James Hetfield - Pull Me Under - Progressive Rock Music Forum

I saw a couple videos of an AI Phil Collins singing songs from Calling All Stations. Needless to say, I ended up back at GilstrapTV.

----------
i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag
that's a happy bag of lettuce
this car smells like cartilage
nothing beats a good video about fractions

Stumbled across this one. Would I think this was James Hetfield singing? Probably not, but I can hear traits of his voice.

Apparently there is an AI version of My Heart Will Go On with "Freddie" on "vocals". Dead

terramystic wrote:

It doesn't sound very convincing for now.

That sounds absolutely nothing like Freddie Mercury, that's for sure.

A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life.

It is interesting. This AI tool could potentially spark creativity instead of being used as a method for cheating. It depends on how you use it and who uses it.

There are countless bands today who auto-generate their album covers with AI. Personally, I don't like to do that. I want my album covers to be recognizable as my unique style. Most AI-made album covers (and every single one that was not edited/reworked by a human being) look very predictable, bland and have that fake, cookie cutter vibe to it.

“On the day of my creation, I fell in love with education. And overcoming all frustration, a teacher I became.”
— Ernest Vong

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

It's under prog polls by mistake - I'm not that intelligent, admittedly ;-)

I agree, this is scary/depressing and inherently uncanny. I've not seen/heard any AI generated content yet which wasn't uncanny. There are situations though where it goes well with the music ...

I mean I don't have an issue with AI being used for original art, such as in the case of this video. When it's used for impersonation, cheating, anti-cheating, "beautification" (eg, Instagram filters), and other measures I find unethical, then I have issues. I don't like how 90% of AI art is regurgitated garbage, which makes the majority of "AI Artists" look low-effort and unoriginal, yet I don't see it being problematic per se; but in cases like this video, where the uncanny psychedelic product that AI generates actually works then it is actually kind of cool - really shows how powerful probabilistic predication can be. But it's a powerful tool that can be too easily abused for non-artistic purposes, and impersonation, like the Hetfield video, is a no-go for me.

Edited by bardberic - July 20 2023 at 13:57

I don't hear a huge difference maybe because that DT track already sounds a little bit like Metallica.

This is anti-art. Simple as that.

What I find the most distressing about all of this is the anti-AI mechanisms used to catch "cheaters" in school.

You know a university professor checked an essay he wrote in the 1980s - hopefully without AI - and the "AI Checker" accused him of using AI.

This is going to ruin people's lives. f**k this. Nope.

And the effect that these... essentially witch huts are going to have on our children is heartbreaking. It's sad enough that everything is virtual in school at this point, and students used to have to wear masks. This generation of children is going to have some serious trust problems after all of this.

Edited by bardberic - July 20 2023 at 03:09

I mean there's nothing really that wonderful about AI - it's just the application of essentially glorified markov chains - "AI" as we know it is a long while away and frightens the hell out of me, aside from the fact that proper intelligence generated from a nonorganic object (eg a computer) is horrible unethical, imo. But let's not get me started on that. Speaking of Metallica, the music video for One features scenes from a post-WWI film about a man who has lost his limbs and sight, and is paralyzed; he's basically trapped in a nightmare in which he doesn't know if he is awake or dreaming. Imagine this, but no sense of hearing, touch, or imagination. That would be the "life" (if you could call it that) of an AI... sentient. But I digress. That's just science fiction at this point, and there's a good chance we'll never get to that point (and hopefully that's the case).

This video horrifies me, not because "Hetfield's" voice is uncanny (and the end of all his words is creepy), but precisely because one day it WON'T be uncanny anymore. It's convincing as it is now (the "inhaling" after every word screams AI, however). There will come a point where humans won't be able to decipher between what's AI generated and what's real, and people are going to get real f**ked over. Why as a society not only are we not challenging this future but actually embracing it I will never know.

But that's a pessimistic outlook. Remember how I stated that AI is basically just the application of glorified markov chains? That means that as AI penetrates the internet further, the information that it is being fed to generate said markov chains will start coming from other AI output. This means they "human touch" of AI will eventually be lost, in applications in which the "AI" feeds from large samples (eg, ChatGPT). Yes, AI will eventually begin to inbreed, if you will, and the "wonders" of "AI" will start to become lost... on a grand scale. At least that's my personal belief.

Of course the situation will only get worse before it gets better. But in cases where the "AI" is fed very specific information, such as eponymous-era James Hetfield's voice, the accuracy will only continue to improve. This feeds into my fear that people are going to get f**ked...

Edit: Also, why is this under "prog polls? I don't see any polls here. You're not an an inbred AI sentient, are you?

Edited by bardberic - July 20 2023 at 02:30