pop song plays from a famous person I get seriously angry.
|
| It hasn't happened in many months though so maybe they
| learned their lesson. I was so mad I seriously considered
| ending my Premium subscription right then and there when
| that track played.
| K5EiS wrote:
| I find the discover weekly playlists that are made for me
| are pretty hit or miss, overall I have found many news
| songs I like with their help.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| Same! New songs, new artists, new genres, it's pretty
| cool! I agree it can be hit or miss but it feels like the
| longer I use it and the older, and more mature the
| platform gets, the more hit discover weekly ends up
| being!
| viraptor wrote:
| Similar - I found many good new things. I like the
| discovery playlists, even with the tracks I don't like.
| If they never missed, how could they ever suggest
| something actually different and exciting? It's
| "discover" not "average of what you already like".
| hospitalJail wrote:
| I really want this. I have a band that I like, and I want more!
|
| Or I'd like to take a song I like, and make it educational,
| like make it include the period table of elements.
| [deleted]
| liotier wrote:
| Machine-generated music might be functionally equivalent to
| human-generated music, but that ignores the cultural role of
| art as a shared human experience - witness the liturgy of live
| music. That can't happen with music tailored to each listener,
| it can't happen without tracks that are fixed in time and can
| be referred to. I can imagine it well-accepted for dynamic
| music such as gaming soundtracks, but I suppose that machine
| generation will be mostly a production technique resulting in
| branded pieces.
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| I know quite a few technically talented musicians who have
| next to no creativity in actually writing the music (aside
| from jazz style improv sessions). Most of them never really
| play live unless it's part of a similarly uncreative band of
| college friends. I wonder if having a catchy/complex AI
| generated song created for them to play live might be
| interesting to them. Gonna check in and see what they think.
| broast wrote:
| > such as gaming soundtracks
|
| These days I also feel like my workout playlists might as
| well be randomly generated dance music.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Saying that's impossible makes me immediately wonder whether
| it's not. There are already headphone dance parties. What if
| a musical act's output was being interpreted through genre
| lenses specific to each listener?
| ragazzina wrote:
| Spotify does not need to generate a tailored earworm for me. It
| could already suggest songs that I like based on my personal
| taste out of their 100-million-songs catalog - and it's
| absolutely unable to do it.
| zachthewf wrote:
| Building a tailored earworm might actually be easier.
| cesaref wrote:
| The death metal example reminded me of the continuous streaming
| death metal here:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwtVkPKx3RA
| shon wrote:
| Ed Newton-Rex, VP of Audio at Stability, is speaking about how
| this was built at The AI Conference in 2 weeks.
| https://aiconference.com
| iandanforth wrote:
| The solo piano was interesting because of how clean it is. I can
| imagine going from that sample to a score without too much
| difficulty. Once it's in a symbolic format it becomes much more
| flexible and re-usable.
|
| While this does _not_ seem to be the trend I hope more gen ai in
| the audio and visual realms start to produce more structured /
| symbolic output. For example, if I were Adobe I would be training
| models, not to output full images, but either layers or brush
| strokes and tool pallet usage. Same for organizations that have
| all the component tracks of music to work with.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| That raises an interesting difference between cleaning AI-
| generated sound and cleaning ordinary recordings. In an
| ordinary recording, there is an objective reality to discover
| -- a certain collection of voices was summed to create a
| signal. With (most? the best?) existing AI audio generation,
| the waveform is created from whole cloth, and extracting voices
| from it is an act of creation, not just discovery.
|
| I've come across AI-generated music that outputs something like
| MIDI and controls synthesizers. Its audio quality was crystal-
| clear, but the music was boring. That's not to say the approach
| is a dead-end, of course -- and indeed, as a musician, the idea
| of that kind of output is exciting. But getting good data to
| train something that outputs separate MIDI-ish voices seems
| much harder than getting raw audio signals.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Generative models can certainly create midi, but no one has
| done it yet. Given the technique is making video, audio,
| images, and language, all you need to do is train and build a
| model with an appropriate architecture.
|
| It's easy to forget this is all pretty new stuff and it still
| costs a lot to make the base models. But the techniques are
| (more or less) well documented and implementable with open
| source tools.
| jskherman wrote:
| I believe Spotify's Basic Pitch[0] is already some work
| towards building something like this.
|
| [0]: https://basicpitch.spotify.com/about
| MrCheeze wrote:
| It has been done - first by OpenAI (MuseNet, which is no
| longer available) and later by Stanford (Anticipatory Music
| Transformer):
| https://nitter.net/jwthickstun/status/1669726326956371971
| TheActualWalko wrote:
| We've done it! wavtool.com
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| That's really neat. How long have you been working on
| this?
| radarsat1 wrote:
| > Generative models can certainly create midi, but no one
| has done it yet.
|
| Note sequence generation from statistical models has a long
| history, at least as long if not longer than text
| generation.
|
| Have a look at section 2.1 of this survey paper [0] that
| cites a paper from 1957 as the first work that applies
| Markov models to music generation.
|
| And, of course, plenty of follow-up work 6 decades later on
| GANs, LSTMs, and transformers.
|
| [0]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345915209_A_C
| ompreh...
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Yes, in fact I think at some point everyone has written
| their own Markov generators or at least run dissociative
| press. But we've really only seen meaningfully high
| quality output over the last few years.
| fassssst wrote:
| Do you know if anyone has tried training a text-to-music
| or text-to-midi model where the training data includes
| things like emotion labels for each note interval or
| chord progression?
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| That sounds expensive and inefficient. Peoples'
| interpretations of music (and abstract art more
| generally) can be shockingly different; I suspect the
| model would not get a clear signal from the result.
|
| But that makes me wonder to what extent labeling can be
| programmed -- extracting chord changes, dynamics changes,
| tempo, gross timbral characteristics, etc.
| fassssst wrote:
| And maybe even labels like popularity/play count/etc so
| it has a better sense of what "sounds good" to certain
| groups
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| There are a lot of Lora models that are being made to generate
| textures, maps, diagrams, backgrounds, etc. You don't need to
| wait for adobe, open source models like stable diffusion let
| you do whatever you think is useful. I'd look to the open
| source world for creative innovation. Adobe is just doing
| what's on the product management roadmap.
| miohtama wrote:
| Having music editable for human post production is necessary
| for most professional adoption. Generating MIDIs would make
| much more sense than generating raw audio.
|
| This is what we do with AI images: you can fix them in
| Photoshop, etc. You cannot do this for raw audio due to how
| music is produced.
| waffletower wrote:
| Build or seek out a MIDI generating model. I hope Stable
| Audio is _never_ the place for that. MIDI is deeply lossy and
| it would be tragedy if it was the only music representation.
| Imagine if instead of phonographs, compact disks and
| streaming audio we only had piano rolls. What a loss indeed.
| iainctduncan wrote:
| Midi is not lossy, midi is symbolic. There's a huge
| difference.
| Applejinx wrote:
| No, it's lossy. It's an event model at a fixed data rate.
| You can only do so many things sequentially, even if you
| could represent any possible musical concept as a MIDI
| event. So even if you're not sticking to note-on, note-
| off, it's still extremely lossy.
| miohtama wrote:
| MIDI 2.0 improves a lot of things, how much dynamicity
| and variation you can have. MIDI 1.0 is a standard from
| early 80s. It indeed has shortcomings, but also the
| upside is editability.
|
| It's then for the remaster / musician / actual
| interpretation / post production to make the score to
| something less of an event model.
| iainctduncan wrote:
| well ok, you could say it's a lossy format for capturing
| physical movement, which it certainly is. My point is
| that it is not a format for capturing _music_ any more
| than a score on a page is a format for capturing music.
| Both are instructions for a performer of music (one
| machine, one human), which is a very different beast.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| MIDI is able to accommodate nearly everything that can be
| represented through a musical score and instrumental
| performance. What are you hoping to accomplish with AI-
| generated waveforms that can't be done with MIDI?
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _What_
|
| "Intention" (as a tentative term)
|
| The question becomes: what has impeded the creation of a
| MIDI file that can be confused with an actual concert
| from Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Literally nothing is preventing this other than that
| nobody has bothered to take the time to do it.
|
| The current version of MIDI is capable of replicating any
| of his performances, even down to the randomness.
|
| Note that if you want to replicate the audio quality of
| his performances, you will need a high-quality MIDI
| instrument; the ones that ship with Windows will not
| suffice. These MIDI instruments can range from a few
| dollars to thousands of dollars. (See, e.g., Native
| Instruments)
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _nobody has bothered to take the time to do it_
|
| In such case, we have a theoretical suggestion that
| <<nothing is preventing this>>, but not an actual proof
| based on a "Turing test"-like scenario which would have
| specialists fooled, to corroborate that the new MIDI 2
| would suffice.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| I gave you the knowledge to do this research yourself,
| but since you are unwilling to do so, here is an example
| of the performance possible using MIDI instruments:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvaChiq6gf0
|
| As it is clear that you intend to keep shifting the
| goalposts to make a point that can't be made, I will
| withdraw from further participation in this thread.
| waffletower wrote:
| This is absurd. Sure, someone below posits that MIDI
| could perhaps represent a piano performance by Arturo
| Benedetti Michelangeli. I think it has been able to do a
| passing job at that, _when you provide a decent piano_.
| Regardless, piano rolls have been able to come close
| since the early 20th century. But how well does MIDI
| represent music performed by John Coltrane? Jimi Hendrix?
| It falls on its face. The long fetishized Western music
| notation abstraction, which MIDI poorly simulates,
| completely fails for many important examples of music. I
| would even venture to say that MIDI fails for _most_ of
| them. But yes, MIDI is well-optimized for piano music
| where an acceptable piano or simulation is available.
| waffletower wrote:
| The problems have long been known and articulated:
| http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~gary/courses/papers/Moore-
| Dysfun...
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Your example of the failures of MIDI are based on a
| 35-year old paper (from 1988!!!) about an earlier version
| of MIDI?
|
| When that paper was written it took several _weeks_ and
| many millions of dollars of equipment to render
| primitive, mono-color 3d graphics. Desktop computers had
| 512 _kilobytes_ of RAM and the highest-end desktops 32 MB
| of hard drive storage space. Computer screens had two
| colors: black and green. Audio cards capable of making
| beeps and clicks were the cutting-edge. WIFI was still a
| decade away.
| waffletower wrote:
| You clearly didn't read the article, and clearly don't
| understand how prevalent the MIDI 1.0 specification is
| today. MIDI 2.0 is a very recent development (this year
| LOL!) and has yet to be commercially adopted. The 1984
| design is what is largely in use today. At the time of
| initial development, commercial synthesizers, not sound
| cards, were the intended generators of sound utilizing
| MIDI: https://www.vintagesynth.com/roland/juno106.php.
| waffletower wrote:
| MIDI is an extraordinarily lossy music representation.
| Even Claude Shannon would facepalm at the assertion that
| it could, in theory, represent audio faithfully. It is
| not its purpose, it is decidedly not its practice, and it
| is a ludicrously irrelevant example of pedantry to say
| otherwise. The false equivalency asserted by the commons
| can be aggravating :D
| iainctduncan wrote:
| MIDI is not a lossy format for audio because it's not a
| representation of audio, period. It's a format for
| conveying the motion of a piano keyboard, meant from the
| beginning to be usable for various forms of audio.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| MIDI is not _inherently_ lossy. You could encode anything
| in it, just as you can encode any novel as an integer.
|
| In practice, though, transformations from audio to MIDI
| discard an enormous amount of important information, with
| the possible exception of transcriptions of performances
| on piano (where volume, frequency, duration and a good
| physical model of a piano are enough to reconstruct
| everything important about the signal) and similar
| instruments.
| schazers wrote:
| I strongly agree about generating "editables" rather than
| finalized media. In fact, that's why text generators are more
| useful than current media generators: text is editable by
| default. Here's a tweetstorm about it:
| https://x.com/jsonriggs/status/1694490308220964999?s=20
| waffletower wrote:
| Audio is definitely editable. While generative audio is new I
| am hopeful that a host of interesting applications will
| emerge (audio2audio etc.) within its ecosystem. Promising
| signal separation (audio to STEMs) and pitch detection tools
| already exist for raw audio signals. If you want to force
| Stability to focus on symbolic representations (such as
| severely lossy MIDI) I hope you can instead first try
| adapting to tools that work fundamentally with rich audio
| signals. Perhaps there will be room for symbolic music AI and
| perhaps Stability will even develop additional models that
| generate schematic music, but please please don't sacrifice
| audio generality for piano roll thinking alone. LORAs will
| undoubtedly be usable to generate more schematic audio via
| the Stable Audio model -- I imagine they could be easily
| purposedly to develop sample libraries compatible with DAW
| (digital audio workstation), sequencer and tracker production
| workflows.
| visarga wrote:
| Train the model with midi notes as text in the prompt and
| the audio as target. It will learn to interpret notes.
| waffletower wrote:
| Not all music is well represented with notes, nor are
| audio datasets with high-quality note representations
| readily available. But I guess if you work hard enough
| you can get close:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5aeuhad3OM My example
| still sounds like the chiptune simulation that it is,
| however.
| tech_ken wrote:
| I was wondering the same thing, definitely seems like
| generating the raw waveform runs into all kinds of weird issues
| (like they touched on in this post). I would imagine that
| training data would be a serious chokepoint here. Given how
| much discourse is currently kicking off around the intellectual
| property rights of just the final product (the mastered track),
| I can't imagine many musicians would be eager to share what is
| effectively the "proof of ownership" (track stems or MIDIs).
| dylan604 wrote:
| >For example, if I were Adobe I would be training models, not
| to output full images, but either layers or brush strokes and
| tool pallet usage. Same for organizations that have all the
| component tracks of music to work with.
|
| I really like this idea. Creating new tools for artists to use
| to create rather than whatever we're accepting as use now. The
| use of current full image creation is boring to me in the same
| way the choice of invisibility as a super power is. The
| invisibility is ultimately going to slide into pervy
| tendencies, just like deep fakes will slide in the same way or
| some other inappropriate use.
| waffletower wrote:
| Hopefully, the entire industry will _NOT_ move in such a
| schematic and lossy direction. Use separate tools to analyze
| audio streams please. Don 't throw the timbre baby out with the
| bathwater. MusicGen utilizes a tokenized transformer model for
| music, which is attractive for symbolic translation use cases.
| However, the overall audio quality is far more lossy than the
| examples you hear from Stable Audio. I believe that symbolic
| representation should not be a foundational approach to
| adequately represent and generate rich audio signals.
| gabereiser wrote:
| Yessssss! I thought about MusicGAN and Markov chains last night
| thinking "Why can't we just codify all chords and use a GAN to
| generate markov chains on chords of a key and have AI generate
| instruments and waveform from those chains?" IANA researcher
| but in my head, that sounded logical.
| TylerE wrote:
| That's existed for decades. It's called Band in a Box. It's
| also cheezy as hell.
| gabereiser wrote:
| lol, no. Not autogenerate midi (although their latest
| versions of BiaB are pretty darn good now) but generate
| waveforms together. It would be similar to having AI
| generate whole scores of music but ensuring it's all in
| sync and in key. Not taking sample database of 88 sound
| files and triggering them when the midi-note strikes.
| TylerE wrote:
| That's not how BiaB works at all. It has all kinds of
| patterns built into it. So, it knows, how to generate,
| say, a bluegrass bassline in a given key. There are
| plenty of ways to play back MIDI with high sound quality,
| including feeding it into an AI-driven VST like
| NotePerformer.
| gabereiser wrote:
| Then explain why you categorize it as cheesy? Sounds like
| it's pretty cool.
| 93po wrote:
| he's saying the output is cheesy. it sounds like stuff
| you'd hear on a demo track for a kid's toy piano
| TylerE wrote:
| It's not THAT bad, it's just that for a programming
| targetting jazz the playback is rather...square.
| gabereiser wrote:
| Yeah I definitely imagine certain genres sounding off due
| to the rhythmic nature of computer timing. Jazz doesn't
| follow rules like that so good jazz has these timing
| idiosyncrasies that make it sound the way it sounds. That
| and a ridiculous obsession with adding half step and
| quarter tone intervals.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Just like all examples of generative "AI" I've seen, there's
| always some bit of uncanny valley vibe present. In the audio
| examples, there's always this weird distortion like a really
| poorly compression sources were used as training data. The sounds
| are muddled together, and rarely do I hear clean musical voices.
| It's just a smear of sounds coming together that our brains try
| really hard to say "oh, that's a _____" situation. While the
| samples in the TFA are probably the closest I've heard to date,
| the issue is still present.
|
| I guess the thing that strikes me so odd about the generative
| thing is all of the press releases on people presenting things
| like it's a final product, yet it's clearly pre-release beta at
| best but more likely alpha versions of code in the results in
| quality. If a non-AI product released something that was so
| clearly not finished, it would be panned to no end for not
| working.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-13 23:00 UTC)