Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Movies Music

Indian Filmmaker Ditches Human Musicians for AI (techcrunch.com) 72

Posted by msmash from the no-mercy dept.
Indian filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma is ditching human musicians for artificial intelligence, saying he'll use only AI-generated tunes in future projects, a move that underscores AI's growing reach in creative industries. From a report: The filmmaker and screenwriter, known for popular Bollywood movies including Company, Rangeela, Sarkar, and Satya has launched a venture, called RGV Den Music, that will only feature music generated from AI apps including Suno and Udio, he told TechCrunch. Varma said he will use the AI-generated music in all his projects, including movies. The entire background score on his new feature movie, called Saree, is also AI-generated, he said. In an interview, Varma urged artists to embrace AI rather than resist it. "Eventually, the music comes from your thoughts. You need to have clarity on what you want the app to produce. It's the taste that will matter," he said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Indian Filmmaker Ditches Human Musicians for AI More

Indian Filmmaker Ditches Human Musicians for AI

Comments Filter:

  • Who? (Score:3)

    by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @02:33AM (#64801957)
    Known for what now?

    • Known for what now?

      Doesn't matter. The RIAA is not picky about who it sends takedown notices to...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        RIAA is puny and pathetic compared to medical industry in terms of trigger happiness of lawsuits for copyright and patent violations.

        India doesn't give a shit. Their medical industry exports tens of billions worth of medicines to the world, a lot of them under patent elsewhere and considered generic in India. That makes the sales number more impressive than it seems, because they sell medicines at generic level of prices rather than patented. It makes them world's biggest vaccine exporter too.

    • Re:Who? (Score:4, Informative)

      by godrik ( 1287354 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @03:22AM (#64802041)

      He is a big deal in indian cinema.
      Sometimes refer to as a pioneer of modern bollywood.

      • He used to be a big deal. However he's gone down in multiple partisan rabbit holes and made questionable movies. Over the years he has become an attention whore trolling people on Twitter and has been generally an ass. So his currency has gone down greatly and this is nothing but another attention-grabbing stunt. Given his recent movies quality he should use an AI screenplay writer and an AI director as well.

    • Re:Who? (Score:4, Informative)

      by nicubunu ( 242346 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @04:35AM (#64802131) Homepage

      Come on, is not hard [wikipedia.org] at all [imdb.com]

  • Star Wars spin-offs (Score:3)

    by Errol backfiring ( 1280012 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @03:14AM (#64802027) Journal
    Would that sound like the tunes of all the Star Wars spin-offs by Disney? Tunes you can't remember because there is no musical flow in them, but you can hear that in a galaxy far, far away the original tune was their basis?

  • Creative (Score:3, Insightful)

    by eneville ( 745111 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @03:21AM (#64802037) Homepage

    Is AI creative, or regurgitate? If the latter, then the film maker is using what essentially a human created and isn't getting royalties for.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Regurgitate at least for "generative" AI. The mathematics do not allow anything else.

      • Trivially false. Combinatorial explosion is a thing. If you'd actually understand mathematics, you'd know.

        For shits and giggles, I asked ChatGPT to comment on this conversation:

        This conversation highlights two common perspectives on AI creativity, but the exchange is simplistic and lacks nuance.

        First Comment ("Is AI creative, or regurgitate?"):
        This question reflects a fundamental debate about whether AI can truly be creative or is simply recycling pre-existing human content. The comment about filmmakers using AI-generated content without royalties touches on an important ethical issue, but the creativity/regurgitation framing is overly reductive.

        Response to this:
        Creativity, in both humans and AI, involves combining existing elements in novel ways. The fact that AI generates content based on patterns learned from data does not negate the potential for novelty or creativity, especially when considering the vast combinatorial possibilities. Whether this counts as true creativity depends on how one defines the term.

        Second Comment ("Regurgitate at least for 'generative' AI..."):
        The assertion that generative AI "regurgitates" and cannot be creative due to mathematical constraints is an oversimplification. While generative AI does rely on statistical predictions based on vast data sets, it can produce novel outputs through recombination of patterns and by exploring vast parameter spaces. This capacity leads to results that, while not "creative" in a human sense, can appear creative due to the sheer complexity of possible combinations.

        Response ("Trivially false. Combinatorial explosion is a thing."):
        This rebuttal is valid in that combinatorial explosion (the exponential increase in possible combinations as more variables are added) allows AI to generate a vast variety of novel combinations, even if each element is derived from prior data. However, the dismissive tone ("If you'd actually understand mathematics, you'd know") weakens the argument by appealing to authority rather than engaging with the specific claims of the previous commenter.

        My take:

        Both comments reflect misunderstanding: creativity is not binary. AI can combine known elements in ways that are novel and contextually valuable, which is often seen as creative in practice, even if it's algorithmically generated. The critic of generative AI should acknowledge that human creativity also draws from pre-existing knowledge and patterns.

        The rebuttal about "combinatorial explosion" is on point in recognizing the mathematical capacity of AI to generate diverse, complex outputs, but it could have been presented more constructively. The core of the discussion should focus on whether novelty and useful combinations constitute creativity, which could advance the conversation more productively.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Trivially false.

          Nope. At this time there really is not anything I need to add. You are delusional.

          Incidentally, I have 70% of an academic mathematical base education with some things on top of that, like logic, deduction systems, oh, and "cognitive systems". Combinatoric explosion has absolutely nothing to do with "creativity".

    • Re:Creative (Score:5, Insightful)

      by doragasu ( 2717547 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @03:53AM (#64802075)

      We should call it "Derivative AI" instead of "Generative AI". It is a like a washing machine. You put everything inside, it gets blended and the dirty copyright gets cleaned.

      • Quite so. Everything is indiscriminately blended and mixed together somehow, and the next generation AI is then trained on the goo that comes out.

    • Is AI creative, or regurgitate? If the latter, then the film maker is using what essentially a human created and isn't getting royalties for.

      The age old argument.

      Then again, we here are just "regurgitating" 26 letters and some punctuation ... where do I send the royalty check?

    • HE is creating it, by his inputs. (Or, rather, his employees are)

      The AI is just a tool. The guitar does not create the music, neither does the AI.

  • What I am interested to know is

    a) Will that work with regards to the audience?
    and
    b) Will that result in copyright problems or not?

    • As to a: probably. You will probably not fool most Bach-fans with generated Bach-like music. With the risk of being compared with someone who buys 1000$/meter speaker cable: AI 'Bach' just sounds ... weird. It 'feels wrong'. Bach seems too complex for AI. But for other types of music: I did hear some almost decent AI generated techno. Techno is a lot simpler than Bach, but even there the result sounded a bit far fetched for me.

      I do think that most techno-heads could enjoy AI generated techno though. So fo

      • Bach is structured and mathematical in nature, I would think an AI would mimic the style of Bach rather quickly. Bach fans will know all his works well enough to spot any imposter; I had my Bach phase and I might do ok at detection though a very similar style could fool me.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kmoser ( 1469707 )
          In the 1980s there was a program for the Commodore 64 that generated music in the style of Bach. It should be even easier now.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by zlives ( 2009072 )

      for b, it would be interesting to see if part of the product is derivative and un copyright-able, does it make the whole the same? some one here shed some light please.

      • Hollywood composers are routinely told to produce music that is reminiscent of a well known theme but sufficiently different that it won't breach copywrite. In that context, the AI is probably doing almost exactly the same thing.

  • Will he be collaborating with Daler Mehndi [youtube.com]? After all, when you become the biggest Indi-pop artist of your time [wikipedia.org], you must be doing something right with music.

  • Until ... (Score:3)

    by oshkrozz ( 1051896 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @07:07AM (#64802337)
    He finds out Copyright doesn't apply to AI music, and people can will freely use it as public domain. This is the core of why media companies will not want to admit to using AI for anything they wish to have under copyright!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by GlimmervoidG ( 6998130 )
      https://asiaiplaw.com/sector/c... [asiaiplaw.com] >On February 9, 2024, India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry announced that the country’s current legal framework for patents and copyrights is capable of protecting AI-generated works and related innovations. Hence, it is not necessary to develop separate rights for AI-generated works. This indicates that the Indian government says copyright can be granted on AI works, though it goes into note that the judiciary may not agree. Still, less cut and dry th
    • Yes, for those who have never used it, AI generation seems like a monolithic, all-or-nothing pushbutton proposition. And indeed, the law in question applies to songs entirely created with AI, which was what was mostly being created by people using some of the first wave of software available a few years ago.

      The current reality however - for those who actually use AI agents in a creative manner today - is that these generative features can be used in a much more granular manner, for creating very specific
      • And what do you do if AI was only used to create melodies and a human put them together into completed works? Could that be copyrighted?
  • .... but I like the scores done by greats like Danny Elfman and such... Oooops, I am referring to EU/US movies, but I am sure they will get on board with this shortly.

  • And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Miles_O'Toole ( 5152533 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @07:57AM (#64802453)

    Music stolen from artists, who will receive no compensation, gobbled up by some corporate AI bro, partially digested then vomited onto the public stage as "AI-generated".

    Ram Gopal Varma is a leech...a parasite feeding on the work of others and claiming it as his own.

    • I cannot see how AI generated music is any more copying than a human artist being "influenced" by other artists and generating similar sounding style. The main difference is that folks aren't going to pay a real musician when they can get the same or better results from AI. Just like people aren't going to by cloth from the Luddites just because it wasn't produced on a loom. If nobody pushes back from the consumer side, the musicians aren't going to get any traction with your attitude.

      Just like most tech

      • SO well said!

      • Perhaps you should read the original arguments for and against copyright?

        "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", the law doesn't allow people or machines to take other people's works and pass them off as one's own, whether that is with brush and paint (if you're forging a painting) or with AI (if you're forging an image or text document). Because copying is not a creative act (even with "randomness"), and the actual creator gets pissed off and stops making new things.

        We already know that A

        • To be fair, you're moving the goalposts on what constitutes forgery.

          The legal definition of plagiarism usually includes "substantial similarity". That usually means an identifiable series of notes, even if slightly modified (see "Ice Ice Baby"). A great deal of AI music passes the test, as it's not possible to directly identify the training data in the music produced. Extending the term "forgery" to include works produced with models trained on source material, even if the work is not similar, is pretty dod

  • Do we have to have an article for every single person that decides to use "AI" instead of hiring people for something?

  • I plan on sending AI generated fans with AI generated money to see these films and listen to AI music.

  • Most of the genAI tools available for generating music are using the same garbage producer sample packs and midi files that most producers/computer music makers shun. I haven't tried these tools myself but plenty of people have demo'd this garbage on the Youtubes.
    The process for anything genAI whether it be images/video/sound is to generate 10-20 things in parallel on the same prompt, and then manually filter out the bad ones until you get to the least worst generated garbage. Have fun sifting through garba

  • Wake me up when an AI can compose a movie score that sounds even half as good as any of John Williams'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Guess if you're too broke to pay real people to compose and play real music, then this is what you do?
    I just have to assume that whatever movies this guy makes must be poor quality to start with.

  • I want this tech! I have lots of draft music ideas that I need fleshed out. It's not so much I want to replace professionals, but rather make good-enough demos to catch the ear of producers. If it catches on, then a real orchestra can hopefully perform it.

    A similar argument played out about drum machines a couple of decades ago. Both bot drums and humans are still in use. I expect it will be similar for orchestra: different producers/publishers will prefer a different path, and many fans will still prefer t

  • Oh no, not the sanctity and artistry of the Indian film industry. Someone please help

  • If you want original, creative music, hire a creative composer
    If you want derivative music that sounds almost exactly like what's popular, a robot will do just fine
    A lot of today's pop music sounds like it was written by robots because the producers told the composers and arrangers to make something that is just barely different enough from the current hits to win a copyright lawsuit

  • More like AI's growing reach in fostering people's greed. There's no other way around it, all the flowery talk in the world does not change that any switch to AI is about keeping more of the money for yourself, using a system that used real work other people did to generate something for you at a significant cost reduction.

  • He's starting his own company, RGV Den Music, which will only feature AI generated music. At the same time, he's working with Reclaim Protocol and Story Protocol to "secure the IP of his AI-generated songs".

    In other words, it's nothing more than "I see I can now have a computer do what you do, and I'm in a much better position to profit wildly from it, so I will do that."

    That's the gist of the story.

    I was under the impression that AI generated content couldn't be intellectual property. If I'm mista
  • .... without saying that your music has become formulaic.

  • Too bad Bollywood movies are all just straight up bad. But at least sometimes they're so bad that they're funny.

  • As a creative artist you have a vision. Once you are forced to interact with other creators who have their own interpretations of your vision, your own becomes open to compromise, and compromising one’s artistic vision is hard. If I could materialize the images behind my eyes, and the sounds behind my ears, without assistance from others, I can create what I truly envision in my mind. What creative doesn’t want that as an option? Note: Not being dismissive of collaborative creation - but that is

  • If I could cut out industries that provide no value, such as the RIAA, why wouldn't I? They claim to represent the artists, but instead they profit from them under the guise of "protections" (remind you of any other organizations?). Now, I don't pretend to understand Indian music organizations, but I'd imagine they have similar schemes to fleece the artist.

  • ...nobody will ever notice the difference.

Slashdot Top Deals

Experiments must be reproducible; they should all fail in the same way.

Close