ĝis la revido kaj dankon pro ĉiuj fiŝoj!

  • 87 Posts
  • 72 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle



  • But is the Internet dying? The thing it doesn’t say is if the human participation is dwindling.

    To keep it simple, I’ll work with small numbers. Imagine there are 10 humans online. Now imagine 1 bot on online. Bots are 9% (1 in 11) of this imaginary online community. A year later, those same 10 humans are still online, but there are now 10 bots online; the bots are 50% of the community. This statistic can lead you to think there is less human participation when nothing happened to the humans. The difference is the raw number of bots. This is what I believe is happening, about the same number of humans, just an increasing number of bots, scraping, posting, etc.

    X/Twitter is dying because of mismanagement.
















  • If the autogenerated art becomes too close to copyrighted art, then you’ll have humans suing AI generators.

    George Harrison’s My Sweet Lord is very similar to He’s So Fine by the Chiffons. And that was an easy case. But some cases in requires deeper analysis, such as Lana Del Ray’s Get Free.

    In January 2018, singer Lana Del Rey claimed that Radiohead were suing her because of alleged similarities between their 1992 debut single Creep, and her song Get Free, from her 2017 album Lust for Life. The band’s publishers Warner/Chappell subsequently denied taking legal action, but did confirm requesting credit for “all writers” of Creep.

    The Guardian spoke to a professional composer to analyse the songs, who noted that the chords used are rare in pop music, and the melodies bear an uncanny resemblance, although in conclusion “imagined the similarities are unintentional”.

    https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20190605-nine-most-notorious-copyright-cases-in-music-history

    If AI is sampling, then how do you defend it being unintentional? While all Radiohead sought was credit on the writing (in this case), would humans (whose livelihood is being threatened) be so generous with an AI composition? And if the music industry is threatened by AI, they will lawyer up.




  • The fact that AI can produce this is impressive as to where we have come with AI. But can this actually threaten human artists?

    In the United States, a federal judge ruled in 2023 that AI artwork cannot meet federal copyright standards because “Copyright law is ‘limited to the original intellectual conceptions of the author’.” With no author, there is no copyright.

    ~~https://www.makeuseof.com/copyright-rules-ai-art/~~ See u/Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 's article below.

    “The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work,” the office said.

    Under current US law, that song is probably now in the public domain. If the law changes, that could mean that in the future, music charts potentially could be filled with AI songs. As it stands, this is most-likely a public domain music machine cranking out music that anyone can use royalty-free. It depends on the interpretation of the courts.