5 ms·

> I can imagine some independent artists being more open to allowing AI imitation. Stop with the bs tech optimism. Artists don't want this and rightfully so, n

> I can imagine some independent artists being more open to allowing AI imitation. Stop with the bs tech optimism. Artists don't want this and rightfully so, no matter how big or small. The only people excited for this are tech-ies with no artistic talent happy to have a way to "disrupt" another industry, alongside an idle (but nervous) curiosity from consumers

dvngnt_ 3y ago
yeah I doubt Drake would care as much since he has close to a billion vs a struggling artist. I could see Drake using it for demos/reference tracks though since he has ghost writers
999900000999 3y ago
As is you can buy a Benny the Butcher verse for like 300$. Of course it's the same verse his company is selling to everyone else. I'm sure eventually some artists will sell licenses to AI models of their voices. It's not a "real" feature since AI will never be an exact replica.
- dangerwill 3y ago
  Why would you think artists will be able to sell licenses at a sustainable level for their voices? The whole point of these generative AI models is to avoid paying for human labor so the industry will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so. We have already seen all of these projects actively avoid paying for their training data, either by just not caring about copywrite or by using only fully open source training data. If the RIAA takes openAI, et al to court and wins then we may see licenses for this, but given the pittance that spotify pays now for streams, we should expect any license revenue to be utterly minimal for all but the biggest artists.
  - deltree7 3y ago
    There are lots of very talented struggling singers and musicians around the world who make $0 with their skills. They would be happy to get $1000 for signing away their amazing voice and music talent for a large corp who can spend $1 Billion collecting all kinds of voices. If Mega Corp hires someone who can imitate Elvis and if they use it in their training data, it is completely fair game
    - dangerwill 3y ago
      Yeah and why do you think that a Mega Corp would be willing to spend $1k per musician when they could offer $100? This hypothetical Mega Corp will surely prefer getting 10 million samples instead of 1 million samples for their $1 billion. In this situation they have all the leverage and we can't rely on their largesse And it is definitely better to have a super low chance of breaking through in the future and $0 in your pocket than to have no chance of breaking through ever and $1k in your pocket (gone in 1-2 months of rent). Especially considering for most of the really struggling artists, they won't get that deal at all and instead it will be $1k in the pocket of a studio musician.
      - deltree7 3y ago
        Once again, for every artist that rejects the $1000 sign-away-for-lifetime offer there are a 1000 who will accept. Also at the end of the day, every human needs to offer what is value to the society. So even though I'm an extremely good pen-twirler, if the society doesn't value that, I need to change bedsheets (which is more valuable) to make money. So, I'm not sure why you need to protect "great voice" over "great pen-twirling" skills
        dangerwill 3y ago
        Except that having a great singing voice involves lots of practice and maintenance and people dedicate their lives to it, and until now society has valued that enough for it to be economically viable for some. And now this new tech comes along and threatens to undercut that skill for the sake of capturing a market. What happens when a large swath of previously valued skills (including software engineering) are significantly automated, not on the order of decades (like what happened with auto manufacturing) but on the order of a couple years? What happens when there are nowhere near enough jobs to employ the current population? I don't see a mass movement for a UBI to be paired with AI driven job losses, and the only alternative is finding new work for people or having people starve in the street. Our society is terrible at finding adequate replacement work for people who have been automated out of a career. We didn't find replacement work for the auto industry and the "technology always generates new work for people" line is a canard in the face of AI taking over knowledge work. If generative AI fulfills the current expectations for it, there will be no possible job for a human to do that an AI can't do better. We are sleepwalking into an economic, societal, and political catastrophe and all this forum gets excited about is how much faster and efficient (critically though, not better or more resilient) production systems can become. If society doesn't owe you a living because your skills now have the same value as "great pen twirling", what you are arguing for is mass death.
deltree7 3y ago
Techies has conquered human intelligence (at least the creative part of it) and they have the right to use it however they choose. It's as good as a right as an artist
- dangerwill 3y ago
  And this is why normal people hate the tech industry deep in their guts. All we do nowadays is immiserate people by replacing their jobs with shitty but cheap alternatives that reduce the amounts of human labor. When you have your own software job replaced by GPT-[X] and find yourself unable to pay your mortgage, remember how you treated those who had this done to them before it happened to you.
  - rockemsockem 3y ago
    You sound unhappy with your work. Most software engineers love using GPT-[X] in their work. Copilot is literally for programmers. There are tons of artists using AI tools in their work for the same reasons; it makes them more productive. If you take great joy in typing public class MyClassImpl implements MyClass then you are perfectly free to keep doing so.
rockemsockem 3y ago
Idk about allowing imitation, but acting like some artists aren't excited for this technology is painting with way too broad a brush. This dude was super excited that he worked an Eminem deepfake into his performance: https://youtu.be/40lOIZLUACU https://youtu.be/40lOIZLUACU

dvngnt_ 3y ago

yeah I doubt Drake would care as much since he has close to a billion vs a struggling artist. I could see Drake using it for demos/reference tracks though since he has ghost writers

999900000999 3y ago

As is you can buy a Benny the Butcher verse for like 300$. Of course it's the same verse his company is selling to everyone else. I'm sure eventually some artists will sell licenses to AI models of their voices. It's not a "real" feature since AI will never be an exact replica.

dangerwill 3y ago
Why would you think artists will be able to sell licenses at a sustainable level for their voices? The whole point of these generative AI models is to avoid paying for human labor so the industry will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so. We have already seen all of these projects actively avoid paying for their training data, either by just not caring about copywrite or by using only fully open source training data. If the RIAA takes openAI, et al to court and wins then we may see licenses for this, but given the pittance that spotify pays now for streams, we should expect any license revenue to be utterly minimal for all but the biggest artists.
- deltree7 3y ago
  There are lots of very talented struggling singers and musicians around the world who make $0 with their skills. They would be happy to get $1000 for signing away their amazing voice and music talent for a large corp who can spend $1 Billion collecting all kinds of voices. If Mega Corp hires someone who can imitate Elvis and if they use it in their training data, it is completely fair game
  - dangerwill 3y ago
    Yeah and why do you think that a Mega Corp would be willing to spend $1k per musician when they could offer $100? This hypothetical Mega Corp will surely prefer getting 10 million samples instead of 1 million samples for their $1 billion. In this situation they have all the leverage and we can't rely on their largesse And it is definitely better to have a super low chance of breaking through in the future and $0 in your pocket than to have no chance of breaking through ever and $1k in your pocket (gone in 1-2 months of rent). Especially considering for most of the really struggling artists, they won't get that deal at all and instead it will be $1k in the pocket of a studio musician.
    - deltree7 3y ago
      Once again, for every artist that rejects the $1000 sign-away-for-lifetime offer there are a 1000 who will accept. Also at the end of the day, every human needs to offer what is value to the society. So even though I'm an extremely good pen-twirler, if the society doesn't value that, I need to change bedsheets (which is more valuable) to make money. So, I'm not sure why you need to protect "great voice" over "great pen-twirling" skills
      - dangerwill 3y ago
        Except that having a great singing voice involves lots of practice and maintenance and people dedicate their lives to it, and until now society has valued that enough for it to be economically viable for some. And now this new tech comes along and threatens to undercut that skill for the sake of capturing a market. What happens when a large swath of previously valued skills (including software engineering) are significantly automated, not on the order of decades (like what happened with auto manufacturing) but on the order of a couple years? What happens when there are nowhere near enough jobs to employ the current population? I don't see a mass movement for a UBI to be paired with AI driven job losses, and the only alternative is finding new work for people or having people starve in the street. Our society is terrible at finding adequate replacement work for people who have been automated out of a career. We didn't find replacement work for the auto industry and the "technology always generates new work for people" line is a canard in the face of AI taking over knowledge work. If generative AI fulfills the current expectations for it, there will be no possible job for a human to do that an AI can't do better. We are sleepwalking into an economic, societal, and political catastrophe and all this forum gets excited about is how much faster and efficient (critically though, not better or more resilient) production systems can become. If society doesn't owe you a living because your skills now have the same value as "great pen twirling", what you are arguing for is mass death.

deltree7 3y ago

Techies has conquered human intelligence (at least the creative part of it) and they have the right to use it however they choose. It's as good as a right as an artist

dangerwill 3y ago
And this is why normal people hate the tech industry deep in their guts. All we do nowadays is immiserate people by replacing their jobs with shitty but cheap alternatives that reduce the amounts of human labor. When you have your own software job replaced by GPT-[X] and find yourself unable to pay your mortgage, remember how you treated those who had this done to them before it happened to you.
- rockemsockem 3y ago
  You sound unhappy with your work. Most software engineers love using GPT-[X] in their work. Copilot is literally for programmers. There are tons of artists using AI tools in their work for the same reasons; it makes them more productive. If you take great joy in typing public class MyClassImpl implements MyClass then you are perfectly free to keep doing so.

rockemsockem 3y ago

Idk about allowing imitation, but acting like some artists aren't excited for this technology is painting with way too broad a brush. This dude was super excited that he worked an Eminem deepfake into his performance: https://youtu.be/40lOIZLUACU https://youtu.be/40lOIZLUACU