4 ms·

original melody, chords and lyrics never generated copyright infringement no matter what the composer listened to. The problem with the music industry is the i

by bsaul 4y ago

original melody, chords and lyrics never generated copyright infringement no matter what the composer listened to. The problem with the music industry is the industry part : it's been generating standardized, and easily mass produced music for the past 20 years. You can't expect the process to not be fully automated eventually ( i've already felt like some pop or rap song could have been for a long time). You can't expect it not to backfire at some point. And IMHO this is well deserved.

gumballindie 4y ago
No one says ai companies shouldn't automate what can be automated, but they need to pay for or not use licensed content. Be it art, software, books, anything. If we started stealing cars and selling their wheels we'd be pretty popular too. But we need to pay for what we sell.
- bsaul 4y ago
  An artist « uses » licensed content all the time, just to learn. If we start taxing the learning process (not the teacher, but the learning material itself), then we’re in trouble. And it’s going to be even worse with multimodal ai and robotics : imagine a robot walking in the streets, looking at cars, and ads, and people, then generate original content based on what it saw on the street (much like a human do). Who’s going to collect for all the licensed content it was exposed to ?
  - gumballindie 4y ago
    That's the idea - content used for training ais should be licensed. Also there is nothing intelligent about current ai, there is no learning involved, just software ingesting content, there's nothing original about what ai generates. It really shouldn't be compared to humans. Just because a laptop can emit sound it doesn't mean it can sing. Neither can a piece of software aimed at mimicking human brains think or learn.
    - bsaul 4y ago
      But then you'd make a distinction in the license based not on the usage (learning), but on the recipient. A human listening to a song and "learn" composition => fine. A machine doing the same => not fine. That's going to be totally impossible to apply. Imagine a sound processing software than "learned" mixing based on a collection of popular records, and provide you, the composer, with presets => wrong, copyright. Ok, now imagine an ai that learned how to configure a sound processing software based on records. It only outputs numbers and presets for the software. => wrong, copyright. Now, imagine an ai that learned those settings, by asking hundreds of human what they like in some kind of A/B testing. The humans will judge based on the songs they've heard in their lives, and the end-result (the settings) will basically be the same as in the previous example. But somehow, this will be fine. Honestly, i don't see how this can fly.

by bsaul 4y ago

gumballindie 4y ago

No one says ai companies shouldn't automate what can be automated, but they need to pay for or not use licensed content. Be it art, software, books, anything. If we started stealing cars and selling their wheels we'd be pretty popular too. But we need to pay for what we sell.

bsaul 4y ago
An artist « uses » licensed content all the time, just to learn. If we start taxing the learning process (not the teacher, but the learning material itself), then we’re in trouble. And it’s going to be even worse with multimodal ai and robotics : imagine a robot walking in the streets, looking at cars, and ads, and people, then generate original content based on what it saw on the street (much like a human do). Who’s going to collect for all the licensed content it was exposed to ?
- gumballindie 4y ago
  That's the idea - content used for training ais should be licensed. Also there is nothing intelligent about current ai, there is no learning involved, just software ingesting content, there's nothing original about what ai generates. It really shouldn't be compared to humans. Just because a laptop can emit sound it doesn't mean it can sing. Neither can a piece of software aimed at mimicking human brains think or learn.
  - bsaul 4y ago
    But then you'd make a distinction in the license based not on the usage (learning), but on the recipient. A human listening to a song and "learn" composition => fine. A machine doing the same => not fine. That's going to be totally impossible to apply. Imagine a sound processing software than "learned" mixing based on a collection of popular records, and provide you, the composer, with presets => wrong, copyright. Ok, now imagine an ai that learned how to configure a sound processing software based on records. It only outputs numbers and presets for the software. => wrong, copyright. Now, imagine an ai that learned those settings, by asking hundreds of human what they like in some kind of A/B testing. The humans will judge based on the songs they've heard in their lives, and the end-result (the settings) will basically be the same as in the previous example. But somehow, this will be fine. Honestly, i don't see how this can fly.