3 ms·

Is it ok for four boys to train themselves on Led Zeppelin music and call themselves Greta Van Fleet, but not ok to train a computer on Led Zeppelin music and c

Is it ok for four boys to train themselves on Led Zeppelin music and call themselves Greta Van Fleet, but not ok to train a computer on Led Zeppelin music and call it AI generated music that sounds like Led Zeppelin?

ulbu 2y ago
if it’s ok to train dogs to be slavishly obedient, is it ok to do the same to humans? ai is a different form of instrumentality to humans, so of course considerations are different. it’s an honor to have a person learn your song. having an ai learn on your song with the intent to make produce is not unlike being dairy farmed.
- djursingdev 2y ago
  Very well put. It’s too easy to make a “because A can do such and such, then B should also be able to do it” argument.
  - hn_acker 2y ago
    The original thread author's metaphor was mistaken. The generalized metaphor should be: If a person who learns X can imitate X, then can a person using a tool trained to imitate X [or more realistically, average(X,Y,Z)] use the tool to imitate X?
anon373839 2y ago
This is a fine question to ask, but it's far from dispositive. Even if human minds were, functionally, no different from computers (a philosophical question), there would still remain the question: should the law treat humans differently than it treats machines? And many other questions, I'm sure.
- stubish 2y ago
  Its more my summary of the case. I'm not sure if this needs to devolve into machine rights though. If you treat the computer just like a tool, then it comes down to is it ok to mimic an artist using raw talent, but not using technology like samplers or vocal modulation? Does intent matter? It would suck if naturally sounding like Robert Plant was not a blessing but a curse. Personally, I think the law is going to decide that you can't make the tool by feeding it copyrighted material without permission. And maybe go further by requiring permission of the performers (who may not be the copyright holders, say in the other high profile case of mimicking Hollywood actors, or just public domain material or bootleg recordings). Not sure what will happen to ownership of material generated by such a tool though. Or if you can make these tools in the privacy of your own home. I think the law already treats humans different to some machines, such as photocopiers or VHS recorders.

ulbu 2y ago

if it’s ok to train dogs to be slavishly obedient, is it ok to do the same to humans? ai is a different form of instrumentality to humans, so of course considerations are different. it’s an honor to have a person learn your song. having an ai learn on your song with the intent to make produce is not unlike being dairy farmed.

djursingdev 2y ago
Very well put. It’s too easy to make a “because A can do such and such, then B should also be able to do it” argument.
- hn_acker 2y ago
  The original thread author's metaphor was mistaken. The generalized metaphor should be: If a person who learns X can imitate X, then can a person using a tool trained to imitate X [or more realistically, average(X,Y,Z)] use the tool to imitate X?

anon373839 2y ago

This is a fine question to ask, but it's far from dispositive. Even if human minds were, functionally, no different from computers (a philosophical question), there would still remain the question: should the law treat humans differently than it treats machines? And many other questions, I'm sure.

stubish 2y ago
Its more my summary of the case. I'm not sure if this needs to devolve into machine rights though. If you treat the computer just like a tool, then it comes down to is it ok to mimic an artist using raw talent, but not using technology like samplers or vocal modulation? Does intent matter? It would suck if naturally sounding like Robert Plant was not a blessing but a curse. Personally, I think the law is going to decide that you can't make the tool by feeding it copyrighted material without permission. And maybe go further by requiring permission of the performers (who may not be the copyright holders, say in the other high profile case of mimicking Hollywood actors, or just public domain material or bootleg recordings). Not sure what will happen to ownership of material generated by such a tool though. Or if you can make these tools in the privacy of your own home. I think the law already treats humans different to some machines, such as photocopiers or VHS recorders.