Indian Filmmaker Ditches Human Musicians for AI

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 screenwr…

Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

Nickname:

Password:

Nickname:

Password:

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Known for what now?
Doesn’t matter. The RIAA is not picky about who it sends takedown notices to… 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. Some generic medicine from India is also generic in the EU and it enters EU without any trouble. He is a big deal in indian cinema.Sometimes refer to as a pioneer of modern bollywood. So you really are this much of a bigoted jackass in real life, as are, apparently, your friendship circle. most anyone I know would likely chuckle… most anyone I know would likely chuckle… So you really are this much of a bigoted jackass in real life, as are, apparently, your friendship circle.

Exactly where in any of my posts did I say something bad about a race.
I’m talking how BAD some forms of “music” are out there….
I don’t find the eastern stuff to sound like music at all to my ears….
It’s bigoted now to have to like all forms of music from everywhere and every culture?
wow…. Necessary to like? No. Respect is what seems to be lacking Stay in your bubble. Please. Sincerely. From what I’ve heard of “Indian (dot) music”…it shouldn’t be that hard to reproduce that cacophony of sound.Just get a bunch of toddlers to bang gongs, cymbals, drums and blow on horns randomly and that should do it….They’d save a lot of electricity doing it the easy way. ;)Lazy humor is lazy. From what I’ve heard of “Indian (dot) music”…it shouldn’t be that hard to reproduce that cacophony of sound.Just get a bunch of toddlers to bang gongs, cymbals, drums and blow on horns randomly and that should do it…. They’d save a lot of electricity doing it the easy way. 😉 Lazy humor is lazy. 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. Come on, is not hard [wikipedia.org] at all [imdb.com] It’s not like the Star Wars theme was wholly original either, Williams raided Holst’s Planets for inspiration for a lot of the material and for the main theme also from the titles theme of a 1942 movie “King’s Row”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?… [youtube.com] 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. 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. 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. 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”. 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”. 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. 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? 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?andb) Will that result in copyright problems or not? 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. 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. Tunak Tunak tun “woke”? I thought youse guys gave up on that term months ago. Aren’t you suppose to be looking for Haitian musicians eating Fluffy? looks like that one flopped so it is back to the “oldies” “Woke” is getting rotated out for “dog eater” on the right-wing-fad-O-matic. ^ FoxJesusGPT 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. SO well said!
“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 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] 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 composerIf you want derivative music that sounds almost exactly like what’s popular, a robot will do just fineA 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. 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. There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead. Amazon Joins the Motion Picture Association, Hollywood’s Top Lobbying Group Earth Will Get a Second ‘Mini-Moon’ For 2 Months This Year “It doesn’t much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next
morning it was someone else.”
— Rogers

https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/24/09/20/0721242/indian-filmmaker-ditches-human-musicians-for-ai