'It's a really great tool': ABBA's Björn Ulvaeus making a new musical with AI
The 'Dancing Queen' hitmaker was one of 10,500 signatories from the creative industries warning artificial intelligence companies that unlicensed use of their work is a 'major, unjust threat' to artists' livelihoods.
The statement read: "The unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted."
Although Ulvaeus is against his work being used without his consent - that doesn't mean he isn't a fan of the technology, going as far as to call it a songwriting partner.
Speaking at London's inaugural SXSW on Wednesday (04.06.25), he said: 'It is such a great tool. It is like having another songwriter in the room with a huge reference frame.
'It is really an extension of your mind. You have access to things that you didn't think of before.'
Explaining how he utilises AI, he added: 'You can prompt a lyric you have written about something, and you're stuck maybe, and you want this song to be in a certain style. 'You can ask it, How would you extend? Where would you go from here? It usually comes out with garbage, but sometimes there is something in it that gives you another idea.'
The Swedish pop veteran previously warned that AI must not "exclude the human".
In a previous interview with BBC Look North, he said: "It's going to make song-writing different. Whether it's going to be better, I don't know but it's it's going to affect society as a whole.
"It could lead to spectacular things. On the other hand, we have to be very cautious so that it doesn't exclude the human songwriter or producer or artist.
"To be heard through the noise you really have to be very, very good. I think that it takes a human hand to add that extra little percentage needed to achieve a really good song."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
37 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Bubble fears: The multitrillion-dollar threat hanging over markets
Morgan Stanley research has said global data centre capacity will expand by 600 per cent by 2030. It has a lower estimate of what that will cost – $US3 trillion. This year the hyperscalers are expected to invest about $US320 billion, compared to $US200 billion last year. By 2028 they will be investing more than $US300 billion in data centres and AI chips. Whether it is $US3 trillion or $US6.7 trillion, the scale of investment is staggering and is far out-running the revenues being generated. Last year those hyperscalers generated only $US45 billion of AI-related revenue. By 2028, Morgan Stanley said, they might have revenues exceeding $US1 trillion. That qualification – the 'might' – is significant. Companies are pouring ever-increasing amounts of their shareholders' funds into AI, based on very optimistic expectations of its potential revenues and margins and the development of applications that don't currently exist. Fierce competition and a desire to be one of those left standing and dominating the sector when the inevitable clean out occurs is fuelling an investment binge even though, at this admittedly very early stage of the sector's development, the massive numbers of AI users isn't translating into a material base of paying users. Loading The entity that sparked the boom, Open AI's ChatGPT, for instance, has about 700 million weekly active users and that user base is growing at a dramatic rate. Its user base is roughly four times its size last year. It has, however, only about 5 million paying business users and, while that paying user base is also growing rapidly, the conversion rate from free to paying users is less than impressive for a business valued in its most recent funding rounds at about $US300 billion. By the end of this year OpenAi is expected to be generating revenue at an annualised run-rate of about $US20 billion. Earlier this year the group agreed a deal with Oracle under which it will pay $US30 billion a year to lease 4.5 gigawatts of data centre computing power and another with Nvidia to buy $US40 billion of its most powerful chips. It is a cash and capital-devouring sector, on an unprecedented scale. Most of the big players in AI would share broadly similar features with OpenAI, although the established mega techs like Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta Platforms may have the opportunity of commercialising AI within their existing customer base. These massive investments are being made – the mega-techs are spending around $US100 billion each this year, with plans to spend more next year and beyond – without any firm understanding of the eventual demand or the returns from the investments. That hasn't phased investors, who are ploughing funds into the sector at ever more dizzy valuations. Elon Musk's xAI, for instance, first raised money, at a $US18 billion valuation, in March last year. It raised more in December, at a $US50 billion valuation. By March this year, another raising saw its value increased to $US80 billion and, more recently, it was looking to raise funds at a valuation of up to $US200 billion. Somehow, having raised about $US30 billion or so of debt and equity for an entity that is expected to burn about $US13 billion of cash this year and which doesn't expect, if everything goes according to its plans, to be cashflow-positive before 2029, people are valuing it, with real money, at $US200 billion? That's what you'd call a very high-risk investment, particularly when you take into account xAI's competitors in this race of AI supremacy, most of whom have massive cash flows from their existing operations to self-fund their AI plays. xAi's valuations are effectively a capitalisation of Musk's reputation. Is the AI boom a bubble? We'll only know if it bursts. There are a couple of other features of the sector that provide question marks. One is that, to date, the generative AI sector is overly-reliant on expensive Nvidia chips, which are upgraded regularly and are therefore a recurring and very substantial cost. The other is that the multitude of data centres that are being built, and those that will have to be built, to power the rollout of AI require huge amounts of power themselves. The International Energy Agency has estimated that electricity demand from data centres will more than double by 2030 and that by that date the US economy will consume more electricity for data processing than it now does for the manufacturing of all energy-intensive goods, including aluminium, steel, cement and chemicals. Whether it is even possible for the power requirements of the data centres to be met within the timeframes AI firms need them and at affordable prices is a significant question, particularly in the US, where Joe Biden's push for a surge in renewables has been aborted by Donald Trump. None of this is meant to question the potential of AI to ignite a new industrial revolution, transforming work and society. Not all those companies and their investors risking such extraordinary amounts of capital in the hope of an eventual commensurately large payoff, will however, be successful. More likely, as occurred in the early 2000s, a handful of very large and dominant companies will emerge, with the rest (and their shareholders' funds) disappearing. Loading There is a risk – as occurred with telcos and tech stock in the late 1990s – that, at this point in its development, the sector is being over-hyped, attracting participants who won't survive and being attributed valuations that will eventually prove ephemeral. Is the AI boom a bubble? We'll only know if it bursts.
The Age
37 minutes ago
- The Age
Bubble fears: The multitrillion-dollar threat hanging over markets
Morgan Stanley research has said global data centre capacity will expand by 600 per cent by 2030. It has a lower estimate of what that will cost – $US3 trillion. This year the hyperscalers are expected to invest about $US320 billion, compared to $US200 billion last year. By 2028 they will be investing more than $US300 billion in data centres and AI chips. Whether it is $US3 trillion or $US6.7 trillion, the scale of investment is staggering and is far out-running the revenues being generated. Last year those hyperscalers generated only $US45 billion of AI-related revenue. By 2028, Morgan Stanley said, they might have revenues exceeding $US1 trillion. That qualification – the 'might' – is significant. Companies are pouring ever-increasing amounts of their shareholders' funds into AI, based on very optimistic expectations of its potential revenues and margins and the development of applications that don't currently exist. Fierce competition and a desire to be one of those left standing and dominating the sector when the inevitable clean out occurs is fuelling an investment binge even though, at this admittedly very early stage of the sector's development, the massive numbers of AI users isn't translating into a material base of paying users. Loading The entity that sparked the boom, Open AI's ChatGPT, for instance, has about 700 million weekly active users and that user base is growing at a dramatic rate. Its user base is roughly four times its size last year. It has, however, only about 5 million paying business users and, while that paying user base is also growing rapidly, the conversion rate from free to paying users is less than impressive for a business valued in its most recent funding rounds at about $US300 billion. By the end of this year OpenAi is expected to be generating revenue at an annualised run-rate of about $US20 billion. Earlier this year the group agreed a deal with Oracle under which it will pay $US30 billion a year to lease 4.5 gigawatts of data centre computing power and another with Nvidia to buy $US40 billion of its most powerful chips. It is a cash and capital-devouring sector, on an unprecedented scale. Most of the big players in AI would share broadly similar features with OpenAI, although the established mega techs like Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta Platforms may have the opportunity of commercialising AI within their existing customer base. These massive investments are being made – the mega-techs are spending around $US100 billion each this year, with plans to spend more next year and beyond – without any firm understanding of the eventual demand or the returns from the investments. That hasn't phased investors, who are ploughing funds into the sector at ever more dizzy valuations. Elon Musk's xAI, for instance, first raised money, at a $US18 billion valuation, in March last year. It raised more in December, at a $US50 billion valuation. By March this year, another raising saw its value increased to $US80 billion and, more recently, it was looking to raise funds at a valuation of up to $US200 billion. Somehow, having raised about $US30 billion or so of debt and equity for an entity that is expected to burn about $US13 billion of cash this year and which doesn't expect, if everything goes according to its plans, to be cashflow-positive before 2029, people are valuing it, with real money, at $US200 billion? That's what you'd call a very high-risk investment, particularly when you take into account xAI's competitors in this race of AI supremacy, most of whom have massive cash flows from their existing operations to self-fund their AI plays. xAi's valuations are effectively a capitalisation of Musk's reputation. Is the AI boom a bubble? We'll only know if it bursts. There are a couple of other features of the sector that provide question marks. One is that, to date, the generative AI sector is overly-reliant on expensive Nvidia chips, which are upgraded regularly and are therefore a recurring and very substantial cost. The other is that the multitude of data centres that are being built, and those that will have to be built, to power the rollout of AI require huge amounts of power themselves. The International Energy Agency has estimated that electricity demand from data centres will more than double by 2030 and that by that date the US economy will consume more electricity for data processing than it now does for the manufacturing of all energy-intensive goods, including aluminium, steel, cement and chemicals. Whether it is even possible for the power requirements of the data centres to be met within the timeframes AI firms need them and at affordable prices is a significant question, particularly in the US, where Joe Biden's push for a surge in renewables has been aborted by Donald Trump. None of this is meant to question the potential of AI to ignite a new industrial revolution, transforming work and society. Not all those companies and their investors risking such extraordinary amounts of capital in the hope of an eventual commensurately large payoff, will however, be successful. More likely, as occurred in the early 2000s, a handful of very large and dominant companies will emerge, with the rest (and their shareholders' funds) disappearing. Loading There is a risk – as occurred with telcos and tech stock in the late 1990s – that, at this point in its development, the sector is being over-hyped, attracting participants who won't survive and being attributed valuations that will eventually prove ephemeral. Is the AI boom a bubble? We'll only know if it bursts.
ABC News
37 minutes ago
- ABC News
What to know before saying yes to your doctor using AI
When Melissa Street's GP and psychologist both asked if they could start using artificial intelligence to record notes and a clinical summary of her appointments, she agreed to try it. "I said yes as it allows my doctor to actually listen to me rather than being distracted trying to type everything I say," says the university student from Kabi Kabi/Sunshine Coast. Nearly one in four GPs nationally are believed to be using AI digital scribes for note-taking, according to the Australian Medical Association (AMA). Other practitioners, like psychologists and podiatrists, are also using the technology. Here's what experts say we need to be aware of when deciding whether to consent to its use. Digital scribes are software applications that turn an audio recording into text by recording the conversation between a clinician and a patient (via a phone, tablet or computer microphone, or a dedicated sensitive microphone). The AI software then uses the transcript from the conversation to generate a written summary that goes into the patient's medical record or a letter that can be forwarded to other clinicians. "We've had digital scribes for a while now," says Yves Saint James Aquino, a research fellow at the Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values at the University of Wollongong. "But the new stuff that we have are the scribes that are using large language models (LLM) to summarise the text. "So, it's not just transcribing exactly … they are now summarising a conversation or a clinical interaction based on [an] audio recording." He says it is up to the clinicians to check the clinical summary, letters or notes for accuracy. Jennifer Morris, a patient safety advocate from Melbourne/Naarm, has recently written a guide to the technology for consumer and community representatives. She believes one of the things that can be helpful for people deciding whether they want to use the technology is to see what it's producing. "[Patients] have the right to access their medical records and decide for themselves whether they think it's accurate enough," she says. "I've been looking at letters that it's been writing for me [in consultations] and decided it's not meeting my standard of accuracy. "So, I'm choosing not to have it in my own consultations." Experts say clinicians should be able to clearly demonstrate to patients what the digital scribe software is, how it works and where the data is being stored. "If the data is stored or processed outside of Australia, the developers and users, including clinicians, should make sure that the location outside Australia has the same level of privacy protection and privacy laws," Dr Saint James Aquino says. Dr Saint James Aquino says patients "have to be informed every time it [digital scribe technology] is being used", even if they have previously consented to it. He says most of the software apps being used aren't regulated because they "don't meet the legal definition of a medical device" by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). "So, what consumers and patients should know is that a lot of AI scribes are not really tested in the same way that we expect a medical product, a pharmaceutical product or a medical device should be tested. He says while clinicians report the technology's positive benefits, such as saving time and effort and allowing more interaction with patients, further studies are needed because current evidence of its effectiveness "is very anecdotal". Last month, the TGA released a new report on how it was dealing with the "rapid innovation" of artificial intelligence in clinical settings. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has also developed a code of practice for clinicians using AI. Ms Morris says AI only works well if it is trained with high-quality data. She says some large language models may not "represent diverse people" and they may also be a problem if the data they are built on is not from or about "Australia or Australians". "So, if you have AI that's trained on a population, for example, of mostly white, wealthy, middle-aged people, it may not be as effective. "Australia is, of course, a very multicultural country and that is actually important from a scientific, research and medical point of view. "Because different people from different backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, cultural backgrounds have different needs [and] respond to health care differently. The TGA says clinicians have reported that "digital scribes frequently propose diagnosis or treatment options for patients beyond the stated diagnosis or treatment a clinician has identified during consultations". "This functionality indicates digital scribes meet the definition of a medical device and require pre-market approval and inclusion in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG)." It says a review of digital scribes is needed.
