3 ms·

No it isn't. 'Not enough art' is basically the exact opposite of the problem we're facing right now. Do you honestly believe that there's not enough music on S

No it isn't. 'Not enough art' is basically the exact opposite of the problem we're facing right now. Do you honestly believe that there's not enough music on Spotify? That a two hundred year catalogue isn't enough and you'd rather it be two hundred thousand years?

dwallin 4y ago
If your point is that we already have more than enough music than needed, isn’t that an indication that current copyright laws don’t need to be nearly as strong as they are in order to continue to promote the “useful arts”? (at least when it comes to music)
- YurgenJurgensen 4y ago
  While this may be true, there is a middle ground between 'copyright lasts for the heat death of the Universe plus seventy years' and 'everything is stolen by robots the instant it's created'.
  - tjr 4y ago
    What we may have here is a need for some new use cases in copyright. The current laws were written with humans in mind -- human creators, human consumers. To retroactively say, "well, you released this to the [human] public under U.S. copyright law, therefore the rights you granted to humans extend to training AI systems as well" could be unfair.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  every now and then I like to point out that not every country has the same understanding as to the purposes of copyright as the U.S, in fact this whole promotion thing seems to be a specifically American argument (although obviously not familiar with every country in the world so many some other countries also have this conception and I'm not familiar with it - maybe some countries that based their national laws on the U.S for example) on edit: I just realized that of course British copyright law is also very similar to the American model.
CuriouslyC 4y ago
Sure it is. There's a shit ton of shit on spotify, but if I want to listen to blackened ambient doom or technical jazz fusion death metal I might have one or two options each. Just because there are ~1000 Kanye/Taylor Swift wannabes trying to cash in on that played out mainstream sound doesn't mean there is enough music.
- d1sxeyes 4y ago
  Interesting that you describe making music that appeals to a wide audience as “trying to cash in”. Would you not say that using an AI to do essentially the same thing, just with the benefit that you don’t really need to pay anyone for creating the art meaning you can target more niche preferences is also “cashing in”?
  - CuriouslyC 4y ago
    No. I see strong generative AI allowing people who like fun genres outside the mainstream to make music in those genres that sounds good more easily. That will enable a creative explosion as new artists are given a rocket boost and established artists are taken to the next level and made more productive. Generative AI is going to allow an amazing diversification and explosion of art and music, which is going to create the next big AI application once current systems for distributing content are strained to overloading - interactive recommenders. Imagine asking for a piece of content, getting recommendations, evaluating a short clip, giving feedback to the recommender and getting better recommendations as a result in a cycle until you get exactly what you want.
    - d1sxeyes 4y ago
      Maybe I'm a luddite, and I'm not really into technical jazz fusion death metal, but I do like some technical music and some metal music. At least part of the reason I like technical music is because it is challenging to play for the musician. If an AI 'plays' 'technical' music, it loses its appeal for me. Similarly, a lot of the reason I like metal music is because of the emotion and energy poured into it by the human creator. Being able to ask a computer make noises which sounds like some musicians you like is not, in my opinion, the same as creating art.

dwallin 4y ago

If your point is that we already have more than enough music than needed, isn’t that an indication that current copyright laws don’t need to be nearly as strong as they are in order to continue to promote the “useful arts”? (at least when it comes to music)

YurgenJurgensen 4y ago
While this may be true, there is a middle ground between 'copyright lasts for the heat death of the Universe plus seventy years' and 'everything is stolen by robots the instant it's created'.
- tjr 4y ago
  What we may have here is a need for some new use cases in copyright. The current laws were written with humans in mind -- human creators, human consumers. To retroactively say, "well, you released this to the [human] public under U.S. copyright law, therefore the rights you granted to humans extend to training AI systems as well" could be unfair.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
every now and then I like to point out that not every country has the same understanding as to the purposes of copyright as the U.S, in fact this whole promotion thing seems to be a specifically American argument (although obviously not familiar with every country in the world so many some other countries also have this conception and I'm not familiar with it - maybe some countries that based their national laws on the U.S for example) on edit: I just realized that of course British copyright law is also very similar to the American model.

CuriouslyC 4y ago

Sure it is. There's a shit ton of shit on spotify, but if I want to listen to blackened ambient doom or technical jazz fusion death metal I might have one or two options each. Just because there are ~1000 Kanye/Taylor Swift wannabes trying to cash in on that played out mainstream sound doesn't mean there is enough music.

d1sxeyes 4y ago
Interesting that you describe making music that appeals to a wide audience as “trying to cash in”. Would you not say that using an AI to do essentially the same thing, just with the benefit that you don’t really need to pay anyone for creating the art meaning you can target more niche preferences is also “cashing in”?
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
  No. I see strong generative AI allowing people who like fun genres outside the mainstream to make music in those genres that sounds good more easily. That will enable a creative explosion as new artists are given a rocket boost and established artists are taken to the next level and made more productive. Generative AI is going to allow an amazing diversification and explosion of art and music, which is going to create the next big AI application once current systems for distributing content are strained to overloading - interactive recommenders. Imagine asking for a piece of content, getting recommendations, evaluating a short clip, giving feedback to the recommender and getting better recommendations as a result in a cycle until you get exactly what you want.
  - d1sxeyes 4y ago
    Maybe I'm a luddite, and I'm not really into technical jazz fusion death metal, but I do like some technical music and some metal music. At least part of the reason I like technical music is because it is challenging to play for the musician. If an AI 'plays' 'technical' music, it loses its appeal for me. Similarly, a lot of the reason I like metal music is because of the emotion and energy poured into it by the human creator. Being able to ask a computer make noises which sounds like some musicians you like is not, in my opinion, the same as creating art.