FaceDeer

I'm not missing your point. I'm just talking about something other than that specific point you're making. I'm not talking about what specific involvement humans had in any of this. I know that a recording of a human playing an instrument is a recording of a human playing an instrument whereas an AI-generated piece of music was not played by a human.

I'm just describing what people at the time were saying. People at the time were decrying the soulless nature of "canned music", complaining about how it was going to destroy creativity and jobs and all that. And then it didn't, life moved on, and nobody complains about "canned music" any more. It was just their opinion and opinions changed under the weight of pragmatism.

I expect it'll be the same with AI-generated stuff. Whether AI is a person, whether a human played it originally or not, that's not going to matter. This is a question of popular opinion.

Even recorded music had an artist behind it.

And yet, as I linked above, there was a hue and cry back when it first came out about how it didn't have an artist behind it. A quote from one of the anti-recorded-music advertisements at the time:

Tho’ the Robot can make no music of himself, he can and does arrest the efforts of those who can.

and:

300 musicians in Hollywood supply all the “music” offered in thousands of theatres. Can such a tiny reservoir of talent nurture artistic progress?

and:

We think the public will tire of mechanical music and will want the real thing.

It all sounds extremely familiar now. I expect this too shall pass, and a few years from now AI-generated music will be just a routine thing.

AI-generated voice over is already pretty common on Youtube already, to link more directly to the subject of this particular thread.

If there was a Supreme Court vacancy right now and the Republicans were pulling some kind of shenanigan to prevent a new one being seated until after the election, that'd be the greatest gift they could possibly give to the Democrats. That would mean that the election was very obviously going to decide the fate of the Supreme Court, which would bring out tons of voters that might have stayed home.

Whereas if Biden was to seat a new Supreme Court judge right now, and then Trump won, it's not like the Supreme Court would matter anyway.

Fun fact, the Constitution doesn't actually say that the US Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Constitution. That power was granted to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court in their decision on Marbury v. Madison (1803).

A classic example of how there's actually no such thing as laws or rules in any objective sense, it's just a bunch of people collectively agreeing to go along with stuff.

If someone wants to pay me to upvote them I'm open to negotiation.

A lot of people are keen to hear that AI is bad, though, so the clicks go through on articles like this anyway.

img2img is not "training" the model. Completely different process.

You realize that those "billions of dollars" have actually resulted in a solution to this? "Model collapse" has been known about for a long time and further research figured out how to avoid it. Modern LLMs actually turn out better when they're trained on well-crafted and well-curated synthetic data.

Honestly, everyone seems to assume that machine learning researchers are simpletons who've never used a photocopier before.

Seems like lemmy.ml is really collapsing in on itself. Overall not good for the general health of the fediverse.

I'd argue that a biased overly-centralized instance like that collapsing in on itself is good for the general health of the Fediverse.

there needs to be some kind of accountability/ redress if open & free communities are going to be a long term project.

The redress is having lots of servers to switch to, much like how on Reddit the redress was "start your own subreddit if the one you're on is moderated poorly." I can't imagine any system that would let you "take control" of some other instance without that being ridiculously abusable.