I have a deep background in music and I think that while the creation was super basic, the way the output was so unconstrained (written by a model fine-tuned for coding), is really interesting. Listen to that last one and tell me it couldn't belong on some tv show. I've had always issues with any ai generated music because of the constraints and the way the output is so derivative. This was different to me.

What's the point if human-made art isn't interesting or artistically worthwhile?

(Most of it isn't.)

Art is on a sliding scale from "Fun study and experiment for the sake of it" to "Expresses something personal" to "Expresses something collective" to "A cultural landmark that invents a completely new expressive language, emotionally and technically."

All of those options are creatively worthwhile. Or maybe none of them are.

Take your pick.

> What's the point if human-made art isn't interesting or artistically worthwhile?

Because it is a human making it, expressing something is always worthwhile to the individual on a personal level. Even if its not "artisticallly worthwhile", the process is rewarding to the participant at the very least. Which is why a lot of people just find enjoyment in creating art even if its not commercially succesful.

But in this case, the criteria changes for the final product (the music being produced). It is not artistically worthwhile to anyone, not even the creator.

So no, a person with no talent (self claim) using an LLM to create art is much less worthwhile than a human being with no/any talent creating art on their own at all times by default.

>Even if its not "artisticallly worthwhile", the process is rewarding to the participant at the very least

I think that's the point though. What op did was rewarding to themselves, and I found it more enjoyable than a lot of music I've heard that was made by humans. So don't be a gatekeeper on enjoyment.

How am I a gatekeeper? I provided my own opinions; you are free to enjoy what you want or disagree with me. If you want to get into an objective discussion of why you find it enjoyable more than human works or what is art, we can do that but I do not like the personal slights.

I think you're mistaking the .wav as the final product, whereas instead it's really the .html blog post and this discussion.

I was discussing it on the basis of music with the commentator and the actual product. Sure if you want to go all Andy Kaufman then yeah the .html and this discussion is art but I wasn't talking about it in the original context of the conversation.

At least it wrote a song, instead of stably-diffusing static into entire tracks from its training data. I can take those uninteresting notes, plug them into a DAW and build something worthwhile. I can only do this with Suno-generated stems after much faffing about with transposing and fixing rhythms, because Suno doesn't know how to write music, it just creates waveforms.

AI tools are decent at helping with code because they're editing language in a context. AI tools are terrible at helping with art because they are operating on the entirely wrong abstraction layer (in this case, waveforms) instead of the languages humans use to create art, and it's just supremely difficult to add to the context without destroying it.

I just want to know what's in there. It doesn't need to be artistic at all. They put terabytes of data into the training process and I want to know what came through.