I've cousin who's a song writer who for a brief few hours was very excited with the silly poems she could get an AI to write, and she shared them with the family group. The first one or two were ok, but eventually several of us started pointing out how vacuous the poems seemed, and how sad that she -a great song writer in her own right- was excited about that generative AI crap. She stopped right quick.
I'll say that this "Suno" thing makes good-sounding music to these non-musician ears right here, but trying a few of these I'm starting to notice it seems fake. But that's not very interesting. What's interesting is that they're going to get good enough to get past the phoniness.
> I don't know how to feel about it.
I know how I feel about it: I don't like it one bit.
You say "she stopped right quick" as if telling someone the things they are talking about are vacuous, sad, and crap is supposed to lead to anything else (comments rightly deserved or not). Even when such comments are tempered in delivery it's still no more than a comment saying you said you didn't like it so they stopped involving you in it.
It's personal taste, but this is significantly better than the last couple of fiction books I've read (which were both well reviewed).
I think it's good enough that it's hard to argue is emotionally vacuous, unless you define that to mean 'it was written by a machine'
I think increasing we'll find AIs are extremely good at emotional 'manipulation' (which I mean in the same sense has how a good tearjerker is in some sense emotionally manipulative).
I'll say that this "Suno" thing makes good-sounding music to these non-musician ears right here, but trying a few of these I'm starting to notice it seems fake. But that's not very interesting. What's interesting is that they're going to get good enough to get past the phoniness.
> I don't know how to feel about it.
I know how I feel about it: I don't like it one bit.