Think about all the other industries that use AI. This case holds precedent on all other industries using AI. No way this case will have an outcome. There are billions of dollars lobbying that AI keeps on chugging.
More than anything, it just makes you really wonder where this all truly ends? Record labels have taken advantage of artists for so long with music that the artists themselves have written, so the irony can't be lost that they're now upset with music being "taken" from them too with these AI programs. Just look at the musicians re-recording entire albums so that they have the rights to finally re-release it and profit appropriately. Having said all of that, I am also not a fan of the implications of AI music, and its use in media. It can never recreate the best part about music, and that's the human aspect of it.
@@Yellow_Rebel The concept of a truly unique melody in music is very emphemeral and difficult to describe. Some songs seem to have that criteria of "uniqueness", yet it is often possible there is another song independently discovered or based on some kind of 500 year old folk melody. Then you add in the complexities of music business v. Music as an artform...and you get some odd forms of legality or illegality. I fully appreciate the copyright functions regarding strings of phrases and words when combined with music (ie: lyrics and a complete song). As for how, when or If Ai should be trained on the data that exists within music is a difficult topic, both ethically and from a pragmatic business centric modality. (If you buy a dataset of 10000 songs for 1000 dollars...then that is ok? Well then my assumption is maybe true that our world is trending towards data collection and brokering economies...and I am unsure if that is a good idea.)
I'm using these AI tools as a writer to get my lyrics into a great enough sounding demo. It also gives me an opportunity hear them "sung" cheaply, quickly, and tweek words and phrases.
also if it's just used for trying out various chord progressions, drum, bass patterns etc that can be rerecord at a higher sound quality if necessary ... really an amazing tool .... i put in one my own songs and really liked what Suno came up with ... maybe even a little jealous lol
This is also my perspective. If you use the AI as a tool to further increase your own original content it is fine. It is no different than using auto tune which has been accepted for almost 40 years.
They just need to figure out how to train only on "creative commons" Everyone's who wants to create music will benefit in terms of production tools. This new paradigm shifts the artists value into to the concept production and creativity. Simply removes the practical production hurdles
Big music majors such as Sony and Warner are suing generative music AI companies Suno and Udio for copyright infringement... is it over for these companies and this technology? HOW ABSURD BUT ALSO HOW TOTALLY NAIVE THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING WILL CHANGE! 😂🤣 The majors (but also the major artists) just want to join the AI money party and get a share of the related revenues-if not even (if they succeed) make this technology their own to exploit it even more widely. They will simply find a profitable economic arrangement. For as long as the world has existed, dog doesn't eat dog. 👍 The proof is that they have initiated these lawsuits only now that they see that this technology works and is also catching on commercially at the production level, whereas they could have prevented the development of this technology in the field of music from the very beginning with much more numerous and stronger lawsuits, organizing class actions everywhere and campaigning to denigrate these technologies to create a negative opinion movement among consumers, thus polarizing the opinion of the bovine people to their advantage. For us, on a practical and consumer level, nothing will change, in fact, ACTUALLY IT WILL BE WAY WORSE, how much do you want to bet? What kind of world do you live in, maybe in the world of Mini Ponies!?!! 😂
I think mostly it's not derivative work. They should only have to pay if something on their platform is very similar to an already existing piece. Also I'm listening to Suno music a lot, it sounds mostly good enough. But it depends quite much on the genre. Metal and synthetic pop work well. I also don't need realistic voices.
Appreciate your balanced view on this! As a Sync producer (and someone who’s been referenced in the Udio lawsuit) I do have a bias towards favoriting requiring consent for AI training. But I do try to fight my own bias as best as I can. Certainly interesting times and a necessary next step to get some clarity on these issues. 🙏
I really wish people would view the training of AI on music as an oddity and stepping stone that will lead towards Artificial General Intelligence. Once it is good enough to be better than people are...it is sort of a waste of computation cycles to use the end results for "just press play" loops. This is an odd issue tho, because tbh: the music industry in terms of digital IP is fucking ridiculous.
If you are not making catchy tunes in udio (not quality, they got a serious compression issue) it is entirely because you are not importing demo tracks and lyrics. I barely even use prompts. I make a quick demo with guitar and vocals, input and create clips till it all sounds cohesive. Not gonna lie I have made songs that are on par with my favorite bands and artists. I also do not know the genres yall are doing but I am doing "Midwest Emo, Pop Punk, Post-hardcore" as my genre prompts and the style of the demos I am making and holy shit I have made some bangers. Knuckle puck, La Dispute, Modern Baseball.. The songs I made with Udio sound exactly in the vain of these bands.
Remember when record companies essentially paid slave wages to artists while making millions off of them? Pretty difficult to forget since it's literally still happening, and artists are having to fight, tooth & nail, to retain rights to their own music. But now, the poor widdle record companies aren't getting enough blood from the stones, so they want a scapegoat? This is me not caring. It would be a different thing if artists were the ones suing, here...but that's not what's happening. I have maintained for years that AI companies, regardless of medium, should be held accountable for how their AI models are trained. It needs to be addressed, there needs to be legislation surrounding it, etc. But this isn't going to do anything but make rich dudes who don't care about the craft even richer.
Oh please god, do not task your old people in government to write new AI laws. They legit do not understand it, the laws will be written by special interest groups and everything will just become more stupid.
there is no legislation on how humans are trained. I do not think AI Learning is the issue its how it is executed and the safeguards in place to prevent bad actors.
The training data really isn't the reason people are angry. People are angry because they can't compete. If the AI was trained without any material at all, people would still be angry that it exists and would search for other excuses to complain about it. Remember, back when AI art was just badly rendered, psychedelic images, no one cared about training data, they only started "caring" once it became a threat.
@@snark567 I think the issue is generally related to the issues regarding ownership of intellectual property. AI that is trained on data that is "freely" given to mega corporations by individuals via data collection and clever Terms of Service legalese is one thing. Scraping all information on the internet and not paying people something, in some way for intellectual property they have created... is a bit different. And it is even weirder when it is an AI entity controlled by corporations; and not a human individual just copying/covering/stealing a song they hear on the "radio".
Ive said it on countless videos and will say it again, Every artist you know took inspiration from other artists, AI learning from copywritten material is exactly the same as every human artist does. Creating a rip off is done by the end user not the software. The problem has nothing to do with AI Learning it has to do with safeguards to prevent humans from miss using the technology. Udio is at the end of the day very similar to Auto tune in the sense that its another tool in a producer/engineers toolbox to increase the overall quality of their song. Which is why there should be things in place to prevent the average joe from typing a couple prompts and making a rip off of another song, getting financially successful from it, and building off the shoulders of other artists.
none of my ai contributed stuff has triggered content ID or copyright notices on streaming services so I do think that the use is more transformative rather than derivative. I don't think there is any intention to make deriviatives of other works like they block the artist names I think the issue is some tags may be heavier weighted to specific audio. I think they should just have these services run their outputs through content ID type safety check and be done with it as I was already getting a lot of no production responses to prompts which seemed to indicate there were filters limiting outputs. I totally don't think any flagrant violations occured, and that if they havn't sued for any single songs, where is the evidence of case law that these platforms are indeed infringing? Transformative use is generally fair use. I agree though the quality is still not A list, but a lot of signed artists make stuff that isn't good also. A lot of stars only have one hit per albums and they buy other peoples music to use.
THIS IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT: Before AI, there was tons of electronic music equipment and software programmed to emulate existing music, like the intro to Van Halen's "Jump." A single button press, and the sound is copied exactly. There is no difference between that kind of electronic soundscape and the one created with other technology. The only difference is the technology itself. The plaintiff must be able to argue that the level of inspiration differs technically, which is not possible given that technology, by its nature, cannot be inspired. Here, the plaintiff faces a massive challenge.
They can shut the gate but the horse already bolted. There's mullions of generated songs now. Killing the software wont put the toothpaste back in the tube.
In a way they are being effective now. No new updates or upgrades from Udio or Suno since the lawsuit. I wonder if Eleven labs will stop with their creation of AI music generator because of the lawsuit.
Firstly to start with if you allow so-called AI to put together something by itself it will always sound cheesy or something like you've already heard before. To make it more meaningful and have more feeling a certain degree of human input will always be required such as editing and arranging the musical compositions. But secretly I think the record companies will eventually try to broker deal with Suno and Udio whereby they can create their own new artist cheaply by using prompters to create the music, voice, and lyrics for these ghost artist, and just use normal unknown people to pretend the sing these songs!
Suno can run on a Nvidia 4090 GPU stand-alone...and whit upload functionality than can be done in privat. I have made 1000 of song whit suno 3.5. Whit stemseepperation... now i hawe new music for decade's...
And then you have artists having successful copywrite claims on other artist's songs on what are loose interpellations. So the record companies have that in their favor when it comes to AI generated songs.
I don't understand exactly the thought process behind "AI will put composers/songwriters out of a job" Its the musicians that will lose their job. Us producers and engineers now are able to get a session musician to record a section without paying. Ya it sucks for them but from the composer perspective this seems like nothing but a positive. I mean unless you don't have the chops to understand the AI prompting to create exactly what you are looking for.
Live shows are currently very profitable anyways. This is just another last gasp of the recording industry trying to hold dominance over our ears. They spend 20k to record a track that uses the same 4 chords over and over; and then they spend 2 million dollars in marketing? Lame. I just don't care anymore tbh.
The record labels will lose then make their own AI software and their artists will get royalties off of every output generated using their voices or instrumentals. The end
I felt that drayk bot last year straight up sampled/ripped off music I haven't heard any music from suno/udio that sounds fully plagiarized although the comedy promts from udio could be considered ripped off
If a human has the right to listen to and learn from music, why shouldn't a computer? Whether a particular human/computer has access to particular content/music in the first place, e.g. due to licensing restrictions ("you can't listen to this song unless you pay a dollar for it first") is a separate, solved matter in my book. What's unsolved is the matter of how to determine whether someone is accessing/listening to content/music under a permitted license in the first place. But as far as I can see, that problem is unsolvable. An LLM doesn't contain data directly taken from the song. Yes, it contains derivative data in the form of generalised concepts/weights, but so does the neural network in my brain. What's the difference?
I REALLY hope SUNO/UDIO win ... AI is a tool... Consumer will still want human made music and AI now... Let them co exist... Without any changes... Who cares ... 😊
We ancients have been around long enough to know these tools are a boon to humanity. The record companies know it too, and they want to keep the current power structures in place.
To play devils advocate, how did any of us(humans in general) learn how to make music and how do we decide what to write? We leanered to play and take influences from previous artists. As for AI, think of it as a newborn child. You tell it to write a song and it does not know what music is, you'll just get noise. Same goes for art, what do kids do when you give them a piece of paper and crayons, they give you back a mess. As they grow older and get exposed to what art/music actually is, and start taking influence from that, then they would be ready to start creating their own stuff. When it comes to stealing jobs it's a different story because AI can pump out new stuff en masse.
Its still kinda personifying what are essentially statistics on steroids and arent truly sentient beings. Currently we reason and extrapolate while these models only retrieve and interpolate from within their dataset. It is a slippery slope thinking our rights as humans are predicated on it.
Thinking of AI as a child/human is pretty horrific, it's bad enough Corpos get treated like humans, it'll become just another weapon for the oligopoly to control us if we allow it.
@@eternal5024 lol. Then I pushed buttons for hours on one song. That's creating. I have 100 published songs I perform on real instruments. I can dam well use any sound generator I choose. Just make music. I also use samples. What's the difference? AI , stems?
Issues like these are going to be prevalent and consequential in the following years. My opinion is that training AI on data is not copyright infringement IF one purchased the consumer product somehow. If your ears can hear the sound, then perhaps the code you write should be allowed to hear the sound. (1A sourced arg?) As for how people who add very little to society want to fight over their ill gotten gains...that is none of my business. I just hope they do not create dysfunctional legal precedents in their pursuit of perpetual profits. I think using AI for music or scamcoins is a waste of computation cycles anyways. Task it to fold proteins or predict the weather or something. Create a universal translator. Idk.
Artists still don't understand that AI isn't copying or mixing other artists' work. Look at how AI beat the best human at Go - a game so complex it's impossible to compute all possible outcomes. It won with moves humanity had never seen before. This is just the beginning. It started with games, but soon AI will surpass human creativity in all areas. Anyone who thinks this will stop is being silly. The future is here, and it's AI.
Every artist the makes music is derivative of all the music they have listened to in their lifetime. Are they going to pay for being influenced by that music. Don’t tell me that an artist who wants a blues sound does not listen to the blues for inspiration. I am tired of the whining. Do you care if the products you buy are cheaper because of ai at the expense of many workers.
Technically, you could just train AI on free music, then user influence it. That would actually be an interesting endeavor imo. Sort of like the old school electric sheep iterative algos with an anarchy and chaos based voting/weighting mechanism. I really don't care tho tbh. In regards to what AI is capable of....I think stuff like this is a waste of time and computation cycles. This is a sideshow, yet I am rationally fearful of what the legal precedents of these issues may lead towards regarding rational and meaningful AI use. If I could create an AI that unifies physics(relativity/quantum)....will I be shut down while training my AI...because I cannot buy 45 million dollars worth of words? If so, then whatever. Maybe the dark ages 2.0 will be fun for some.
The thing that worries me is if the labels win this and set a precedent then how is Paul McCartney not entitled to royalties form ELO and Oasis? Etc.
Think about all the other industries that use AI. This case holds precedent on all other industries using AI. No way this case will have an outcome. There are billions of dollars lobbying that AI keeps on chugging.
More than anything, it just makes you really wonder where this all truly ends? Record labels have taken advantage of artists for so long with music that the artists themselves have written, so the irony can't be lost that they're now upset with music being "taken" from them too with these AI programs. Just look at the musicians re-recording entire albums so that they have the rights to finally re-release it and profit appropriately.
Having said all of that, I am also not a fan of the implications of AI music, and its use in media. It can never recreate the best part about music, and that's the human aspect of it.
I am surprised they have not copyrighted 440hz on a piano....
They would if they could lol.
I truly believe that's what this is all about. Artists not having the freedom to create their own.
AI is great for anyone that is a writer or singer
@@Yellow_Rebel The concept of a truly unique melody in music is very emphemeral and difficult to describe. Some songs seem to have that criteria of "uniqueness", yet it is often possible there is another song independently discovered or based on some kind of 500 year old folk melody.
Then you add in the complexities of music business v. Music as an artform...and you get some odd forms of legality or illegality.
I fully appreciate the copyright functions regarding strings of phrases and words when combined with music (ie: lyrics and a complete song).
As for how, when or If Ai should be trained on the data that exists within music is a difficult topic, both ethically and from a pragmatic business centric modality. (If you buy a dataset of 10000 songs for 1000 dollars...then that is ok? Well then my assumption is maybe true that our world is trending towards data collection and brokering economies...and I am unsure if that is a good idea.)
I can show you AI songs I have made that you would never guess was made by AI its scary
Decided to give Suno a try for 1 day. Ended up with several bangers that I listen to on my phone on my way to work.
I'm using these AI tools as a writer to get my lyrics into a great enough sounding demo. It also gives me an opportunity hear them "sung" cheaply, quickly, and tweek words and phrases.
also if it's just used for trying out various chord progressions, drum, bass patterns etc that can be rerecord at a higher sound quality if necessary ... really an amazing tool .... i put in one my own songs and really liked what Suno came up with ... maybe even a little jealous lol
Sell shoes or get a job pouring concrete then.
Exactly!
This is also my perspective. If you use the AI as a tool to further increase your own original content it is fine. It is no different than using auto tune which has been accepted for almost 40 years.
Me too
They just need to figure out how to train only on "creative commons"
Everyone's who wants to create music will benefit in terms of production tools.
This new paradigm shifts the artists value into to the concept production and creativity.
Simply removes the practical production hurdles
Big music majors such as Sony and Warner are suing generative music AI companies Suno and Udio for copyright infringement... is it over for these companies and this technology?
HOW ABSURD BUT ALSO HOW TOTALLY NAIVE THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING WILL CHANGE! 😂🤣
The majors (but also the major artists) just want to join the AI money party and get a share of the related revenues-if not even (if they succeed) make this technology their own to exploit it even more widely. They will simply find a profitable economic arrangement.
For as long as the world has existed, dog doesn't eat dog. 👍
The proof is that they have initiated these lawsuits only now that they see that this technology works and is also catching on commercially at the production level, whereas they could have prevented the development of this technology in the field of music from the very beginning with much more numerous and stronger lawsuits, organizing class actions everywhere and campaigning to denigrate these technologies to create a negative opinion movement among consumers, thus polarizing the opinion of the bovine people to their advantage.
For us, on a practical and consumer level, nothing will change, in fact, ACTUALLY IT WILL BE WAY WORSE, how much do you want to bet?
What kind of world do you live in, maybe in the world of Mini Ponies!?!! 😂
100% agree. UMG literally just signed a deal with an AI voice company. The majors will use AI to replace their artists.
it's so dumb... because its the same logic as someone learning to play songs listening to other music ?
Thxx for your insights. Truly exciting and also worrying times ! Same goes for my branch (webdesign)
I think mostly it's not derivative work. They should only have to pay if something on their platform is very similar to an already existing piece.
Also I'm listening to Suno music a lot, it sounds mostly good enough. But it depends quite much on the genre. Metal and synthetic pop work well. I also don't need realistic voices.
Appreciate your balanced view on this! As a Sync producer (and someone who’s been referenced in the Udio lawsuit) I do have a bias towards favoriting requiring consent for AI training. But I do try to fight my own bias as best as I can. Certainly interesting times and a necessary next step to get some clarity on these issues. 🙏
I really wish people would view the training of AI on music as an oddity and stepping stone that will lead towards Artificial General Intelligence.
Once it is good enough to be better than people are...it is sort of a waste of computation cycles to use the end results for "just press play" loops.
This is an odd issue tho, because tbh: the music industry in terms of digital IP is fucking ridiculous.
If you are not making catchy tunes in udio (not quality, they got a serious compression issue) it is entirely because you are not importing demo tracks and lyrics. I barely even use prompts. I make a quick demo with guitar and vocals, input and create clips till it all sounds cohesive. Not gonna lie I have made songs that are on par with my favorite bands and artists. I also do not know the genres yall are doing but I am doing "Midwest Emo, Pop Punk, Post-hardcore" as my genre prompts and the style of the demos I am making and holy shit I have made some bangers. Knuckle puck, La Dispute, Modern Baseball.. The songs I made with Udio sound exactly in the vain of these bands.
Remember when record companies essentially paid slave wages to artists while making millions off of them?
Pretty difficult to forget since it's literally still happening, and artists are having to fight, tooth & nail, to retain rights to their own music.
But now, the poor widdle record companies aren't getting enough blood from the stones, so they want a scapegoat?
This is me not caring.
It would be a different thing if artists were the ones suing, here...but that's not what's happening.
I have maintained for years that AI companies, regardless of medium, should be held accountable for how their AI models are trained.
It needs to be addressed, there needs to be legislation surrounding it, etc.
But this isn't going to do anything but make rich dudes who don't care about the craft even richer.
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
Oh please god, do not task your old people in government to write new AI laws. They legit do not understand it, the laws will be written by special interest groups and everything will just become more stupid.
there is no legislation on how humans are trained. I do not think AI Learning is the issue its how it is executed and the safeguards in place to prevent bad actors.
The training data really isn't the reason people are angry. People are angry because they can't compete. If the AI was trained without any material at all, people would still be angry that it exists and would search for other excuses to complain about it.
Remember, back when AI art was just badly rendered, psychedelic images, no one cared about training data, they only started "caring" once it became a threat.
@@snark567 I think the issue is generally related to the issues regarding ownership of intellectual property. AI that is trained on data that is "freely" given to mega corporations by individuals via data collection and clever Terms of Service legalese is one thing. Scraping all information on the internet and not paying people something, in some way for intellectual property they have created... is a bit different. And it is even weirder when it is an AI entity controlled by corporations; and not a human individual just copying/covering/stealing a song they hear on the "radio".
Record labels will reach a "settlement" that gives them a share of revenue, and all will be well in the world. They just want their piece.
Ive said it on countless videos and will say it again, Every artist you know took inspiration from other artists, AI learning from copywritten material is exactly the same as every human artist does. Creating a rip off is done by the end user not the software. The problem has nothing to do with AI Learning it has to do with safeguards to prevent humans from miss using the technology. Udio is at the end of the day very similar to Auto tune in the sense that its another tool in a producer/engineers toolbox to increase the overall quality of their song. Which is why there should be things in place to prevent the average joe from typing a couple prompts and making a rip off of another song, getting financially successful from it, and building off the shoulders of other artists.
none of my ai contributed stuff has triggered content ID or copyright notices on streaming services so I do think that the use is more transformative rather than derivative. I don't think there is any intention to make deriviatives of other works like they block the artist names I think the issue is some tags may be heavier weighted to specific audio. I think they should just have these services run their outputs through content ID type safety check and be done with it as I was already getting a lot of no production responses to prompts which seemed to indicate there were filters limiting outputs. I totally don't think any flagrant violations occured, and that if they havn't sued for any single songs, where is the evidence of case law that these platforms are indeed infringing? Transformative use is generally fair use. I agree though the quality is still not A list, but a lot of signed artists make stuff that isn't good also. A lot of stars only have one hit per albums and they buy other peoples music to use.
THIS IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT:
Before AI, there was tons of electronic music equipment and software programmed to emulate existing music, like the intro to Van Halen's "Jump." A single button press, and the sound is copied exactly. There is no difference between that kind of electronic soundscape and the one created with other technology. The only difference is the technology itself. The plaintiff must be able to argue that the level of inspiration differs technically, which is not possible given that technology, by its nature, cannot be inspired. Here, the plaintiff faces a massive challenge.
They can shut the gate but the horse already bolted. There's mullions of generated songs now. Killing the software wont put the toothpaste back in the tube.
It’s great for DJs IMO
I'll still be making plenty of music with these tools until they are swallowed by the corporate mega-machine
In a way they are being effective now. No new updates or upgrades from Udio or Suno since the lawsuit. I wonder if Eleven labs will stop with their creation of AI music generator because of the lawsuit.
Good commentary!
Firstly to start with if you allow so-called AI to put together something by itself it will always sound cheesy or something like you've already heard before.
To make it more meaningful and have more feeling a certain degree of human input will always be required such as editing and arranging the musical compositions.
But secretly I think the record companies will eventually try to broker deal with Suno and Udio whereby they can create their own new artist cheaply by using prompters to create the music, voice, and lyrics for these ghost artist, and just use normal unknown people to pretend the sing these songs!
Suno can run on a Nvidia 4090 GPU stand-alone...and whit upload functionality than can be done in privat. I have made 1000 of song whit suno 3.5. Whit stemseepperation... now i hawe new music for decade's...
How can I upload the functionalities?
And then you have artists having successful copywrite claims on other artist's songs on what are loose interpellations. So the record companies have that in their favor when it comes to AI generated songs.
I don't understand exactly the thought process behind "AI will put composers/songwriters out of a job" Its the musicians that will lose their job. Us producers and engineers now are able to get a session musician to record a section without paying. Ya it sucks for them but from the composer perspective this seems like nothing but a positive. I mean unless you don't have the chops to understand the AI prompting to create exactly what you are looking for.
I hope Suno and Udio win.
Me too friend 👍
ai is here to stay . fuck music companies . they are the real culprit of the art industry .
Live shows are currently very profitable anyways. This is just another last gasp of the recording industry trying to hold dominance over our ears. They spend 20k to record a track that uses the same 4 chords over and over; and then they spend 2 million dollars in marketing?
Lame. I just don't care anymore tbh.
Jepp❤
The record labels will lose then make their own AI software and their artists will get royalties off of every output generated using their voices or instrumentals. The end
WHAT IS RUINING YOUR INDUSTRY IS EVOLUTION
I felt that drayk bot last year straight up sampled/ripped off music I haven't heard any music from suno/udio that sounds fully plagiarized although the comedy promts from udio could be considered ripped off
If a human has the right to listen to and learn from music, why shouldn't a computer? Whether a particular human/computer has access to particular content/music in the first place, e.g. due to licensing restrictions ("you can't listen to this song unless you pay a dollar for it first") is a separate, solved matter in my book. What's unsolved is the matter of how to determine whether someone is accessing/listening to content/music under a permitted license in the first place. But as far as I can see, that problem is unsolvable.
An LLM doesn't contain data directly taken from the song. Yes, it contains derivative data in the form of generalised concepts/weights, but so does the neural network in my brain. What's the difference?
I REALLY hope SUNO/UDIO win ... AI is a tool... Consumer will still want human made music and AI now... Let them co exist... Without any changes... Who cares ... 😊
the old people are the only musicians crying about this... LOL
We ancients have been around long enough to know these tools are a boon to humanity. The record companies know it too, and they want to keep the current power structures in place.
Nope.
To play devils advocate, how did any of us(humans in general) learn how to make music and how do we decide what to write? We leanered to play and take influences from previous artists.
As for AI, think of it as a newborn child. You tell it to write a song and it does not know what music is, you'll just get noise. Same goes for art, what do kids do when you give them a piece of paper and crayons, they give you back a mess. As they grow older and get exposed to what art/music actually is, and start taking influence from that, then they would be ready to start creating their own stuff.
When it comes to stealing jobs it's a different story because AI can pump out new stuff en masse.
Its still kinda personifying what are essentially statistics on steroids and arent truly sentient beings.
Currently we reason and extrapolate while these models only retrieve and interpolate from within their dataset.
It is a slippery slope thinking our rights as humans are predicated on it.
Thinking of AI as a child/human is pretty horrific, it's bad enough Corpos get treated like humans, it'll become just another weapon for the oligopoly to control us if we allow it.
SONY RUINED THE MUSIC INDUSTRY : WALKMAN 1979, CDs 1984, DAT 1987, CD-R 1988, 1992 SONY IMPROVES MPEG, SONY BUYS BMG 2008
Let's hope it does make a difference!
REALLY MAN THINGYS.. Nooo not From the gen That Learnd keywording
My SUNO tune: ua-cam.com/video/3IvW8U8Mabw/v-deo.html
sorry, but no matter what you tell yourself to feel better, you did not create anything. Your just pushing buttons.
@@eternal5024 lol. Then I pushed buttons for hours on one song. That's creating. I have 100 published songs I perform on real instruments. I can dam well use any sound generator I choose. Just make music. I also use samples. What's the difference? AI , stems?
@@eternal5024 pianists "just push buttons"
@@eternal5024 You didn't make that comment, you were just "pushing buttons".
Thank u geebz
Impersonation is the only route, comedians impersonate people all the time
Lars was right!
Insert obligatory south park joke.
Issues like these are going to be prevalent and consequential in the following years.
My opinion is that training AI on data is not copyright infringement IF one purchased the consumer product somehow. If your ears can hear the sound, then perhaps the code you write should be allowed to hear the sound. (1A sourced arg?)
As for how people who add very little to society want to fight over their ill gotten gains...that is none of my business. I just hope they do not create dysfunctional legal precedents in their pursuit of perpetual profits.
I think using AI for music or scamcoins is a waste of computation cycles anyways. Task it to fold proteins or predict the weather or something. Create a universal translator. Idk.
There is not an original thought coming out of the companies who are suing Udio and Suno. That can easily be proven in a court.
Haters
Artists still don't understand that AI isn't copying or mixing other artists' work. Look at how AI beat the best human at Go - a game so complex it's impossible to compute all possible outcomes. It won with moves humanity had never seen before.
This is just the beginning. It started with games, but soon AI will surpass human creativity in all areas. Anyone who thinks this will stop is being silly. The future is here, and it's AI.
Every artist the makes music is derivative of all the music they have listened to in their lifetime. Are they going to pay for being influenced by that music. Don’t tell me that an artist who wants a blues sound does not listen to the blues for inspiration. I am tired of the whining. Do you care if the products you buy are cheaper because of ai at the expense of many workers.
no. these are early days, no matter what happens in this case someone will eventually make a tool that is legal or will just pay for licensing
Technically, you could just train AI on free music, then user influence it. That would actually be an interesting endeavor imo. Sort of like the old school electric sheep iterative algos with an anarchy and chaos based voting/weighting mechanism.
I really don't care tho tbh. In regards to what AI is capable of....I think stuff like this is a waste of time and computation cycles. This is a sideshow, yet I am rationally fearful of what the legal precedents of these issues may lead towards regarding rational and meaningful AI use.
If I could create an AI that unifies physics(relativity/quantum)....will I be shut down while training my AI...because I cannot buy 45 million dollars worth of words? If so, then whatever. Maybe the dark ages 2.0 will be fun for some.