Create your own music hits with AI - amazing!

[Jon]

AI music generation is getting amazing. I created the following song for a friend of mine using a website called Suno, all free. She has a very fat cat and so I did a song about it. I gave some input, but AI creates the song and tune. I chose disco style. If you have decent speakers, with subwoofer etc it sounds great! Not quite the same listening to it on a smartphone.

Let me know what you think.

Sarah's Fat Cat Cos Mo by @infectiousmerchandisers2047 | Suno

funky disco song. Listen and make your own with Suno.

suno.com

 

[Mike Krailo]

It does have a catchy vibe to it, just lacks a good guitar track. The AI voices are all kind of similar though. The lyrics were pretty impressive.

 

[Edgar_]

I like udio too
https://www.udio.com/songs/qtZrU73ehZvvj3m35gRfuR

 

[Jon]

It does have a catchy vibe to it, just lacks a good guitar track. The AI voices are all kind of similar though. The lyrics were pretty impressive.

If you listen to other songs, there are all kinds of AI voices. Case in point, listen to Edgar's exampe!

 

[Cotswold]

I see in the press at weekend that McCartney and Elton John are kicking off about copyright. Their copyright in particular.
Mainly because they think, correctly I guess, that AI will use their output to create new music. But I cannot see that they can stop this from happening. Just as they cannot stop a person from doing the exact same thing after hearing their work. Not only that, The Beatles, Elton, Beach Boys and many others copied Buddy Holly, Don & Phil Everly , Roy Orbison, Bo Diddley etc. Musicians like Chuck Berry, Rolling Stones etc have made a living adapting stuff off artists from way back? Not much is totally original, or uninfluenced by earlier work. From the 1950s and for twenty years there was an explosion of variations from earlier work. Just about everything is adapted from something earlier anyway. We haven't heard anything really original for maybe 50 years. Maybe AI will change that?

Apart from that, most of the stuff Elton and the Beatles wrote was done in a few minutes. So not really a bad return for their time and nothing to complain about.

 

[Minty]

Apart from that, most of the stuff Elton and the Beatles wrote was done in a few minutes. So not really a bad return for their time and nothing to complain about.

I'm sure you'd feel the just as magnanimous if it was your material being plagiarised, whether it took you 2 minutes or several years ?
No point in having any new ideas or thoughts at all on that basis.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

A lot of print work is also the subject of an AI lawsuit, claiming that using literary works to "train" an AI, once it leads to someone using that AI to create a work "in the style of" someone else, becomes a copyright violation.

In the USA, plagiarism and reboots are common-place. Hardly anyone does anything original. But, as one of my college professors once told me, "When you copy one person's work, that is plagiarism. When you copy two people's work, that is gross plagiarism. When you copy at least five people's work, that's a review article."

 

[GPGeorge]

I'm sure you'd feel the just as magnanimous if it was your material being plagiarised, whether it took you 2 minutes or several years ?
No point in having any new ideas or thoughts at all on that basis.

I see in the press at weekend that McCartney and Elton John are kicking off about copyright. Their copyright in particular.
Mainly because they think, correctly I guess, that AI will use their output to create new music. But I cannot see that they can stop this from happening. Just as they cannot stop a person from doing the exact same thing after hearing their work. Not only that, The Beatles, Elton, Beach Boys and many others copied Buddy Holly, Don & Phil Everly , Roy Orbison, Bo Diddley etc. Musicians like Chuck Berry, Rolling Stones etc have made a living adapting stuff off artists from way back? Not much is totally original, or uninfluenced by earlier work. From the 1950s and for twenty years there was an explosion of variations from earlier work. Just about everything is adapted from something earlier anyway. We haven't heard anything really original for maybe 50 years. Maybe AI will change that?

Apart from that, most of the stuff Elton and the Beatles wrote was done in a few minutes. So not really a bad return for their time and nothing to complain about.

We recently had a similar conversation about publicly posting copyrighted written material.

The answer here is the same. Whether a song writer earned $10,000,000 for a song or $10 for a song is irrelevant. What matters is the principle of Intellectual Property rights. The person created the IP. That IP, whether it's a book or a song, belongs to that person.

There are a lot of theories about how that right can and should be enforced, and under what circumstances, but the principle is well understood.

The problem with copyrighted music is more subtle in some ways, but not entirely different. If McCartney or Elton John or Willie Nelson created a composition, it's theirs. Whether it was in turn inspired in whole or in part by Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, Lead Belly, Doctor John, or one of the hundreds of semi-anonymous musicians of the 30s, 40s and 50s is not definitive. And that's only referencing American singers and song writers that I know about.

Riffs and motifs and even lyrics are not universally unique, although in some combination they become more so. I think it's more of a question of how much of that influence was retained in the final product.

Famous musicians have no more "right" to control their music than musicians currently living in a one bedroom apartment in Soho and trying to make a name--and a living--for themselves writing their own unique songs. But they also have no less right to do so, just because they already became rich and famous.

AI exacerbates the problem of infringement by making it easier to plagiarize. We're in for a rocky road trying to figure all this out.

 

[Isaac]

A lot of print work is also the subject of an AI lawsuit, claiming that using literary works to "train" an AI, once it leads to someone using that AI to create a work "in the style of" someone else, becomes a copyright violation.

In the USA, plagiarism and reboots are common-place. Hardly anyone does anything original. But, as one of my college professors once told me, "When you copy one person's work, that is plagiarism. When you copy two people's work, that is gross plagiarism. When you copy at least five people's work, that's a review article."

It's all about the Citation. Or lack thereof.

I kind of see both sides with this AI vs. copyright stuff. On the one hand, I can see original content creators being ripped off by too many people trying to have AI generate a similar (or indistinguishably the same) end product. On the other hand, some of the stuff I have heard from actors and celebrities worried someone is making their likeness seem to go a little far, and seem to be greedily grabbing at yet one more way they can make millions off of claiming that their likeness (or just something similar really) is being made. It's hard to feel sorry for the super rich complaining that someone may make a copy of their image.

 

[Isaac]

I think DeepSeek is the biggest AI news in years, because it totally debunks a lot of what people thought about ChatGPT and OpenAI, which was anything but open. Turns out you don't need billions of investment....turns out you don't need the supercomputing power that was thought....turns out ChatGPT is the worst product in history if you compare the ROI 's!

 

[GPGeorge]

I think DeepSeek is the biggest AI news in years, because it totally debunks a lot of what people thought about ChatGPT and OpenAI, which was anything but open. Turns out you don't need billions of investment....turns out you don't need the supercomputing power that was thought....turns out ChatGPT is the worst product in history if you compare the ROI 's!

A lot of what has emerged about DeepSeek seems to be open to discussion. It seems, for example, that the creators may have leverage output from one of the other AIs, I think I read it was ChatGPT. Does that count as leveraging someone else's Intellectual Property as well?

On the other hand, after trying for three days to get an account, I finally was able to ask DeepSeek a question I'd previously asked Chatty. I received a response that I considered significantly superior to the previous Chatty response.

 

[Isaac]

i've gotten awful responses from Chat that really dimmed my opinion of it, like it having no idea what was wrong with this code:

Sub foo()
Dim i As Integer
For i = 1 To 1000000
    MsgBox "something"
Next i
End Sub

It had no idea and suggested 3 other things that really weren't wrong with it.

Frankly, that was the last time I used Chat for anything technical.

I agree that DeepSeek's claims are in some cases assertions we don't know whether to believe it or not.

and AI plagiarizing AI - maybe the robots will start fighting each other!

 

[Cotswold]

There is an element of plagiarism in most music but I think less so in copying riffs, melody, or words.

It surely comes in style, or as some like to call it genres. From the 60s there was an explosion of different musicians, all copying what they heard on records from the USA. They heard it and knew they could create something of the same and a huge cottage industry developed. In England a guy called Lonnie Donegan copied stuff from the USA and called it skiffle. He inspired people who heard it to think that they could do that and many did. It wasn't so much the melody or words but the ideas they copied. In the same way Fleming came up with James Bond and before you knew it the world and his uncle were writing spy novels and scripts. Fleming couldn't sue them for plagiarism though. Although they totally copied the 'look and feel' of his ideas.

And that is what AI will do but I do suspect that it will take AI years and need to create thousands before something comes up that anyone is interested in. AI has difficulty in coming up with any humour that is better than human created humour and I suspect the same will apply to music.

If AI does manage it and that style is copied, will the copyright be owned by AI? After all the AI user only came up with an idea but AI created the finished product. If a client came up with a brilliant idea for a new feature for your software and you sat and wrote it. You wouldn't consider giving them copyright.

Mind you everyone on this forum will have copied and plagiarised the work from many developers during the learning of Access and the creation of their various systems. We have taken the work of others, maybe slightly adapting it for our own purposes but then claiming it as our own copyright. Following a request for help on the forum. Aren't the solutions given with the full knowledge that it will be plagiarised?

 

[Jon]

If we strip it all back, muscians plagiarised the use of the musical scale. With the huge increase in the number of people making music, it will be extremely difficult to deal with this copyright issue.

Regarding humour and other creative works, I give it a couple of years before their humour matches or exceeds humans. Just look at how AI has gone from rubbish to super smart in just 3 years. Look at how rapidly their music and video creation abilities have improved. They will overtake us in most cognitive endeavours within 5 years, in my humble opinion.

Once they get AI's that can do innovative research, they can then reinvent themselves for a rapid intelligence explosion where we see them go from AGI to super-intelligence.

 

[GPGeorge]

If we strip it all back, muscians plagiarised the use of the musical scale. With the huge increase in the number of people making music, it will be extremely difficult to deal with this copyright issue.

Regarding humour and other creative works, I give it a couple of years before their humour matches or exceeds humans. Just look at how AI has gone from rubbish to super smart in just 3 years. Look at how rapidly their music and video creation abilities have improved. They will overtake us in most cognitive endeavours within 5 years, in my humble opinion.

Once they get AI's that can do innovative research, they can then reinvent themselves for a rapid intelligence explosion where we see them go from AGI to super-intelligence.

I rather think that the DeepSeek model already illustrates this to some extent, assuming that some of the claims about how it was trained are true. The assertion is that they used output from one of the OpenAI models, i.e. AI trained by other AI.

I don't pretend to know how that would work. Still it makes sense to me that something like that could be possible.

 

[Cotswold]

Once they get AI's that can do innovative research, they can then reinvent themselves for a rapid intelligence explosion where we see them go from AGI to super-intelligence.

I do think that time will certainly improve their capability to advance to super intelligence. The software certainly can only improve.

Only problem I see is that we become submissive to their results and simply accept without question. AI could probably replace all British politicians at this point in time with an improvement to the benefit of the country. I do believe that very, very few politicians understand technology and software. Around ten years ago the whole of the cabinet, including the PM Cameron, were praising the then Chancellor, Hammond because he "understood spreadsheets"

I just wonder who would be able to question AI and be listened to in the years to come.

 

[Isaac]

When it comes to paintings/pictures, there is already strong evidence that the AI is steadily degrading (not getting better), because of how humans are storing the AI output, which then trains other AI. AI training AI is a recipe for degradation of output.