4 ms·

I am a human. i can listen to music, look at videos, movies, read books etc etc... If I were a musician, I could pull upon my life's experience of music to cr

by realo 1y ago

I am a human. i can listen to music, look at videos, movies, read books etc etc... If I were a musician, I could pull upon my life's experience of music to create new, unheard before, music in any style I chose. My music would belong to me because I created it. How is it different for an "innocent" AI who does exactly the same thing?

alganet 1y ago
AI is not human. It doesn't have feelings, children, pupils, family, goals, ideals. It's very different.
- realo 1y ago
  Oh? Then please bear with me and extend the comparison just a tiny bit. Replace the AI with an advanced species from Mars. Or even better yet an augmented human ... a trans-human if you will. Both the martian have kids, families, feelings, etc... AND both can absorb the entire internet in , say , a week or two. They are musicians and create new music from their internet experience. Does their music belong to them? Do they have to pay rights to all the authors they listened to so far on the internet? And finally ... what is the difference between my martian and a human today?
  - awkwardpotato 1y ago
    What a wild false equivalency... This article isn't even a discussion on AI copyright ownership. It's about training. What if an evil robot race came along and begin draining your Martians of all their history, expressions, and entertainment. Would the Martians not be within their rights to go "hey, don't do that"? Parent edited rather than responded: Your "martians" already did pay for the rights to access the music (streaming services, cds, etc)! And if it's highly derivative they'll continue to have to pay (royalties). OpenAI/Meta/Anthropic did not pay, that's the inherent issue. They took when they should not have had the right to access, and trained against it. The question is not the difference between your mythical Martians and humans, its difference between your Martians and AI. Your martians, like humans, have lived experience. They have emotions, fears, beliefs. They have family, children, loved ones. This all affects how they would express themselves. An "AI" has none of this.
  - alganet 1y ago
    You only made my argument better, thanks.
- TiredOfLife 1y ago
  I don't have like half of the listed things. That means I am not human?
  - alganet 1y ago
    You can understand those things, even if you don't have them. Anyone that sees you can understand that you are human and capable of sharing those experiences.
sceptic123 1y ago
It's different because you haven't been given free access to all of the music/videos/movies/books in the world to learn from. AI also doesn't have life experience to pull from. Who does the music that AI creates belong to?
awkwardpotato 1y ago
A musician doesn't just pull from their life's experience "of music" to create music. They pull from their entire lived experience, their emotions, the experiences and emotions of their community and world. An "innocent" AI cannot and does not have any of that. To say all a musician does to create new music is "listen to [existing] music" is reductive and ignores the inherently human expression that is music.
herbturbo 1y ago
Because you what you listened to was actively offered to you by its creator, and you paid for it, or you were supposed to. You would also only hear the songs you had discovered or had been introduced to, at the speed they were meant to be listened to. The music would also often be part of a scene that might include different underlying philosophies or associated fashion. Your new music would be the outcome of all of those individual musical experiences, coupled with your creative and technical ability. None of that is true for AI. It has just harvested everything without anyone’s permission and now makes artless slop from it for anyone who wants it 24/7.
mihaic 1y ago
The question itself is wrong, since it personifies the AI, when in practice there's always a human entering prompts, and at the same time ignoring the consequences of the generated material on the ecosystem from which it was generated. Or, consider an analogy: how would you feel if some machine could use DNA from strands of hair to clone entire humans? Wouldn't it feel wrong?
- realo 1y ago
  Oh yes. Very wrong. But how are we going to have the trans-humans required to be able to keep humanity's existence after AGI takes control of the world! Don't take this too seriously... ;)
qwery 1y ago
Your entire line of questioning is disconnected from reality. How could you possibly think that the machine can do that? I'm sorry that that sounds so severe, but it's the best way I could describe it. Creation doesn't work that way. Music(ian) doesn't work that way. Your innocent AI lifeform doesn't exist. The technology does not experience in any way, let alone like a human does. When you read the bitstream of an mp3 does it sound like the song you hear if you play it in Winamp?

by realo 1y ago

alganet 1y ago

AI is not human. It doesn't have feelings, children, pupils, family, goals, ideals. It's very different.

realo 1y ago
Oh? Then please bear with me and extend the comparison just a tiny bit. Replace the AI with an advanced species from Mars. Or even better yet an augmented human ... a trans-human if you will. Both the martian have kids, families, feelings, etc... AND both can absorb the entire internet in , say , a week or two. They are musicians and create new music from their internet experience. Does their music belong to them? Do they have to pay rights to all the authors they listened to so far on the internet? And finally ... what is the difference between my martian and a human today?
- awkwardpotato 1y ago
  What a wild false equivalency... This article isn't even a discussion on AI copyright ownership. It's about training. What if an evil robot race came along and begin draining your Martians of all their history, expressions, and entertainment. Would the Martians not be within their rights to go "hey, don't do that"? Parent edited rather than responded: Your "martians" already did pay for the rights to access the music (streaming services, cds, etc)! And if it's highly derivative they'll continue to have to pay (royalties). OpenAI/Meta/Anthropic did not pay, that's the inherent issue. They took when they should not have had the right to access, and trained against it. The question is not the difference between your mythical Martians and humans, its difference between your Martians and AI. Your martians, like humans, have lived experience. They have emotions, fears, beliefs. They have family, children, loved ones. This all affects how they would express themselves. An "AI" has none of this.
- alganet 1y ago
  You only made my argument better, thanks.
TiredOfLife 1y ago
I don't have like half of the listed things. That means I am not human?
- alganet 1y ago
  You can understand those things, even if you don't have them. Anyone that sees you can understand that you are human and capable of sharing those experiences.

sceptic123 1y ago

It's different because you haven't been given free access to all of the music/videos/movies/books in the world to learn from. AI also doesn't have life experience to pull from. Who does the music that AI creates belong to?

awkwardpotato 1y ago

A musician doesn't just pull from their life's experience "of music" to create music. They pull from their entire lived experience, their emotions, the experiences and emotions of their community and world. An "innocent" AI cannot and does not have any of that. To say all a musician does to create new music is "listen to [existing] music" is reductive and ignores the inherently human expression that is music.

herbturbo 1y ago

Because you what you listened to was actively offered to you by its creator, and you paid for it, or you were supposed to. You would also only hear the songs you had discovered or had been introduced to, at the speed they were meant to be listened to. The music would also often be part of a scene that might include different underlying philosophies or associated fashion. Your new music would be the outcome of all of those individual musical experiences, coupled with your creative and technical ability. None of that is true for AI. It has just harvested everything without anyone’s permission and now makes artless slop from it for anyone who wants it 24/7.

mihaic 1y ago

The question itself is wrong, since it personifies the AI, when in practice there's always a human entering prompts, and at the same time ignoring the consequences of the generated material on the ecosystem from which it was generated. Or, consider an analogy: how would you feel if some machine could use DNA from strands of hair to clone entire humans? Wouldn't it feel wrong?

realo 1y ago
Oh yes. Very wrong. But how are we going to have the trans-humans required to be able to keep humanity's existence after AGI takes control of the world! Don't take this too seriously... ;)

qwery 1y ago

Your entire line of questioning is disconnected from reality. How could you possibly think that the machine can do that? I'm sorry that that sounds so severe, but it's the best way I could describe it. Creation doesn't work that way. Music(ian) doesn't work that way. Your innocent AI lifeform doesn't exist. The technology does not experience in any way, let alone like a human does. When you read the bitstream of an mp3 does it sound like the song you hear if you play it in Winamp?