At 4/9/24 10:12 PM, Skoops wrote:I wouldn't be so scared. A few things we've been discussing on the art and writing side of things is regulation and the growing feedback loop that's making AI worse at generating a variety of content.

On the regulation side, we know that all this tech is only possible because it's fed ungodly amounts of stolen human-made content, and that for the most part, the law has yet to catch up with that. With image generation, it's easy to prove that copyrighted material is ingrained into it and will produce plagiarized results even if you don't prompt it by name ("cartoon sponge" almost always gets you SpongeBob, stuff like that) meaning it's a huge liability to use for profit - you could be plagiarizing without knowing it, since it's all automated in a black box trained on incomprehensible scales of theft. This obviously applies to music, too. You won't know that the Automated Plagiarism Machine lifted/replicated entire portions of its generated tune from an existing, copyrighted song unless you recognize it or until you go to market with it and get your pants sued off.

When regulation, lawsuits and legal precedent catches up, and training data for for-profit generators can only be obtained through legitimate channels, new models will essentially be lobotomized versions of their former selves. Music generation will be pretty weak if it can only process stock music and music in the public domain. There'll be homebrew models that still steal in order to generate more contemporary styles, but with advances in AI come advances in AI detection. The effort required to launder generated content into something that can't be recognized as AI will likely (continue to) be more trouble than just being original from the start. Everyone assumes things will only get worse and further out of control, but we're in the wild west phase right now. It's as out of control now as it will ever be, and it can only get more regulated from here.

As for the AI itself, there's already evidence that generators are getting less creative as their own generations start getting fed back into themselves as training data. Language models are the easiest to track for this, but image generators are also ingraining their mistakes and making increasingly uncreative and predictable results. As AI floods the internet with slop, it can't take new scraped data without eating its own slop in the process. It's inbreeding with its own data. It can't tell good content from bad. In order to do that, they need better AI detection, which is a double edged sword for them. Tech like that empowers the majority of people that are broadly anti-AI, so there's really no path forward for AI where it both gets better and less detectable.

At 4/9/24 11:33 PM, Tangerine wrote:That's probably very awful news for the average person, but it's very comforting for musicians and artists. I had never thought about the possibility that it remakes a song that it was trained off. The legal implications of that could be massive.

At 4/10/24 01:55 AM, Skoops wrote:

At 4/9/24 11:33 PM, Tangerine wrote:That's probably very awful news for the average person, but it's very comforting for musicians and artists. I had never thought about the possibility that it remakes a song that it was trained off. The legal implications of that could be massive.

On the contrary, I think there's reason for average people to remain hopeful and not resign themselves to a worst case scenario. It only seems inevitable because they're not considering the countermeasures that will grow alongside the tech.

I think it's going to get harder to avoid scams and ripoffs since AI will largely be used by people that need to lie convincingly, but I think that's contributing to this broader desire to limit AI in general. We see its ability to lie way more clearly than we see its ability to make anything in life better, so that's what's going to drive the conversation about it.

At 4/8/24 03:50 AM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/7/24 05:02 PM, SkankyMojo wrote:It doesn't bother me, I make music to express myself. A.I. can't express me for me, that's an untakeable job. Fundamentally, it's incapable of creating art until it gains sentience, at present it can only generate content, because its incapable of a point of view. So only the none artist musicians/producers will be affected.
But because work of an A.I. can't be copyrighted, and companies like to own the copyright on the important assets, I think there's still going to be plenty of work for creatives.
The implications of using it as a sound design tool, that for me is interesting. Any use of it that increases the fidelity of the conversion process, from imaginal to actual, in my eyes is a great boon.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered how companies can't copyright ai generated music. That'll be a pretty big reason to use a real person for it.

At 4/10/24 12:19 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/8/24 03:50 AM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/7/24 05:02 PM, SkankyMojo wrote:It doesn't bother me, I make music to express myself. A.I. can't express me for me, that's an untakeable job. Fundamentally, it's incapable of creating art until it gains sentience, at present it can only generate content, because its incapable of a point of view. So only the none artist musicians/producers will be affected.
But because work of an A.I. can't be copyrighted, and companies like to own the copyright on the important assets, I think there's still going to be plenty of work for creatives.
The implications of using it as a sound design tool, that for me is interesting. Any use of it that increases the fidelity of the conversion process, from imaginal to actual, in my eyes is a great boon.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered how companies can't copyright ai generated music. That'll be a pretty big reason to use a real person for it.

Suno claims that they own music generated using the free version and that users who pay for premium subscriptions own the music they generate:

(from their help page)

This is the part that worries me the most, as it means that some people can freely use Suno music, even commercially.

At 4/10/24 12:27 PM, Czyszy wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:19 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/8/24 03:50 AM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/7/24 05:02 PM, SkankyMojo wrote:It doesn't bother me, I make music to express myself. A.I. can't express me for me, that's an untakeable job. Fundamentally, it's incapable of creating art until it gains sentience, at present it can only generate content, because its incapable of a point of view. So only the none artist musicians/producers will be affected.
But because work of an A.I. can't be copyrighted, and companies like to own the copyright on the important assets, I think there's still going to be plenty of work for creatives.
The implications of using it as a sound design tool, that for me is interesting. Any use of it that increases the fidelity of the conversion process, from imaginal to actual, in my eyes is a great boon.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered how companies can't copyright ai generated music. That'll be a pretty big reason to use a real person for it.

Suno claims that they own music generated using the free version and that users who pay for premium subscriptions own the music they generate:

(from their help page)

This is the part that worries me the most, as it means that some people can freely use Suno music, even commercially.

What a load of bullshit! 🤣 How the fuck can sono have the rights to anything AI generated?

At 4/10/24 12:29 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:27 PM, Czyszy wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:19 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/8/24 03:50 AM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/7/24 05:02 PM, SkankyMojo wrote:It doesn't bother me, I make music to express myself. A.I. can't express me for me, that's an untakeable job. Fundamentally, it's incapable of creating art until it gains sentience, at present it can only generate content, because its incapable of a point of view. So only the none artist musicians/producers will be affected.
But because work of an A.I. can't be copyrighted, and companies like to own the copyright on the important assets, I think there's still going to be plenty of work for creatives.
The implications of using it as a sound design tool, that for me is interesting. Any use of it that increases the fidelity of the conversion process, from imaginal to actual, in my eyes is a great boon.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered how companies can't copyright ai generated music. That'll be a pretty big reason to use a real person for it.

Suno claims that they own music generated using the free version and that users who pay for premium subscriptions own the music they generate:

(from their help page)

This is the part that worries me the most, as it means that some people can freely use Suno music, even commercially.

What a load of bullshit! 🤣 How the fuck can sono have the rights to anything AI generated?

Good question! Depends if they got permission to use the material they trained the AI on I suppose, but as I can't find anything on their site about that I'd assume not.

At 4/10/24 04:13 PM, SkankyMojo wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:29 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:27 PM, Czyszy wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:19 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/8/24 03:50 AM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/7/24 05:02 PM, SkankyMojo wrote:It doesn't bother me, I make music to express myself. A.I. can't express me for me, that's an untakeable job. Fundamentally, it's incapable of creating art until it gains sentience, at present it can only generate content, because its incapable of a point of view. So only the none artist musicians/producers will be affected.
But because work of an A.I. can't be copyrighted, and companies like to own the copyright on the important assets, I think there's still going to be plenty of work for creatives.
The implications of using it as a sound design tool, that for me is interesting. Any use of it that increases the fidelity of the conversion process, from imaginal to actual, in my eyes is a great boon.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered how companies can't copyright ai generated music. That'll be a pretty big reason to use a real person for it.

Suno claims that they own music generated using the free version and that users who pay for premium subscriptions own the music they generate:

(from their help page)

This is the part that worries me the most, as it means that some people can freely use Suno music, even commercially.

What a load of bullshit! 🤣 How the fuck can sono have the rights to anything AI generated?

Good question! Depends if they got permission to use the material they trained the AI on I suppose, but as I can't find anything on their site about that I'd assume not.

Nah, you can't copyright A.I. generated images, video and audio. There have been a few cases already that have set president. The primary one being over a photo a monkey took of itself with a dudes camera. The dude posted it and PETA sued him saying the monkey should hold the copyright. The courts then ruled that only human generated works can be subject to copyright law. So that already sets the president that covers A.I.
This is the photo;

And the case wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

At 4/10/24 12:29 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:27 PM, Czyszy wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:19 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/8/24 03:50 AM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/7/24 05:02 PM, SkankyMojo wrote:It doesn't bother me, I make music to express myself. A.I. can't express me for me, that's an untakeable job. Fundamentally, it's incapable of creating art until it gains sentience, at present it can only generate content, because its incapable of a point of view. So only the none artist musicians/producers will be affected.
But because work of an A.I. can't be copyrighted, and companies like to own the copyright on the important assets, I think there's still going to be plenty of work for creatives.
The implications of using it as a sound design tool, that for me is interesting. Any use of it that increases the fidelity of the conversion process, from imaginal to actual, in my eyes is a great boon.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered how companies can't copyright ai generated music. That'll be a pretty big reason to use a real person for it.

Suno claims that they own music generated using the free version and that users who pay for premium subscriptions own the music they generate:

(from their help page)

This is the part that worries me the most, as it means that some people can freely use Suno music, even commercially.

What a load of bullshit! 🤣 How the fuck can sono have the rights to anything AI generated?

Good question! Depends if they got permission to use the material they trained the AI on I suppose, but as I can't find anything on their site about that I'd assume not.

At 4/10/24 06:15 PM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:29 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:27 PM, Czyszy wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:19 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/8/24 03:50 AM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/7/24 05:02 PM, SkankyMojo wrote:It doesn't bother me, I make music to express myself. A.I. can't express me for me, that's an untakeable job. Fundamentally, it's incapable of creating art until it gains sentience, at present it can only generate content, because its incapable of a point of view. So only the none artist musicians/producers will be affected.
But because work of an A.I. can't be copyrighted, and companies like to own the copyright on the important assets, I think there's still going to be plenty of work for creatives.
The implications of using it as a sound design tool, that for me is interesting. Any use of it that increases the fidelity of the conversion process, from imaginal to actual, in my eyes is a great boon.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered how companies can't copyright ai generated music. That'll be a pretty big reason to use a real person for it.

Suno claims that they own music generated using the free version and that users who pay for premium subscriptions own the music they generate:

(from their help page)

This is the part that worries me the most, as it means that some people can freely use Suno music, even commercially.

What a load of bullshit! 🤣 How the fuck can sono have the rights to anything AI generated?

Good question! Depends if they got permission to use the material they trained the AI on I suppose, but as I can't find anything on their site about that I'd assume not.

so they technically wouldn't be able to copyright the songs they generate? Unless of course there is something I'm misunderstanding or not aware of.

At 4/9/24 08:01 PM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/9/24 07:59 PM, Gribbus07 wrote:Music made by people has soul!! AI will get so good it will sound TOO perfect and you could tell its artificial

that's a very good point lol. humans are naturally attracted to slight and subtle flaws. It's why you can usually tell if something was played by a real person or created synthetically.

At 4/10/24 09:52 PM, Jojo wrote:

At 4/9/24 08:01 PM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/9/24 07:59 PM, Gribbus07 wrote:Music made by people has soul!! AI will get so good it will sound TOO perfect and you could tell its artificial

that's a very good point lol. humans are naturally attracted to slight and subtle flaws. It's why you can usually tell if something was played by a real person or created synthetically.

All AI has taught me is that people are perfect IN their imperfections. AI is only perfect in one way, as it relies on algorithms to even function. A human on the other hand is able find itself by looking within. And lest we not forget that AI relies on humans to even get any of its data. Artifical intelligence is exactly what the name suggests, "artificial". It may be intellectual, but it has none of the insight to apply its knowledge gained wisely, it has no instinct, and no capability of innovating anything on its own. It's inferior to humanity in its current form. It cannot make mistakes on purpose, any error made by a machine results in its own malfunction.

At 4/10/24 08:53 PM, Czyszy wrote:

At 4/10/24 06:15 PM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:29 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:27 PM, Czyszy wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:19 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/8/24 03:50 AM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/7/24 05:02 PM, SkankyMojo wrote:It doesn't bother me, I make music to express myself. A.I. can't express me for me, that's an untakeable job. Fundamentally, it's incapable of creating art until it gains sentience, at present it can only generate content, because its incapable of a point of view. So only the none artist musicians/producers will be affected.
But because work of an A.I. can't be copyrighted, and companies like to own the copyright on the important assets, I think there's still going to be plenty of work for creatives.
The implications of using it as a sound design tool, that for me is interesting. Any use of it that increases the fidelity of the conversion process, from imaginal to actual, in my eyes is a great boon.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered how companies can't copyright ai generated music. That'll be a pretty big reason to use a real person for it.

Suno claims that they own music generated using the free version and that users who pay for premium subscriptions own the music they generate:

(from their help page)

This is the part that worries me the most, as it means that some people can freely use Suno music, even commercially.

What a load of bullshit! 🤣 How the fuck can sono have the rights to anything AI generated?

Good question! Depends if they got permission to use the material they trained the AI on I suppose, but as I can't find anything on their site about that I'd assume not.

so they technically wouldn't be able to copyright the songs they generate? Unless of course there is something I'm misunderstanding or not aware of.

What's there to understand? Suno simply want people to believe their lies in order to throw their money at that shady service, similar to homeopathy etc.

At 4/10/24 06:15 PM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:29 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:27 PM, Czyszy wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:19 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/8/24 03:50 AM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/7/24 05:02 PM, SkankyMojo wrote:It doesn't bother me, I make music to express myself. A.I. can't express me for me, that's an untakeable job. Fundamentally, it's incapable of creating art until it gains sentience, at present it can only generate content, because its incapable of a point of view. So only the none artist musicians/producers will be affected.
But because work of an A.I. can't be copyrighted, and companies like to own the copyright on the important assets, I think there's still going to be plenty of work for creatives.
The implications of using it as a sound design tool, that for me is interesting. Any use of it that increases the fidelity of the conversion process, from imaginal to actual, in my eyes is a great boon.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered how companies can't copyright ai generated music. That'll be a pretty big reason to use a real person for it.

Suno claims that they own music generated using the free version and that users who pay for premium subscriptions own the music they generate:

(from their help page)

This is the part that worries me the most, as it means that some people can freely use Suno music, even commercially.

What a load of bullshit! 🤣 How the fuck can sono have the rights to anything AI generated?

Good question! Depends if they got permission to use the material they trained the AI on I suppose, but as I can't find anything on their site about that I'd assume not.

so they technically wouldn't be able to copyright the songs they generate? Unless of course there is something I'm misunderstanding or not aware of.

At 4/10/24 04:13 PM, SkankyMojo wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:29 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:27 PM, Czyszy wrote:

At 4/10/24 12:19 PM, MindboggleOfficial wrote:

At 4/8/24 03:50 AM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/7/24 05:02 PM, SkankyMojo wrote:It doesn't bother me, I make music to express myself. A.I. can't express me for me, that's an untakeable job. Fundamentally, it's incapable of creating art until it gains sentience, at present it can only generate content, because its incapable of a point of view. So only the none artist musicians/producers will be affected.
But because work of an A.I. can't be copyrighted, and companies like to own the copyright on the important assets, I think there's still going to be plenty of work for creatives.
The implications of using it as a sound design tool, that for me is interesting. Any use of it that increases the fidelity of the conversion process, from imaginal to actual, in my eyes is a great boon.
Those are my thoughts anyway.

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered how companies can't copyright ai generated music. That'll be a pretty big reason to use a real person for it.

Suno claims that they own music generated using the free version and that users who pay for premium subscriptions own the music they generate:

(from their help page)

This is the part that worries me the most, as it means that some people can freely use Suno music, even commercially.

What a load of bullshit! 🤣 How the fuck can sono have the rights to anything AI generated?

Good question! Depends if they got permission to use the material they trained the AI on I suppose, but as I can't find anything on their site about that I'd assume not.

Nah, you can't copyright A.I. generated images, video and audio. There have been a few cases already that have set president. The primary one being over a photo a monkey took of itself with a dudes camera. The dude posted it and PETA sued him saying the monkey should hold the copyright. The courts then ruled that only human generated works can be subject to copyright law. So that already sets the president that covers A.I.
This is the photo;

And the case wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

At 4/11/24 03:53 AM, Skoops wrote:That case with the monkey likely served as precedent, but we've got more recent cases on the books that explicitly rule that AI generations can't be copyrighted. There'll only be more rulings against AI's use in legitimate business as time goes on.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/

At 4/9/24 06:54 PM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/9/24 06:19 PM, BB0ii wrote:Honestly, I am also scared of AI music and the future of it, but in its current state the songs it makes are overly generic, unoriginal, and just straight up boring. The instruments just keep on repeating the same patterns, the vocals sound bad, the mixing is meh, and the lyrics have that signature AI-generated lifelessness to it. The good news is that (to my knowledge (and as of now)) AI hasn't gotten to the point of being able to make extremely experimental songs, or use samples in very creative ways.

Yeah, I agree. But the part that worries me is just how quickly it has been improving. It feels like just a couple of weeks ago the AI didn't even know what a chord progression was. Now it's able to generate lyrics, sing them and also replicate the average of every musical style (to the best of its current abilities).

At 4/12/24 10:12 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:

At 4/9/24 06:54 PM, Tangerine wrote:

At 4/9/24 06:19 PM, BB0ii wrote:Honestly, I am also scared of AI music and the future of it, but in its current state the songs it makes are overly generic, unoriginal, and just straight up boring. The instruments just keep on repeating the same patterns, the vocals sound bad, the mixing is meh, and the lyrics have that signature AI-generated lifelessness to it. The good news is that (to my knowledge (and as of now)) AI hasn't gotten to the point of being able to make extremely experimental songs, or use samples in very creative ways.

Yeah, I agree. But the part that worries me is just how quickly it has been improving. It feels like just a couple of weeks ago the AI didn't even know what a chord progression was. Now it's able to generate lyrics, sing them and also replicate the average of every musical style (to the best of its current abilities).

Just wait, there will be specifically trained models for every genre of music before you can blink.

At 4/7/24 03:57 PM, Tangerine wrote:I know over the past few years everyone has been like "oH nO ai aRt iS gOiNg tO tAkE mY jOB!!!111!!!" and then it didn't, but like oh god. I assume most of you have played around with Suno. The website which allows you to generate pretty convincing music. It can generate the lyrics and vocals for you if you want it to.

I know that the music sounds decently flawed at the moment, but technology improves fast and i'd say in a few months, people won't easily be able to tell if something is ai generated or composed by a person.

Not all doom and gloom though, it has its benefits for musicians like me. It could be used as inspiration or as a tool to check out instrumentation for certain styles. But also it certainly has its negatives.

I don't mean to walk down the streets ringing a bell screaming "The end is nigh!", but it will bring along great changes that I'm not sure I'm ready for.

What's your thoughts? Also, if you've generated any cool things on suno then feel free to share them here :).

"Make a eurobeat song in the style of initial D"
https://app.suno.ai/song/e40bdf84-b110-4751-906d-966498fd515f/

At 4/13/24 06:09 AM, TheFandomKid wrote:

At 4/7/24 03:57 PM, Tangerine wrote:I know over the past few years everyone has been like "oH nO ai aRt iS gOiNg tO tAkE mY jOB!!!111!!!" and then it didn't, but like oh god. I assume most of you have played around with Suno. The website which allows you to generate pretty convincing music. It can generate the lyrics and vocals for you if you want it to.

I know that the music sounds decently flawed at the moment, but technology improves fast and i'd say in a few months, people won't easily be able to tell if something is ai generated or composed by a person.

Not all doom and gloom though, it has its benefits for musicians like me. It could be used as inspiration or as a tool to check out instrumentation for certain styles. But also it certainly has its negatives.

I don't mean to walk down the streets ringing a bell screaming "The end is nigh!", but it will bring along great changes that I'm not sure I'm ready for.

What's your thoughts? Also, if you've generated any cool things on suno then feel free to share them here :).

"Make a eurobeat song in the style of initial D"
https://app.suno.ai/song/e40bdf84-b110-4751-906d-966498fd515f/

Waiiiit a damn minute, ai generates music now!?

At 4/13/24 09:51 AM, JizzyJazz wrote:suno is hilarious to me. sure it's stupidly good at emulating certain manufactured pop styles, frankly the vocals also kinda blow me away, but i see that as a good thing. generative AI getting better at replicating catchy tunes -> more musicians who rely on repetitive niches or gimmicky genres needing to branch out and express themselves in a more varied and individualist fashion. the robot overlords can only replace you when you sit back and let them do so

At 4/7/24 03:57 PM, Tangerine wrote:I know over the past few years everyone has been like "oH nO ai aRt iS gOiNg tO tAkE mY jOB!!!111!!!" and then it didn't, but like oh god. I assume most of you have played around with Suno. The website which allows you to generate pretty convincing music. It can generate the lyrics and vocals for you if you want it to.

I know that the music sounds decently flawed at the moment, but technology improves fast and i'd say in a few months, people won't easily be able to tell if something is ai generated or composed by a person.

Not all doom and gloom though, it has its benefits for musicians like me. It could be used as inspiration or as a tool to check out instrumentation for certain styles. But also it certainly has its negatives.

I don't mean to walk down the streets ringing a bell screaming "The end is nigh!", but it will bring along great changes that I'm not sure I'm ready for.

What's your thoughts? Also, if you've generated any cool things on suno then feel free to share them here :).

"Make a eurobeat song in the style of initial D"
https://app.suno.ai/song/e40bdf84-b110-4751-906d-966498fd515f/

At 4/13/24 02:13 PM, Creeperforce24 wrote:

At 4/7/24 03:57 PM, Tangerine wrote:I know over the past few years everyone has been like "oH nO ai aRt iS gOiNg tO tAkE mY jOB!!!111!!!" and then it didn't, but like oh god. I assume most of you have played around with Suno. The website which allows you to generate pretty convincing music. It can generate the lyrics and vocals for you if you want it to.

I know that the music sounds decently flawed at the moment, but technology improves fast and i'd say in a few months, people won't easily be able to tell if something is ai generated or composed by a person.

Not all doom and gloom though, it has its benefits for musicians like me. It could be used as inspiration or as a tool to check out instrumentation for certain styles. But also it certainly has its negatives.

I don't mean to walk down the streets ringing a bell screaming "The end is nigh!", but it will bring along great changes that I'm not sure I'm ready for.

What's your thoughts? Also, if you've generated any cool things on suno then feel free to share them here :).

"Make a eurobeat song in the style of initial D"
https://app.suno.ai/song/e40bdf84-b110-4751-906d-966498fd515f/

It’s extremely impressive to how far tech has came for us!