There are doubts about the copyright of AI-generated music.
Should AI music be subject to copyright?
If AI music is subject to copyright, imagine a scenario where AI generates billions of different random songs, across the scale of diversity, this music will be published, it will have maybe 0-2 listens, but it will be officially released.
In this way, the owner of this AI will reserve all possible new music in the world for himself.
He will be able to sue every new artist for plagiarism, because what is the chance that his AI did not generate something similar, at such a scale of generation?
What if AI music is not subject to copyright? If, for example, they were automatically in the public domain?
An almost identical scenario may occur, also AI will generate billions of various random songs, on the entire scale of diversity, this music will be published... but this time artists will no longer be able to profit from music that will be in some way similar to that generated by AI, and any new music, will be similar to those billions of songs generated by AI.
Even the artist's sense of not having created something original could be demotivating for him, even if it were established that AI music is not in the public domain and it would be possible to duplicate and monetize music similar to that generated by AI.
And then another scenario may arise, that pseudo-artists will deliberately review finished AI-generated songs, and will "take over"/occupy the copyrights to these songs. It's also not a pretty scenario.
So what, ban AI music and force it to be removed from the Internet? Drive AI music underground?
However, the current law is adapted to people who have limited ability to produce music.
In fact, even before generative music, there was a problem of songs being similar to each other, and about a hundred years of universal copyright was enough.
Now we're firing up the roller skates.
Są wątpliwości, co do praw autorskich, generowanej przez AI muzyki.
Czy muzyka AI powinna podlegać prawom autorskim?
Jeśli muzyka AI będzie podlegać prawom autorskim, to wyobraź sobie scenariusz, gdzie AI wygeneruje miliardy najróżniejszych losowych utworów, na całej skali różnorodności, ta muzyka zostanie opublikowana, będzie miała może 0-2 odsłuchania, ale oficjalnie będzie wydana.
W ten sposób właściciel tego AI zarezerwuje dla siebie wszelką możliwą nową muzykę świata.
Będzie mógł pozywać każdego nowego artystę o plagiat z automatu, bo jaka szansa, że nie jego AI nie wygenerował czegoś podobnego, przy takiej skali generowania?
A co, jeśli muzyka AI nie będzie podlegać prawom autorskim? Jeśli np. byłyby automatycznie w domenie publicznej?
Może zaistnieć niemal identyczny scenariusz, również AI wygeneruje miliardy najróżniejszych losowych utworów, na całej skali różnorodności, ta muzyka zostanie opublikowana... ale tym razem artyści już nie będą mogli czerpać zysków z muzyki, która będzie w jakiś sposób podobna, do tej wygenerowanej przez AI, a każda nowa muzyka, będzie podobna do tych miliardów piosenek, wygenerowanych przez AI.
Nawet samo poczucie artysty, że nie stworzył czegoś oryginalnego może być dla niego demotywujące, nawet jeśli ustalono by, że muzyka AI nie jest w domenie publicznej, i można by dublować i zarabiać na muzyce podobnej do tej wygenerowanej przez AI.
A wtedy może zaistnieć kolejny scenariusz, że pseudo artyści będą celowo przeglądać gotowe utwory wygenerowane przez AI, i będą "przejmowali"/zajmowali prawa autorskie do tych utworów. To też niezbyt piękny scenariusz.
To co, zakazać muzyki AI, zmuszać do usuwania jej z sieci? Zepchnąć muzykę AI do podziemia?
Dotychczasowe prawo jest jednak dostosowane do ludzi, którzy mają ograniczoną zdolność produkowania muzyki.
Tak naprawdę jeszcze przed generatywną muzyką, był problem podobieństwa piosenek do siebie, wystarczyło gdzieś sto lat powszechnych praw autorskich.
Teraz odpalamy wrotki.
Congratulations to Harvard University History of Science doctoral candidate Aaron Gluck-Thaler on the 2024-25 CBI Tomash Fellowship. We are thrilled to have Aaron as a fellow in the upcoming academic year! #ai#artificialintelligence#surveillance#science#tech#history
'AI can do wonderful things. But civil rights can’t exist in a world of hidden calculations. Just as with a lawyer or doctor, we must have AI that acts in our self-interest. AI needs a constitution — or more accurately, we need a constitution that defines access to artificial intelligence acting solely on our behalf as a civil right'!
We need an constitution for AI not an AI manifesto!
Just finished the re-watch of Person of Interest. Like 10 minutes ago. God damn what a show. Still teary eyed. Needed a good cry after some heavy existential stuff I’ve been going through. The show did not hold back.
From a somewhat campy start with interesting philosopical implications to it’s incredibly heavy, dark, and impactful finish. Glad we re-watched it. Felt more relevant than ever.
Actors: If you’re an American or have American friends/colleagues and family, encourage them (and I encourage you) to contact your representative and both your senators and tell them your needs in regards to the No Fakes Act: https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/senate-event/335702
A very unimpressive Rabbit makes its debut. Boeing is running out of whistleblowers. Google would prefer AI over employees with morals. G7 countries are concerned about Israel's feelings getting hurt.
Eventually, people may stop writing, stop filming, stop composing—at least for the open, public web. People will still create, but for small, select audiences, walled-off from the content-hoovering AIs.
If we continue in this direction, the #web—that extraordinary ecosystem of knowledge production—will cease to exist in any useful form.
Generative AI has a problem with “hallucinations,” the lies its models tell. Through retrieval augmented generation (RAG), some AI vendors say the problem is solvable. But, as Tech Crunch’s Kyle Wiggers explains, it isn’t, at least not for all of AI’s hallucinatory problems. https://flip.it/7CaFbf #Tech#Technology#AI#ArtificialIntelligence
#TheMetalDogArticleList #MetalSucks
Review: Unleash the Archers’ Phantoma Has an Interesting Concept That Falls Short
Cool idea, lukewarm execution The post Review: Unleash the Archers’
#artificialintelligence#deepfake
From the NYT:
„The prosecution just played the video Trump recorded on Oct. 7, 2016, when he acknowledged that he’d said the words on the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape and he apologized for them. But within months after being elected, Trump was telling people privately that he thought the tape might be a fake. If a similar tape came out today, there is almost no doubt that Trump would claim it was artificial intelligence and many voters would likely believe that.“
Have you noticed your Facebook feed being taken over by AI spam recently? @jasonkoebler has spent four months looking into it — what’s real, what’s not and what is a mixture of the two, creating what he calls “a disastrous website where there is little social connection at all.” Read more about his investigation over at @404mediaco.
Should AI music be subject to copyright?
There are doubts about the copyright of AI-generated music....