3 ms·

> Once the law takes effect on July 1, people will be prohibited from using AI to mimic an artist's voice without permission. Good on them, but we need to do m

> Once the law takes effect on July 1, people will be prohibited from using AI to mimic an artist's voice without permission. Good on them, but we need to do more: we need to prohibit the commercial sale of AI-generated art as well. What about combining 2-3 voices in a new voice? It should be prohbibited. And training on all human-made media needs to be banned also.

artninja1988 3y ago
...why?
- kurthr 3y ago
  I'll go a step further, how? Sure it makes sense for a music center like Nashville to do this, but for the entire rest of the world? You can't block them from the source material without destroying the entire industry. So you'll just move the generation elsewhere. To be fair humans have "sounding like" each other down to their vocal tics since time immemorial. You could label (secret key, ledger, hash) legitimate artist recordings and then just shame unmarked (illegitimate) ones. I'm not even sure you could get a national law to "protect the owner", but unless you get rid of the internet you're not going to enforce it effectively. All you can do is reduce its profitability.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Because AI will significantly damage society and we should be exceptionally cautious about it.
postexitus 3y ago
While I agree with sentiment - it's a slippery slope. At what point does "training" stop. Is sampling an instrument "training"? Is trying to mimick other artists/instruments via electronic means (i.e. Autotune) "training"? Pandora's box is open and there is no way of closing it - besides consumer preferences.
- BadHumans 3y ago
  You're being obtuse on purpose. Is sampling an instrument training an AI? No it's not. Is autotune AI? No it's not.
  - warkdarrior 3y ago
    Ha, ha, this is the perfect loophole. My not-AI music system will imitate your voice by sampling instruments in just the right order and with the right timing. It's only sampling instruments!
    - dorkwood 3y ago
      How did you get it to sample those instruments in just the right order and with the right timing?
      - postexitus 3y ago
        Exactly - how will the law define what the training is and what a carefully composed sequence of event is? You need legal definitions - cannot just say "oh yeah sampling is not training"; whereas it is training of a sample size 1.
        dorkwood 3y ago
        You're both missing my point, which is that the original poster's "not-Ai music system" would have still needed Ai at its core in order to replicate human voices with tiny instrument samples. How else would it know what the voices are supposed to sound like?
    - BadHumans 3y ago
      As long as you are willing to prove it in court. Sure.
rightbyte 3y ago
I'd rather abbolish copyright, patents and ip laws in general. Just keep trademarks. There is no patching of this broken system.
- 1shooner 3y ago
  Out of curiosity, is your livelihood not at least indirectly reliant on intellectual property?
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    Ye it would probably get ugly for me and my collegues. But we would all would be better off in the long term I think. But I dunno really. The IP or copyright in it self does not seem that important compared to like, "networking" of the sales people and trust in that shit gets done at B2B level. I mean people still pays for Office and Windows even though free as in freedom and beer alternatives exist. Book authors would be screwed. I admit that.
interestica 3y ago
If a new human artist emerges that sounds a lot like a previous AI artist, is the human prevented from producing music commercially?
- krapp 3y ago
  It seems unlikely that a law intended to prevent AI from impersonating existing human artists would prevent a human artist from doing anything other than using AI to impersonate another human artist. However other laws related to copyright infringement might still apply, given that in context, "sounding a lot like a previous AI artist" means "sounding indistinguishable from an existing human artist."
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  No, the AI should not be allowed to function except in extremely restricted circumstances and it should have no rights.
CamperBob2 3y ago
Exciting times ahead. It wouldn't be real art if people such as yourself weren't clutching your pearls over it. Go ahead -- make your rules, pass your laws, drive it underground. Throw the rabbit right smack-dab into the middle of that briar patch. (Yes, I know, don't feed the trolls...)
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Haha, if I had enough power to pass rules and make laws, AI would be destroyed already.
visarga 3y ago
> And training on all human-made media needs to be banned also. You're right. Companies would need to implement draconian "content attribution systems" to scan all creative works to ensure no training data was derived from copyrighted sources. This could result in a "chilling effect" where creators self-censor for fear of their original works being flagged as infringing simply due to incidental similarities. Because now we have to scan every human work, as it might have been generated with AI. It opens up the prospect of expensive litigation over subconscious inspiration or vague resemblances to prior works. Taken to the extreme, it could hamper creativity and innovation by making any new work legally risky to publish if AI analysis deems it too "similar" to something else.
krapp 3y ago
>And training on all human-made media needs to be banned also. I'm as anti-AI as anyone, and most AI generated content is laughably inferior to the real thing, gross and vapid and dehumanizing, but I feel like training on human-made media is fine so long as it's voluntary, the rights of the author or artist are respected, and they're compensated for their effort. Of course, that would mean retaining human employees and paying them as artists and designing the workflow of AI around making them more productive, instead of firing them all for prompt engineers or Turkers for pennies on the dollar, which would make AI less profitable than it could possibly be, which is why it will never happen.

artninja1988 3y ago

...why?

kurthr 3y ago
I'll go a step further, how? Sure it makes sense for a music center like Nashville to do this, but for the entire rest of the world? You can't block them from the source material without destroying the entire industry. So you'll just move the generation elsewhere. To be fair humans have "sounding like" each other down to their vocal tics since time immemorial. You could label (secret key, ledger, hash) legitimate artist recordings and then just shame unmarked (illegitimate) ones. I'm not even sure you could get a national law to "protect the owner", but unless you get rid of the internet you're not going to enforce it effectively. All you can do is reduce its profitability.
vouaobrasil 3y ago
Because AI will significantly damage society and we should be exceptionally cautious about it.

postexitus 3y ago

While I agree with sentiment - it's a slippery slope. At what point does "training" stop. Is sampling an instrument "training"? Is trying to mimick other artists/instruments via electronic means (i.e. Autotune) "training"? Pandora's box is open and there is no way of closing it - besides consumer preferences.

BadHumans 3y ago
You're being obtuse on purpose. Is sampling an instrument training an AI? No it's not. Is autotune AI? No it's not.
- warkdarrior 3y ago
  Ha, ha, this is the perfect loophole. My not-AI music system will imitate your voice by sampling instruments in just the right order and with the right timing. It's only sampling instruments!
  - dorkwood 3y ago
    How did you get it to sample those instruments in just the right order and with the right timing?
    - postexitus 3y ago
      Exactly - how will the law define what the training is and what a carefully composed sequence of event is? You need legal definitions - cannot just say "oh yeah sampling is not training"; whereas it is training of a sample size 1.
      - dorkwood 3y ago
        You're both missing my point, which is that the original poster's "not-Ai music system" would have still needed Ai at its core in order to replicate human voices with tiny instrument samples. How else would it know what the voices are supposed to sound like?
  - BadHumans 3y ago
    As long as you are willing to prove it in court. Sure.

rightbyte 3y ago

I'd rather abbolish copyright, patents and ip laws in general. Just keep trademarks. There is no patching of this broken system.

1shooner 3y ago
Out of curiosity, is your livelihood not at least indirectly reliant on intellectual property?
- rightbyte 3y ago
  Ye it would probably get ugly for me and my collegues. But we would all would be better off in the long term I think. But I dunno really. The IP or copyright in it self does not seem that important compared to like, "networking" of the sales people and trust in that shit gets done at B2B level. I mean people still pays for Office and Windows even though free as in freedom and beer alternatives exist. Book authors would be screwed. I admit that.

interestica 3y ago

If a new human artist emerges that sounds a lot like a previous AI artist, is the human prevented from producing music commercially?

krapp 3y ago
It seems unlikely that a law intended to prevent AI from impersonating existing human artists would prevent a human artist from doing anything other than using AI to impersonate another human artist. However other laws related to copyright infringement might still apply, given that in context, "sounding a lot like a previous AI artist" means "sounding indistinguishable from an existing human artist."
vouaobrasil 3y ago
No, the AI should not be allowed to function except in extremely restricted circumstances and it should have no rights.

CamperBob2 3y ago

Exciting times ahead. It wouldn't be real art if people such as yourself weren't clutching your pearls over it. Go ahead -- make your rules, pass your laws, drive it underground. Throw the rabbit right smack-dab into the middle of that briar patch. (Yes, I know, don't feed the trolls...)

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Haha, if I had enough power to pass rules and make laws, AI would be destroyed already.

visarga 3y ago

> And training on all human-made media needs to be banned also. You're right. Companies would need to implement draconian "content attribution systems" to scan all creative works to ensure no training data was derived from copyrighted sources. This could result in a "chilling effect" where creators self-censor for fear of their original works being flagged as infringing simply due to incidental similarities. Because now we have to scan every human work, as it might have been generated with AI. It opens up the prospect of expensive litigation over subconscious inspiration or vague resemblances to prior works. Taken to the extreme, it could hamper creativity and innovation by making any new work legally risky to publish if AI analysis deems it too "similar" to something else.

krapp 3y ago

>And training on all human-made media needs to be banned also. I'm as anti-AI as anyone, and most AI generated content is laughably inferior to the real thing, gross and vapid and dehumanizing, but I feel like training on human-made media is fine so long as it's voluntary, the rights of the author or artist are respected, and they're compensated for their effort. Of course, that would mean retaining human employees and paying them as artists and designing the workflow of AI around making them more productive, instead of firing them all for prompt engineers or Turkers for pennies on the dollar, which would make AI less profitable than it could possibly be, which is why it will never happen.