Submitted by markhachman t3_10bddey in MachineLearning
aidv t1_j4augnw wrote
Reply to comment by nullbyte420 in [D] Is MusicGPT a viable possibility? by markhachman
An AI does not know the concept of original work, compared to humans.
Humans can decide which data it wants to derive from, and how much of the selected data it wants to derive from.
AI cannot do this.
That’s why the art image AI’s always look like something it’s been trained on, and why music AI’s always sound like something they’ve been trained on.
And that’s why you are wrong, and I am right.
And that’s also why you and many others will downvote me.
nullbyte420 t1_j4bg9dh wrote
Humans can't at all decide if they are original or not. You clearly don't know anything about playing music, but it happens VERY often that people record a cool original tune they like, show it to people and they go "you know this is mostly just song x by y in a different key, right". I can't remember how many times I've heard that but it's a lot.
aidv t1_j4bhcbm wrote
I am a music producer and I’ve worked in the music industry for over 10 years. Read one of my other comments where I explain a little what I’ve been through.
Don’t just pull things out of your ass.
nullbyte420 t1_j4dop58 wrote
You've been in the music industry for ten years and never heard unoriginal music or heard a musician play something familiar by accident? Wild!
aidv t1_j4dqwq6 wrote
The law doesn’t care if a composition was created by accident.
If the composition has already been made by someone else before and it’s not in the public domain, then the rightful author is entitled to 100% of the revenue, pretty much.
It’s the law!
You can argue as much as you want about it, the law is the law and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
But as always, internet people who have zero knowledge in a certain domain argue with professionals and think they’ll win the debate.
Ignorance at its finest.
nullbyte420 t1_j4dstko wrote
You're very arrogant in your assumptions and completely oblivious to the issue at hand.
aidv t1_j4dt4xx wrote
There was no issue to begin with. You created an issue out of thin air.
You have no idea what you’re even debating anymore, so personal insults is all that you have left.
It’s the same thing with internet people, every time.
nullbyte420 t1_j4dtx8r wrote
Lol mate whatever, you're the one being uncivilized and uneducated on the internet. Look up cases like chuck Berry vs the beatles for a classic case that demonstrates the thin line between inspiration, accident and derivative copyright infringing art. It happens literally all the time (but often isn't published) making your music producing claims very untrustworthy. The only thing I'm convinced of by you is that you're a child who likes to dream some years ahead on the internet. We've all been there. But try not to make these ridiculous arguments based on nonexistent authority, it's evident from your post history that you know jack about music production lol.
You literally posted in a thread about this just 18 days ago by the way. https://www.reddit.com/r/WeAreTheMusicMakers/comments/zvxzcp/how_do_you_find_out_if_you_unconsciously/
aidv t1_j4dv17x wrote
It does not matter. The law is still the law.
What the judge decides is up to the judge.
You are missing the point completely.
Here is an example: Somone may kill someone, by accident, and the law says that the individual must go to jail.
However, the judge may still find the individual not guilty.
That’s an extreme example, but I hope you mind can comprehend the idea. I hope.
I have studied copyright laws. I understand it very well.
Fun fact: computer code written by humans is also protected by copyright laws.
nullbyte420 t1_j4dvpyg wrote
Lmao if you knew anything about law you wouldn't be comparing criminal law with copyright law plus you're completely wrong, but I guess they didn't tell you about the distinction between manslaughter and murder or how these cases are usually judged in law school hahahahaha. I love you bring up programming, I've seen your dumbass comments in the node.js subreddit hahahahaha
aidv t1_j4dw7v3 wrote
There’s nothing to LMAO about.
It’s facts. And it’s the law 🤷♂️
nullbyte420 t1_j4dwth5 wrote
Oh it's you I'm laughing at hahahaha
aidv t1_j4dxhju wrote
Yes, because that’s all you can do.
You cannot debate my facts, so you scramble to find a way to feel important.
But it’s not working now, is it? 😂
nullbyte420 t1_j4dxmhu wrote
"facts" loooool
aidv t1_j4dybwc wrote
The law = Facts
nullbyte420 t1_j4e1pln wrote
🤣
aidv t1_j4e1svr wrote
There’s nothing to 🤣 about.
It’s facts.
nullbyte420 t1_j4e3181 wrote
What does it feel like to be both stupid and universally disliked on the internet? It looks like your entire comment history is downvotes because you're always so confidently and obviously wrong and berating lol
aidv t1_j4e49p1 wrote
What happened to discussing the laws around copyrights?
Oh yeah I forgot, you’re one of those losers who knows nothing about a topic so you resort to personal insults and stalking because you have no constructive knowledge of value to offer regarding the topic that you yourself started debating.
How does it feel to care more about others than yourself?
Fyi: GME did me good 😉 and looking at who universally dislikes me exposes the profile of most people: a bunch of dumbasses who are less than knowledgable in most areas.
You ever seen a bell curve for intelligence? I doubt it, but I’d be on the far right of it.
”You shall accept defeat only when you are wise enough to understand your past stupidity. And only then will you grow out of your fragile shell and build a new one from an indestructible resource, which is knowledge.”
Guess who said that. (Now you’ll franatically start googling it and go nuts over that you can’t find the source, only to later realize ”why am I wasting my time on this?”, and then you’ll think back to me and accept that I was right all along)
nullbyte420 t1_j4e6397 wrote
You sound like you have mania, mate.
aidv t1_j4e6ezn wrote
Why are you so interested in me? You seem a bit obsessed.
That’s weird. People on the internet are weird. You are hella weird that’s for sure.
Oh well, that’s just what I have to deal with.
Weird mfs on the internet 🤷♂️
NoPause9252 t1_j4authm wrote
What if we add past court cases as training data for the model? We can add another label (court decision) and a few additional billion parameters. Problem solved
aidv t1_j4bh549 wrote
I went off track answering you before. I was still in the mindset of music AI’s.
Your question was more generalized towards legal AI’s (legal as in law).
Answer to your question is: we must first ask what the purpose of the AI is, and what type of AI it is.
An AI that would solve the problem you mention would most likely be a classifier of some sort.
It would read cases, and depending on the input data it would generate a binary answer: guilty or not guilty.
That’s the simplest form.
A more complex version could maybe output a range of values, to more precisely dictate the sentence, such as: Social service 6 months, or prison 3 monrhs, or jail 2 years 4months 2 days 13 hours etc…
An even more complex model could maybe work as a Large Language Model much like OpenAI chatGPT or Google Lamda 2 which could output detailed information about the evidence presented, the defense presented, the circumstances, and the final decision, such as:
The defendant is found not guilty for murder because the victim had multiple times triggered psychological attacks by definition of the following medical research papers (see references) which caused defendant to enter a neuropsychotic mental state where the only perceived impression of the situation was death of defendant, which in such situation only fight would be the only solution to flight, given the layout of the room presented in the photos provided by law enforcement and the relative position between defendant and victim.
More so…
You get the idea.
Multiple models could be used to perform different tasks, such as describing by text, or visualizing by image and video, and speaking by audio.
aidv t1_j4avcur wrote
Parameter count does not dictate output originality.
Nothing does.
No AI so far generates original output.
AI’s so for are only math based relational machines.
The output will always be as good as the input data, never better.
Humans however have proven time and time again, every day, ever since inception of creation of life, that it is capable of learning little input and create large output that it was never trained on.
There’s something more fundamentally complex going on that gives us the capability to create original data. At least data that is so far away from the derived data that it no longer looks like the input data at all.
This is called: abstraction.
AI’s are not capable of abstraction… yet.
NoPause9252 t1_j4avhxt wrote
You are of course technically correct. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that sufficiently different but still derivative work is possible to generate.
aidv t1_j4avwif wrote
That’s when we get into the legal greyzone area, which overlaps the concept of: genre.
A lotmof music sound alike. The idea or concept of a music style can be derived easily, without necessarily conflicting with the legalities of the original music.
So derived music is derived music, via AI or human, but is it similar enough to be considered plagiarism or simply inspiration?
That’s the discussion that people miss to discuss, and also something that people simply ignore.
The future of AI art will be interesting from a legal aspeect too.
There’ll be some interesting AI related lawsuits coming up in the future.
NoPause9252 t1_j4aw4vc wrote
You seem to be knowledgeable on the domain (checked also your reddit profile). Would you know of any past court cases where artists accused someone of stealing their ideas (along with court decisions)? I would like to fine time my brain's parameters on this topic J
aidv t1_j4ay2t3 wrote
I run an AI audio startup. Ten years ago I fought a legal case against a major music label concerning one of my original songs, out of court.
We simply settled without taking it to court, because: who has the energy anyways.
Evidence was strong on my side. My arguments were strong.
Given that I have personaöly been through this legal process, I am extremely curious about the legalities around music AI’s.
More so around voice AI’s that directly imitate artists voices, and purposefulky intend to sound like the original artist with zero goals of only ”deriving”.
Think about. It’s about to get wild out there.
nullbyte420 t1_j4f72e8 wrote
Guy doesn't know anything about it. There are many famous copyright claim lawsuits in music. Chuck Berry vs The beatles is a cool one I think. Lana del Rey vs I can't remember is a more recent case 🙂 I'm sure you can find a list of famous copyright cases in music.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments