I personally feel that goes against what this community should be about but I’d like feedback, especially on wording.

I don’t feel generative “ai” audio is fitting here but a eurorack/modular/generative sequencer type thing would be welcome.

Given a recent post I believe the general community agrees but I need help with wording.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Edit: not the focus, but I do think stem splitting models are fine, but I would interested in discussion about that too.

  • gid@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Personally, I think “no gen ai music” would be well-enough understood as a rule to exclude AI generated songs but not music where AI has been used as a novel tool as part of the production process.

    Alternatively, you could hold off on adding a rule like that and leave upvotes/downvotes as the method for evaluating posts with gen ai music. If this community starts to get inundated with low quality posts you could then revisit enforcing a rule?

    • trashcan@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Alternatively, you could hold off on adding a rule like that and leave upvotes/downvotes as the method for evaluating posts with gen ai music. If this community starts to get inundated with low quality posts you could then revisit enforcing a rule?

      This could work for now. But with little traffic (admittedly partly my fault) it could still easily become a list mostly made up of downvoted slop.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    “Was it possible before 2020?” is a decent rule of thumb. I’ve written procedural music for 4 MHz computers. It’s not good, but it’s fundamentally distinct from having a robot do the thing for you. It is entirely reasonable for any community to say no thank you to that kind of effortless content.

    That said: I have no personal objections to the robot that does the thing for you. Too many comments and blog posts go ‘oh it’s terrible, I’d never tolerate this in my industry… anyway here’s how I use it in my hobbies.’ I don’t play those games. The tech is fine. It’s a jack-of-all-trades. People can and will use it to entertain themselves, and each other. Whatever grand philosophical declarations we can make about art - you can still do everything the hard way, for those high-minded goals. People putting on the uninterrupted smooth jazz channel while they read are not listening to music in the same mindset as whoever’s working that saxaphone.

    • trashcan@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I see your points. I feel like 2023 is the generally the accepted timeframe but it’s trickier for me. I like stem separation tools (even if I mainly use them in unintended ways). If the Beatles can use it I see no reason why we shouldn’t here.

  • Leon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    I think there’s a difference between say a sequencer that has a machine learning model behind it, and a model that’s trained on stolen music that takes words as input and outputs slop.

    If you look at Synthesizer V for example, the voice providers were compensated and aware of what they are signing up for. The providers in the past back when it was concatenative synthesis who didn’t feel comfortable with a machine learning library, haven’t gotten one (e.g. Cangqiong). It’s also a much smaller company operating on a different scale. You won’t find Kanru Hua or Dreamtonics lobbying the American government bribing the U.S. president so they can be above the law. Sure, nowadays I’m sure they rent a server farm for their training, but I recall Hua training the initial models on his PC in the late 201Xs.

    I think for me personally that’s where the sweet spot is, machine learning used to be a helpful tool in a creative process. Whether it replicates a voice, or an instrument, or helps filter noise. It can be done in a manner that doesn’t involve theft or the ruination of communities.

    • trashcan@sh.itjust.worksOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      See, this is something I wasn’t aware of that further complicates this. I think I see things similarly but that makes it nkneasiwe to define a rule.

        • trashcan@sh.itjust.worksOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          lmao, sorry, I’m not even sure if I can parse that.

          Essentially I really appreciate the input and nuance your comment provided. But despite that I have further difficulty in refining a comprehensive and specific “rule” for the community.

          I could just enforce it based on “vibes” but it’s my understanding that people don’t like that approach to moderation. It may work now but ideally this place will grow and it could easily end up in prompt created audio spam territory.