SynthID comes to audio.

Google is embedding inaudible watermarks right into its AI generated music::Audio created using Google DeepMind’s AI Lyria model will be watermarked with SynthID to let people identify its AI-generated origins after the fact.

  • Stern@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9410·
    10 months ago

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

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

    • tahoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
      461·
      10 months ago

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

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

        • tahoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          10 months ago

          This is the ultimate YouTuber power move. Exurb1a and RetroGamingNow do it too!

        • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          10 months ago

          A number of Youtubers do . . . and some of it’s even good, lol. John at Plainly Difficult and Ahti at AT Restorations are two that use their own music that I can think of off the top of my head.

    • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      10 months ago

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

      • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.eeEnglish
        42·
        10 months ago

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

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

    • SweatyFireBalls@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      10 months ago

      My own feelings on the matter aside (fuck google and all that) this has been something chased after for a long time. The famous composer Raymond Scott dedicated the back end of his life trying to create a machine that did exactly this. Many famous musical creators such as Michael Jackson were fascinated by the machine and wanted to use it. The problem was is he was never “finished”. The machine worked and it could generate music, it’s immensely fascinating in my opinion.

      If you want more information in podcast format check out episode 542 of 99% invisible or here https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-4/episode-one-piano-player

      They go into the people who opposed Scott and why they did, and also talk about the emotion behind music and the artists, and if it would even work. Because the most fascinating part of it all was that the machine was kind of forgotten and it no longer works. Some currently famous musicians are trying to work together to restore it.

      The question then is, if someone created their life’s work and modern musicians spend an immense amount of time restoring the machine, when the machine creates music does that mean no one spent time on it? I enjoy debating the philosophy behind the idea in my head, especially since I have a much more negative view when a modern version of this is done by Google.

      • WillFord27@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        10 months ago

        I feel like the machine itself would be the art in that case, not necessarily what it creates. Like if someone spent a decade making a machine that could cook FLAWLESS BEEF WELLINGTON, the machine would be far more impressive and artistic than the products it made

        • daltotron@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          10 months ago

          i mean, where do you draw the line necessarily between the machine and what it creates? the machine itself is totally useless without inputs and outputs, not to say art needs utility. the beef wellington machine is only notable on its ability to conjure beef wellington, otherwise it’s just a nothing machine. which is still kind of cool, I guess, but the beef wellington machine not making beef wellington is kind of a disregard for the core part of the machine, no?

      • Corhen@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        10 months ago

        That was a great episode of 99PI. Would love the machine restored.

        IIRC, It’s not so much that it made music, but that it would create loops through iteration to inspire people. He wanted it to make full busic but it was never close to that

        • SweatyFireBalls@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          10 months ago

          Yeah I think you’re right, and it was apparently actually random. The longer it would play a loop the more it would iterate. Such a cool thing to exist

    • emberwit@feddit.deEnglish
      51·
      10 months ago

      You will still listen to it, watching movies, advertisements, playing video games…

    • interceder270@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1311·
      10 months ago

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

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

      • Marin_Rider@aussie.zoneEnglish
        4·
        10 months ago

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

        • Obi@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          3·
          10 months ago

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

      • null@slrpnk.netEnglish
        46·
        10 months ago

        That’s not really a gotcha though. They’re saying they aren’t going to actively seek out and listen to auto-generated music. If they happen to hear some and like it, that wouldn’t mean they actively sought it out and listened to it.

          • null@slrpnk.netEnglish
            48·
            10 months ago

            Right, they’re not going to actively put time into listening to music generated by AI.

            Hearing music made by AI because it happens to be playing is different from knowingly listening to it. It’s alarming that you need this spelled out so much.

            • WillFord27@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              10 months ago

              Don’t know why you’re being downvoted, you’re completely right. I’d never seek out to listen to something with no human thought process behind it

    • Piecemakers@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1138·
      10 months ago

      Ok, boomer.

      How’s that microwave dinner taste? Like an A for effort? Yeah, I bet.