I honestly can't tell a good music video from a bad one. I don't know what makes a music video "good". These AI generated ones seemed pretty good to me, of the same caliber as those Michael Jackson or "Beez in the trap" things. It's all just butt shaking and sunglasses in Philips Hue lights chanting some meaningless words.
Imagine the blogpost was on AI generated classical music. Everyone, including the authors, agrees the result is shit. You, being classically trained, can understand more than most why the results are bad.
Then someone comes along and says “I honestly can't really tell how these are worse than the human produced ones. They all sound kinda the same to me” and “I honestly can’t tell a good piece of music from a bad one. I don’t know what makes a piece of music “good”. These AI generated ones seemed pretty good to me, on the same caliber as those Mozart or Beethoven things”.
That’s what you’re doing, and that’s why you’re being downvoted. It’s fine that you can’t tell, but it’s supremely obvious to everyone else.
I think takes like GP's are perfectly reasonable to express and it aggravates me that HN seems not to like that. The competition for the AI work here is explicitly not aiming at a niche audience. If that human work is nevertheless higher quality, readily distinguishable by the general audience of people who like music videos (?), then that audience really ought to be able to articulate why and how.
Like:
> Everyone, including the authors, agrees the result is shit.
> I honestly can't really tell how these are worse than the human produced ones. They all [seem] kinda the same to me
If you really really like the $100 AI video, no one can take that away from you, but its just weird to be so principled about this in the negative: like no one actually wants to say they're good, its just some people don't want to admit they're worse than anything else.
Acting like some Roman legionary, saying "This slop is good enough for the piggies. not that I, classically trained, could discriminate between the slops either way" is certainly not contradictory, but if it needs to be the kind of discourse defended on here, then please, go right ahead!
I'm seeing these type of comments a lot more. A type of comment where it seems like the "user" (commentor) makes a categorically wrong comment about the linked article that would be sort of right if it were a different medium. Clearly whatever was used here triggered on the "music" part, but didn't understand what the article was really about. Typically it goes beyond just not reading the article (as in this case)
I'd assume that it was a bad LLM take, but it looks like the rest of the comments are normal.
It's just categorically a wrong statement. Just because someone knows how to play a musical instrument, I'm not sure why it would make any sense that they would understand what makes a good music video - they are a completely different medium.
You might be able to discuss asthetics from a music theory standpoint because you are "classically trained", again, it is just a weird mismatch that stood out for me recently, but I think everyone is a little more paranoid lately.
Its like misunderstanding the concept of "music video" as one form music can take, presumably alongside "music audio," and the being "classically trained" is meant to speak to a strength in "music" in general.
No, as in classical music. The analog kind.
So, how is that relevant to the part that is generated by AI?
I honestly can't tell a good music video from a bad one. I don't know what makes a music video "good". These AI generated ones seemed pretty good to me, of the same caliber as those Michael Jackson or "Beez in the trap" things. It's all just butt shaking and sunglasses in Philips Hue lights chanting some meaningless words.
Imagine the blogpost was on AI generated classical music. Everyone, including the authors, agrees the result is shit. You, being classically trained, can understand more than most why the results are bad.
Then someone comes along and says “I honestly can't really tell how these are worse than the human produced ones. They all sound kinda the same to me” and “I honestly can’t tell a good piece of music from a bad one. I don’t know what makes a piece of music “good”. These AI generated ones seemed pretty good to me, on the same caliber as those Mozart or Beethoven things”.
That’s what you’re doing, and that’s why you’re being downvoted. It’s fine that you can’t tell, but it’s supremely obvious to everyone else.
I think takes like GP's are perfectly reasonable to express and it aggravates me that HN seems not to like that. The competition for the AI work here is explicitly not aiming at a niche audience. If that human work is nevertheless higher quality, readily distinguishable by the general audience of people who like music videos (?), then that audience really ought to be able to articulate why and how.
Like:
> Everyone, including the authors, agrees the result is shit.
> I honestly can't really tell how these are worse than the human produced ones. They all [seem] kinda the same to me
There is not actually a contradiction here.
If you really really like the $100 AI video, no one can take that away from you, but its just weird to be so principled about this in the negative: like no one actually wants to say they're good, its just some people don't want to admit they're worse than anything else.
Acting like some Roman legionary, saying "This slop is good enough for the piggies. not that I, classically trained, could discriminate between the slops either way" is certainly not contradictory, but if it needs to be the kind of discourse defended on here, then please, go right ahead!
As opposed to the non-analog kind??
Presumably they went to college for it, yeah. Film schools, eg https://cinema.usc.edu/ or https://tisch.nyu.edu/
I'm seeing these type of comments a lot more. A type of comment where it seems like the "user" (commentor) makes a categorically wrong comment about the linked article that would be sort of right if it were a different medium. Clearly whatever was used here triggered on the "music" part, but didn't understand what the article was really about. Typically it goes beyond just not reading the article (as in this case)
I'd assume that it was a bad LLM take, but it looks like the rest of the comments are normal.
“Classically trained” in the musical context usually means “I took a year of piano lessons.”
It's just categorically a wrong statement. Just because someone knows how to play a musical instrument, I'm not sure why it would make any sense that they would understand what makes a good music video - they are a completely different medium.
You might be able to discuss asthetics from a music theory standpoint because you are "classically trained", again, it is just a weird mismatch that stood out for me recently, but I think everyone is a little more paranoid lately.
Its like misunderstanding the concept of "music video" as one form music can take, presumably alongside "music audio," and the being "classically trained" is meant to speak to a strength in "music" in general.