DiffRhythm: Fast End-to-End Full-Length Song Generation with Latent Diffusion

Lots of common people did listen to Bach, because he wrote many works for church organ. Church attendance was almost universal, and even small churches had (small) pipe organs.

And with more affordable and easier-to-learn tools, the creation of music will be similarly made much more accessible? DAWs and virtual instruments running on regular laptop was one step, generative AI models will be another?

>You're not composing music with an AI generator either: you're pushing a button with a few, limited instructions, and expect something that rewards your perception of what makes good music for your intention.

What an incredibly elitist, smug attitude. You're basically saying people only have the right to hear the music professionals think they should hear.

Do you not see how your argument could be applied to steam engines putting human laborers out of work? Or computers putting (human) calculators out of work? Do you think inventing the steam machine or computers was a mistake too?

If you're trying to maximize employment, composers aren't the first, second, or tenth place to go looking. If you're trying to say artists will bleed income, they already have for decades, and will continue to. The ones that make a living out of it mostly get their income from live performances and merch, and maybe adtech on social media platforms.

By the same logic synthesizers shouldn't have been invented that allowed people to make advanced sounds without tediously learning an instrument first, consumers should remain priced out of microphones and editing software, etc.

Like I said, I am not trying to feign ignorance on the drawbacks of the tech which is very real and far from negligible. I am not a tech bro AI maximalist. I just do believe that hyperbole will not put the djinn back into the bottle, and pretending like there isn't a real market between nothing and paying or being a composer isn't adding anything to the conversation.

Totally with you. But it's the trend we get to re-balance in a good way:

> People that never considered the value of artistic process until it was the topic du jour unilaterally decided that it was inefficient, oppressive, complex, frivolous, and unfairly inaccessible to those that hadn't put any sustained effort into developing theirs.

This is eerily reminiscent of what's happening inside the USA government & administration today...

"Electronic music aren't real songs there's no real instruments involved". Let's be a bit creative with these tools. Sure the pure output isn't always plesant or listenable but there's probably an interesting genre to carve out here

Whats the end game here?

Let’s follow the AI and automation craze to its eventual conclusion - automations everywhere, humans are either employed in automation industry, or are unemployed at a massive scale.

Stable jobs are replaced by ever-optimized gig economy for some, and chronic poverty for others. For there to even be economy - the massive underemployed population subsists on government welfare.

Cynic in me thinks that all of the wealth generated by enormous productivity gains resulting from automation will not find its way towards population displaced by it. Those cashiers, toll booth, and warehouse workers did not find themselves in much more lucrative careers - I don’t see why it will be any different for truck and cab drivers who will be joining them in the near future.

If you see a future where these people who suddenly found all this extra leisure time o. Their hands and no income - are somehow blossoming in creative directions and realizing their own potential - I’d like to have it painted for me, as it all looks pretty bleak to me. Just not quiet sure of the timeline.

Best I can come up with is an emergence of some kind of counter-cultural protest market where people buy and sell “made by humans” products, and are continuously attacked by various regulations originating from mega corporations who captured the government.

> One giant company that covers everything with one man sitting at a dashboard, tweaking parameters? Is that one man even necessary?

Old joke about airplane automation:

In the future there will be just one pilot and a dog in the cockpit. The dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.

I don't think its at all extremist to look at that picture, realize it won't really have made any sense for the majority of the people on the planet well before it gets to that point, and that consequently some type of major global revolution will prevent that from happening.

There’s only one way to win in a game theory world and that’s to be on top at the end.

So where is it going? Why: the end.

But this is also where Gandolf says, “end?”

Yes, this has always been the case. This is why capital holders are actively hostile to labor organizing and tend to back fascism when liberalism falls into crisis.