5 ms·

If Veo3 was trained on YouTube, as most sources seem to suggest, wouldn’t it mean that Google just turned its “valued” YouTube creators (at least those who were

If Veo3 was trained on YouTube, as most sources seem to suggest, wouldn’t it mean that Google just turned its “valued” YouTube creators (at least those who were uploading non-adversarial video, which is most of them in all likelihood) into content producers for a tool designed to replace them? What about YouTube Music—is Google headed towards trillion-dollar lawsuits a la Suno and the like?

turtleyacht 1y ago
We could probably (now) trace a purely domain-agnostic path from "I need to understand subject-matter experts" to "It's just data for machine-learning." Seeing total video automation is incredible. It's the most compelling reason yet to avoid the infinite treadmill.
- strogonoff 1y ago
  Who will provide new data, once the incentives are eliminated?
  - turtleyacht 1y ago
    History is written by those who bother, as they say. Humans will always create. At the same time, they can also choose to deliver in a binary medium like a game or proprietary WASM container. Or even scans of their handwritings. Text is now zero cost; ideas may need to be carried along in frictive streams.
    - strogonoff 1y ago
      > Humans will always create. Citation needed. Humans have created for as long as they could benefit from their creativity (be it reputation, patronage, or capitalism when combined with IP laws). If that way is no more, I would not be so sure.
      - benwad 1y ago
        That's not the case at all. People all around are constantly making art just for the sake of it. Most of it won't ever even be seen by other people. Removing the financial incentive will definitely change the landscape (for the worse, imho) but creativity for its own sake is enough for most people.
        strogonoff 1y ago
        Again, citation needed. For as long as humanity existed, creating art always implied [the promise of] sharing it for either utilitarian reasons, or for enjoying the resulting reputation and recognition (we can go all evolutionary biologist about it and say reproduction, etc.), or for financial gain (more recently). Am I missing some point in human history where this was done without ever expecting any of that? Writing “for the drawer” is generally a thing that happens if one is not yet satisfied or not confident about the quality of own output, or if one is self-censoring, or if one is expecting someone to read it eventually (communication can happen over time and space). I don’t think this is worth in-depth look, as art that was not seen by others for all intents and purposes does not exist. (All art is communication; if you shouted into the void and made sure no one hears it, did it really take place?)
        turtleyacht 1y ago
        > missing > void Art as therapy, communicating with oneself. It's a specific case, though. Writing in a journal is another example. Interested in hearing your perspective on these.
        strogonoff 1y ago
        Interesting. I think writing a journal is a case where there may be an implicit expectation of somebody reading it later (to give a bad analogy, not unlike how a suicide attempt may often carry a desire to convey a point, even though it is often lethal); if there genuinely isn’t, it may be therapy but probably not art. Art is distinct from a random thing or a pretty picture by being an act of self-expression (no self-expression without the other). Generally, there is also an implied amount of effort and rarity of talent, as well as the position of the work within societal/cultural context (again, something that involves the other).

turtleyacht 1y ago

We could probably (now) trace a purely domain-agnostic path from "I need to understand subject-matter experts" to "It's just data for machine-learning." Seeing total video automation is incredible. It's the most compelling reason yet to avoid the infinite treadmill.

strogonoff 1y ago
Who will provide new data, once the incentives are eliminated?
- turtleyacht 1y ago
  History is written by those who bother, as they say. Humans will always create. At the same time, they can also choose to deliver in a binary medium like a game or proprietary WASM container. Or even scans of their handwritings. Text is now zero cost; ideas may need to be carried along in frictive streams.
  - strogonoff 1y ago
    > Humans will always create. Citation needed. Humans have created for as long as they could benefit from their creativity (be it reputation, patronage, or capitalism when combined with IP laws). If that way is no more, I would not be so sure.
    - benwad 1y ago
      That's not the case at all. People all around are constantly making art just for the sake of it. Most of it won't ever even be seen by other people. Removing the financial incentive will definitely change the landscape (for the worse, imho) but creativity for its own sake is enough for most people.
      - strogonoff 1y ago
        Again, citation needed. For as long as humanity existed, creating art always implied [the promise of] sharing it for either utilitarian reasons, or for enjoying the resulting reputation and recognition (we can go all evolutionary biologist about it and say reproduction, etc.), or for financial gain (more recently). Am I missing some point in human history where this was done without ever expecting any of that? Writing “for the drawer” is generally a thing that happens if one is not yet satisfied or not confident about the quality of own output, or if one is self-censoring, or if one is expecting someone to read it eventually (communication can happen over time and space). I don’t think this is worth in-depth look, as art that was not seen by others for all intents and purposes does not exist. (All art is communication; if you shouted into the void and made sure no one hears it, did it really take place?)
        turtleyacht 1y ago
        > missing > void Art as therapy, communicating with oneself. It's a specific case, though. Writing in a journal is another example. Interested in hearing your perspective on these.
        strogonoff 1y ago
        Interesting. I think writing a journal is a case where there may be an implicit expectation of somebody reading it later (to give a bad analogy, not unlike how a suicide attempt may often carry a desire to convey a point, even though it is often lethal); if there genuinely isn’t, it may be therapy but probably not art. Art is distinct from a random thing or a pretty picture by being an act of self-expression (no self-expression without the other). Generally, there is also an implied amount of effort and rarity of talent, as well as the position of the work within societal/cultural context (again, something that involves the other).