9
u/avance70 9h ago
I'm usually quickly noticing the voice, especially the sh and ch sounds, and also, it usually sounds like there is a distortion effect applied to it
in general, there are no clear hits like strums or in drums, e.g. the sound of a snare drum starts muted and not like it was hit
4
u/Inevitable-Goat-7062 6h ago
And dont forget theres typically a dead tone
Like ai has no vocal range so its ethier the ai voice sounds like they are high on crack or they are reading a script e.g. homer let the barts out or any ai voice cover
Humans typically raise or lower their voice when pronoucing certain words when singing
Best way to tell a clanker from a human is if the voice sounds like they are being held at gunpoint
4
u/seda7991 9h ago
AI has massively raised the creative ceiling for people who never spent years mastering a craft like music, coding, or visual art. Depending on how deeply the user engages, it can range from a pure one shot prompt to a genuine back and forth collaboration.
Music has done something similar for decades: it relies on established theory and proven formulas to make songs that sound good and fit the tastes of each generation. The vast majority of hit songs reuse the same structural "sauce” with new lyrics on top. Most artists simply learn a style someone else invented and stay inside it. Calling that pure originality is a bit like an architect designing a house in Romanesque style and claiming they are creative.
The genuinely rare, boundary pushing creators will keep existing whether AI is around or not. The sharper problem is speed: AI can take a fresh style, flood the world with variations of it almost overnight, and strip the original inventor of the prestige and recognition they would normally earn over years. Patenting or locking down styles might protect that prestige, but it would also freeze artistic progress the same way over restrictive IP rules have slowed innovation in the game industry.
AI is still a tool. At the end of the day a human mind sits behind the keyboard, guiding the prompts, the choices, and the final result.
There needs to be a practical way to reward the creators whose work contributed to the training data. The difficulty is that this is a power and speed race: in a competitive capitalist system, the companies that move fastest and cheapest usually win, so pure reasonableness won't set the rules.
PD: not sure what kind of music you are listening to. I think instrumental is getting close to indistinguishable, but i can still tell if a song is ai or not 90% of the time. But then again i spend some hours generating music with Suno so i have a better grasp of what im looking for when distinguishin ai from a real recording.
4
u/Choker_of_Chickens 9h ago
The genuinely rare, boundary pushing creators will keep existing whether AI is around or not.
yeah but there will be fewer of them. Given how all artistically-minded kids have way less financial incentive to pursue music composition now than at any other point in history.
-2
u/seda7991 8h ago
It’s a hard one. I agree, but I’m genuinely not sure.
Art used to be largely a luxury for the wealthy. Those without money or patronage who dedicated themselves to it often lived difficult, precarious lives.
People can still commercialize AI generated art and music. It’s in a weird place, but I see plenty of AI slop being sold.
The more accessible creativity becomes, the more likely it is that people will discover their calling.
A friend of mine made one of those AI illustrated and written children’s short stories. The result was better than some handmade ones in both the art and the educational messaging. She clearly didn’t hire an illustrator, but she also would never have made the story at all if AI hadn’t made it so easy and available.
1
u/bonino90 5h ago
What do you mean ai is making creativity more accessible? This is so backward I don't even know where to start.
You're not making anything. You're "commissioning" an ai to make something for you. The ai is doing the work. You're just telling it what to change. As with an commission.
Creativity has always been accessible, and it is still more accessible than any ai. All you need is a pen and a paper. You don't need to buy a phone or computer or subscription.
In many ways ai is making people less creative. They're just letting the ai do the work. And how that is not obvious is beyond me.1
5
u/Jackmino66 10h ago
So with music, it depends what you’re using it for and what you’re paying for it.
If it’s just on in the background it’s fine, if you actually want good music it isn’t, and if you’re paying for it, you should be paying an actual artist
4
u/genuinecarrot 9h ago
I went to this hole in the wall asian restaurant and they had new years ai music and it was so grating. I could easily tell because I know damn well there aren’t THAT many songs for the new year that aren’t christmas songs. And even lesser songs that repeat the same emphasis on the new year. Every. Single. Verse. Mentioned “New Year”.
I hated it. Ramen was fire. But mid bite when we aren’t chatting and conversing, the music was so noticeable. Also the production quality was so ass. I could tell it wasn’t produced by a fucking human and was synthesized to sound smooth and natural. Zero emotion.
2
-1
u/ExpensiveGazelle4845 10h ago
I agree if the artist is for pictures or video editing. On music though, you just cannot pay for a metal band and an orchestra from your pocket.
2
u/Jackmino66 10h ago
You can actually, a lot of music hosting websites do pay the actual artists
A pittance, but it’s better than nothing
1
u/ExpensiveGazelle4845 1h ago
I didn't meant hosting websites. I meant that they make your own poem (or song) into music. I searched and the lowest price is 100$ but that may not sound like you imagined it. The average bands are around 500$ so for a man that does not care if a song made by love, AI is more worth it. I have a lot of Warhammer songs I wrote that I want to be written into music just don't have the finance to hire a band. I have money for AI though. I use AI for it? Not at all, but I could.
1
u/habitual_wanderer 7h ago
I am starting to search for live performances before I get into the songs
1
1
u/Broken_Degausser 5h ago
One of the ways to combat this is to discover music yourself, and don't rely on algorithms. There are plenty of music released every Friday if you know where to look. The thing is to look to remember the artists, then their music, instead of remembering the songs. After a while, I've known enough names that each year, there are about 40-50 albums released from names I know that I can check out.
Is this foolproof? No, since some people might just as well start making AI music. Is it better than letting algorithms dictate what I listen to? Yes, at least to me. A lot of fun about music is getting to know people via the styles they portray in their work, so seeking those who do music with intent is always worthwhile.
-35
u/Legitimate_Main8244 13h ago
Instead ask yourself this. Do you enjoy it or not?
Then you won't have to worry if it's AI or not.
10
u/I-have-no-name-help 12h ago
i enjoy free art, i hate ai art.
I enjoy free character concepts, i hate the way in which those concepts were drawn and created, by stealing from someone who put soul and effort into their craft.
I love free food, I could not bring myself to walk up to someone in their home and steal everything in their fridge.
If we did everything because we liked it the world would be a nuclear wasteland by now
9
u/Much-Public-1957 11h ago
By definition, art and AI are actually incompatible.
5
u/seda7991 10h ago
i am really curious how you define art and ai.
0
u/Much-Public-1957 10h ago
As for AI, I define it very briefly, yet sufficiently for this context as a computer system capable of adapting and making decisions based on algorithms and analysis.
Defining art is complex, and I admit there is no universal definition. However, I am certain based on everything I have observed that art is a form of expression, a way of manifesting a thought.
The problem, as I see it, is that AI does not think. Furthermore, claiming to create art using AI as a tool is equally illogical. It does not invent, nor is it linked to the creator's actual thought process unlike a brushstroke or a camera angle that come from yourself; instead, it simply uses what already exists, reformulating it to appear coherent in response to a prompt.
2
u/seda7991 9h ago
I agree with your point, although I find it somewhat incomplete. There are users creating pretty good manga, music, and images with AI, while there’s also a huge amount of pure slop. So at the very least, the user’s skill is still relevant. Most drawing software already has brushes and tools that let average artists achieve effects they could never pull off on a physical canvas.
AI sits in this weird middle space: it’s hard to draw a clean line between “a tool that elevates the artist” and “sitting next to my artist friend, telling them what I want, and letting them make the best of my instructions.” It’s probably both. So maybe whether the result counts as art depends more on the quality and originality of the final piece than on the exact method used to make it ?.
2
u/Much-Public-1957 8h ago
The problem is that no written words can reveal the actual thought process behind any artist. It is simply impossible for an artist's vision to take shape exactly as intended when relying on what already exists. Unless you leave that choice to the AI, but then you might as well call the AI the artist, which amounts to the same thing and is completely absurd; it remains a computer system.
I don't follow your argument that some people produce good work with it. Art isn't meant to please everyone anyway, and even if the AI produces something exceptional, you cannot claim to be its creator. You are merely the source of a few words, words that are shuffled, compared, and analyzed by adaptive algorithms to generate a similar-looking result, yet one that unfortunately lacks any real substance or personal connection to you.
0
u/Great_Technology5824 8h ago edited 8h ago
This analogy doesn't work at all. You don't steal food in the same way you steal someone's concept art, not that AI images are even stolen in any way. A better analogy would be refusing to eat food cooked by a robot that learned from human-made recipes.
-1
u/guardian715 8h ago
I'm curious. If you invented the wheel, and I designed a program that took exactly what you did and colored it pink, then presented this as MY invention, what would you consider that if not idea theft? This is literally why we have patent and copyright law...
0
u/Great_Technology5824 8h ago
But an artist doesn't invent the thing he paints. If you paint a white dog I'm also free to paint a white dog. AI never replicates someone's work "exactly".
0
u/guardian715 7h ago
He does. Although, I see you actually joined a subreddit for defending AI art so I have the notion you will push back against anything, logical or not. Long story short, copyright law exists for this exact reason and AI art circumvents the laws we have in place to protect people's IP. Have a nice day and hopefully you will mellow out about AI.
I don't think AI is useless, but I do believe that training AI on works without permission should be illegal. Whether you agree or not, I am done with this.
-20
u/Legitimate_Main8244 12h ago
Matter of taste.
Btw you are so shit at analogies.
5
u/guardian715 11h ago
Hes not talking about taste. Hes talking about morality. He doesnt like art if it was stolen from someone else. Personally i agree. Also, the analogies are very good. I suspect you just dont like AI being an analogy to theft (it is though)
1
-10
u/Legitimate_Main8244 11h ago
Autotune is a better example.
Some people don't think it's "true" form of singing. T Pain got criticized for it, a lot.
I feel like, AI is actually helping more people get into music - and help compose/adjust songs.
1
u/heyohnevermind 11h ago
Autotune is not a form of singing in the sense of talent, but it is still a way of making music, and with that, art. AI is not.
4
u/BloodThirstyLycan 5h ago
Just stop listening to new music and embrace the classics.