WV202 | Semi Final Two | The Show | Results : Tonight 21:00CET

[CypriotGirl]

Well, I had no idea, I've been following the musician/producer Marios Christophorou for a long time and he worked with several artists in the past so I didn't even think it was AI. If it causes so much trouble, then just disqualify it.

 

[Marcos C]

Well, the description says, "Performed by the haunting voice of Phainóē," not "Performed by Phainóē." So it seems that Marios chose his words carefully.

 

[RainyWoods]

Well, I had no idea, I've been following the musician/producer Marios Christophorou for a long time and he worked with several artists in the past so I didn't even think it was AI. If it causes so much trouble, then just disqualify it.

I'd assume the artist you were following is obviously a real producer (songs on his channel go back 13 years) and he only recently started working with AI, most probably. The four recent uploads all have the same tell tale signs of AI creations.

I think that would be tremendously unfair on you to disqualify the entry, especially as I don't believe there's even a written rule about AI tracks, then to add on top that you weren't aware of how it was created. I did think something was a bit iffy about the entry at the LL as the bitrate was so low with a lot of artifacts on the recording, among other things, but I didn't like to say anything.

All this as well on the edition where I was mercilessly forced by Looren to produce for him 50 AI novelty boats I hope Nintendo and Nickelodeon don't find out about them. I can't go to jail

 

[Looren]

All this as well on the edition where I was mercilessly forced by Looren to produce for him 50 AI novelty boats

Hey hey hey I never forced you to produce AI novelty boats, you wanted boats, I wanted FiK artists in 'em, Uto wanted caterpillar boats, but I never mentionned AI

 

[RainyWoods]

Hey hey hey I never forced you to produce AI novelty boats, you wanted boats, I wanted FiK artists in 'em, Uto wanted caterpillar boats, but I never mentionned AI

 

[Uto]

Correct, 100% AI generated "music" is, in my view, not music, and there is no AI music in existence that isn't at least in part based on theft. Every generative AI model has been trained on creative materials without the consent or recompense of the original authors and these models are by definition incapable of operating outside of information provided by these inputs.

Are we really going to have to discuss this sort of pea-brained bullshit here? These arguments are extremist positions that do not relate to the real world. I have seen them online, but it's always the same extremism. It does not help anyone.

AI music or non-AI music, like what is the qualitative difference? It's literally music. That you don't 'view it as music' is asinine. Anyone with ears hears it as music and the denial to assign it as such is based on some sort of weird moral judgment that does not hold up to scrutiny. You want to make an aesthetic judgment? Fine. But don't assign categories when it is the same. You have been listening to fucking basic ass EDM tracks that consist of almost only samples half your life and maybe you don't call that music either, but you're working with the same sort of ballpark and it just goes to show that it is asinine. It's music.

The theft argument is weak. There is no copy being made. The idea is that a work can be used if the output is transformative and it always by definition is in the case of AI, because the waveform is translated into variables that cause a prediction to be made and depending on the fit the model adjusts its weights. It transforms into something else and then that transforms something else again. It does not 'listen to the song' and the song is not copied. These variables also have too much loss, you can not recreate the song from them at all. It is nowhere near a copy. It is not like with text where recreating a perfect copy is plausible. But even there I feel the moral judgment is misaligned with the actual practical usage. A thing being able to perform a certain feat does not mean that it is punishable when the actual feat is never or almost never performed. Consider the condom argument (blow up the condom like a balloon to decrease efficacy being rapacious, that is not the fault of the condom brand). So in this case the question must be asked: what is Cyprus copying? Nothing? Something? Everything? I don't have an answer and neither do you. So what basis would you have for your moral judgment?

So yeah you have the right to your opinions, I'm not saying anything about that. But keep this as a personal aesthetic judgment that is maybe informed by a sense of morality, sure, but you have no ontological basis to just claim the things you do. It is extremism, pure and simple.

 

[CypriotGirl]

Well, you know the story about a woman who fell in love with someone who met online only to find out that he wasn't real and it was AI generated robot? This is how I felt, because I fell in love with this song and couldn't wait to share it and didn't even cross my mind that it was AI because I've been following the producer for many years and I've entered his music in other contests in the past, he even claims he's the composer and producer of both this and an English language song by the same vocalist!

 

[CypriotGirl]

So yeah you have the right to your opinions, I'm not saying anything about that. But keep this as a personal aesthetic judgment that is maybe informed by a sense of morality, sure, but you have no ontological basis to just claim the things you do. It is extremism, pure and simple.

Nicely said. Are all songs that took part in WV so far 100% human created? I highly doubt that, I'm pretty sure other songs that are at least partly AI generated took part but just went unnoticed. I also have a personal "rule" that I hardly ever vote for songs that are covers of songs I know, and I hardly ever vote for EDM style songs because they all sound the same to me, and I find nothing "human" there either.

So the conclusion is: I wouldn't enter the song if I knew it was performed by AI and I find it alright if someone boycotts it for this reason, but claiming that it's cheating and not music is not acceptable.

 

[Uto]

Nicely said. Are all songs that took part in WV so far 100% human created? I highly doubt that, I'm pretty sure other songs that are at least partly AI generated took part but just went unnoticed. I also have a personal "rule" that I hardly ever vote for songs that are covers of songs I know, and I hardly ever vote for EDM style songs because they all sound the same to me, and I find nothing "human" there either.

So the conclusion is: I wouldn't enter the song if I knew it was performed by AI and I find it alright if someone boycotts it for this reason, but claiming that it's cheating and not music is not acceptable.

If you watch how a modern producer works setting everything to time and adjusting pitches and modulations etc, there is very little 'natural' about most music depending on where you make the cut between human and whatever else. Even in genres like folk and metal the sound design is such to create a general sound that feels like you are 'inside' the music etc, something which is blatantly impossible without technology. It just sounds better that way. But to many people the argument would be that an AI is different, because an AI imitates what a human does. Like.... how humans imitate what other humans do. Except different. Somehow.

 

[John1]

If you watch how a modern producer works setting everything to time and adjusting pitches and modulations etc, there is very little 'natural' about most music depending on where you make the cut between human and whatever else. Even in genres like folk and metal the sound design is such to create a general sound that feels like you are 'inside' the music etc, something which is blatantly impossible without technology. It just sounds better that way. But to many people the argument would be that an AI is different, because an AI imitates what a human does. Like.... how humans imitate what other humans do. Except different. Somehow.

Well said

 

[Zeus]

I'm somewhere in the middle. AI music simply lacks any human contribution at all, which is an extreme in music, even compared to your techno/EDM whatever nonsense. It's not extreme to ditch songs made by AI because there's no human involvement musically.

But at the same time, the amount of autotune (hi pots A&B, but D too though) in this contest is very high. That's a form of AI too basically, dehumanizing a persons voice. And computers involvement in music nowadays is on a high as well, with both ESC and this contest being above the popular average of it one might even say. So there's something to say for both positions.

Sorry for being boring, I'll make it up with you to say that even when I also felt Cyprus' song could've very well been made by AI, I still found it better than most crappy songs by your humans of choice

 

[Gabe]

Nicely said. Are all songs that took part in WV so far 100% human created? I highly doubt that, I'm pretty sure other songs that are at least partly AI generated took part but just went unnoticed. I also have a personal "rule" that I hardly ever vote for songs that are covers of songs I know, and I hardly ever vote for EDM style songs because they all sound the same to me, and I find nothing "human" there either.

So the conclusion is: I wouldn't enter the song if I knew it was performed by AI and I find it alright if someone boycotts it for this reason, but claiming that it's cheating and not music is not acceptable.

To be clear, I never claimed it was cheating. In fact, it's completely allowed within the rules, which is why I immediately said it would be unfair for any action to be taken against it.

Are we really going to have to discuss this sort of pea-brained bullshit here? These arguments are extremist positions that do not relate to the real world. I have seen them online, but it's always the same extremism. It does not help anyone.

AI music or non-AI music, like what is the qualitative difference? It's literally music. That you don't 'view it as music' is asinine. Anyone with ears hears it as music and the denial to assign it as such is based on some sort of weird moral judgment that does not hold up to scrutiny. You want to make an aesthetic judgment? Fine. But don't assign categories when it is the same. You have been listening to fucking basic ass EDM tracks that consist of almost only samples half your life and maybe you don't call that music either, but you're working with the same sort of ballpark and it just goes to show that it is asinine. It's music.

The theft argument is weak. There is no copy being made. The idea is that a work can be used if the output is transformative and it always by definition is in the case of AI, because the waveform is translated into variables that cause a prediction to be made and depending on the fit the model adjusts its weights. It transforms into something else and then that transforms something else again. It does not 'listen to the song' and the song is not copied. These variables also have too much loss, you can not recreate the song from them at all. It is nowhere near a copy. It is not like with text where recreating a perfect copy is plausible. But even there I feel the moral judgment is misaligned with the actual practical usage. A thing being able to perform a certain feat does not mean that it is punishable when the actual feat is never or almost never performed. Consider the condom argument (blow up the condom like a balloon to decrease efficacy being rapacious, that is not the fault of the condom brand). So in this case the question must be asked: what is Cyprus copying? Nothing? Something? Everything? I don't have an answer and neither do you. So what basis would you have for your moral judgment?

So yeah you have the right to your opinions, I'm not saying anything about that. But keep this as a personal aesthetic judgment that is maybe informed by a sense of morality, sure, but you have no ontological basis to just claim the things you do. It is extremism, pure and simple.

You act as though I've arrived to this viewpoint apropos of nothing when in actual fact it's an established position held by the vast majority of musicians and creatives, and a problem that disproportionately affects those with less resources and therefore no ability to prevent the exploitation of their work for the profit of others.

e.g.:

Billie Eilish, Nicki Minaj, Stevie Wonder and more musicians demand protection against AI

Letter signed by more than 200 artists makes broad ask that tech firms pledge to not develop AI tools to replace human creatives

www.theguardian.com

Artists release silent album in protest against AI using their work

Music stars including Kate Bush and Damon Albarn say law changes would damage people's livelihoods.

www.bbc.co.uk

Major Record Labels Sue AI Music Generators

Universal, Warner, and Sony are suing two startups to protect their copyrighted songs from being used by the technology.

time.com

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/musicians-ai-bands-streaming-1.7581400

AI songs that mimic popular artists raising alarms in the music industry

Artists and producers are sounding the alarm over the growing use of AI-generated music using the voices of big-name artists without their knowledge or permission.

abcnews.go.com

I think we've both laid out arguments and people can decide for themselves, but I'm perfectly within my rights to be concerned about this phenomenon, and it's not an extremist position to hold as you suggest. In any case, agree to disagree, as we could probably exchange 15 more posts about this and neither of us are likely to change our opinion.

 

[John1]

I still found it better than most crappy songs by your humans of choice

Mind you, Edith Piaf is a new open AI model singing in French cursive x

 

[John1]

You're just out of line Gabe. If you don't like AI music don't vote for it, no need for bans and that sort of nazi shit.

Besides the fact that there was no need to bring up the fact that Cyprus' entry is allegedly AI-made, I think this kind of discussion should remain personal/private.

Methinks Gabe didn't want to throw Foti under the bus willingly, but it'll certainly influence people in either a positive or negative way. :/

 

[Stargazer]

While there is definitely cause for concern regarding AI and what it will do to the arts now and in the future, I also think fighting against it is futile, as sad as it is. There's no going back now, and those trying to ban it will probably end up looking like those who tried to ban cassette and VHS tapes in the 70s/80s because recording something was also considered stealing. Do I like where it's going? No, I think it's sad. But I also see no point in banning it.

That being said, voted!

 

[Uto]

To be clear, I never claimed it was cheating. In fact, it's completely allowed within the rules, which is why I immediately said it would be unfair for any action to be taken against it.


You act as though I've arrived to this viewpoint apropos of nothing when in actual fact it's an established position held by the vast majority of musicians and creatives, and a problem that disproportionately affects those with less resources and therefore no ability to prevent the exploitation of their work for the profit of others.

e.g.:

Billie Eilish, Nicki Minaj, Stevie Wonder and more musicians demand protection against AI

Letter signed by more than 200 artists makes broad ask that tech firms pledge to not develop AI tools to replace human creatives

www.theguardian.com

Artists release silent album in protest against AI using their work

Music stars including Kate Bush and Damon Albarn say law changes would damage people's livelihoods.

www.bbc.co.uk

Major Record Labels Sue AI Music Generators

Universal, Warner, and Sony are suing two startups to protect their copyrighted songs from being used by the technology.

time.com

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/musicians-ai-bands-streaming-1.7581400

AI songs that mimic popular artists raising alarms in the music industry

Artists and producers are sounding the alarm over the growing use of AI-generated music using the voices of big-name artists without their knowledge or permission.

abcnews.go.com

I think we've both laid out arguments and people can decide for themselves, but I'm perfectly within my rights to be concerned about this phenomenon, and it's not an extremist position to hold as you suggest. In any case, agree to disagree, as we could probably exchange 15 more posts about this and neither of us are likely to change our opinion.

But now you are going into the theft argument where you literally post a bunch of links of elites trying to litigate to gatekeep their artform from the broader audience to keep their status intact like they would in a capitalist society without going into the actual technical argument that I gave and without going into the ontological argument that I gave. What you lay down isn't actually about AI at all, it is about copyright laws and how corporations protect their profits. It's a moral panic, it can not be rightfully used to call for bans on AI music in WV. So you're not actually engaging with me at all and the point remains that using a bunch of angry elites to call for a ban on AI music is extremist. Feel like you're just out of line Gabe. If you don't like AI music don't vote for it, no need for bans and that sort of shit.

 

[Charly]

Does that mean we can't use this?

 

[Marcos C]

Well, we certainly can't use the following in WorldVision. The artist is from nowhere ... literally.

EDIT: Unlike the video I posted orginally, this one contains the complete song.

 

[theditz83]

votes finally complete and sent to @Looren - nice semi overall, nervooos of my chances of Q now

 

[Grinch]

Judging by the comments, I don't think some of you know what AI actually is.