I don't think labels are really concerned about the artists or artistic integrity. They just want a share of the profit. Look at the deal they made with Spotify. Yes, it saved the labels, but the artists get next to nothing.
Exactly what I was going to say. "This thing will be a terrible destructive catastrophe but if you pay me enough I'm down...". Hard not to conclude he's either lying or morally bankrupt.
Great show. As for the record labels, they view the artists as "product." Don't be surprised if a bunch of them get together, form their own AI company and then do exactly what they are complaining these other companies are doing. The only difference is that they will keep all of the profits, and the artists will get nothing.
This is EXACTLY what is going to happen in both hollywood and the music industry and anyone thinking otherwise is kidding themselves. Just like NYT sued OpenAI on one hand, and is using GPT to write articles with the other. These megacorps (including NYT) only care about retaining profits, not about 'human artists', please give me a break NYT/RIAA.
I thinks he’s wrong about how AI learns. There is substantial evidence on the similarities between digital and biological neural networks, which Anthropic engineers have discussed on this podcast. The flawed understanding on that point may be what causes the RIAA to lose this case.
Even if that's true, they still have no right to profit off the copyrighted data. Using the data was fine for research but now that they've shown it can be done and how it can be done, they have to PAY to create the data used in the models they make profit from. All this music took resources to make, you can't just take all of it for free and launch your own business. That is absurd. Either you pay the original creators or you hire unknown artists to create your own dataset.
@@Gee3Oh Maybe they should only have to pay whenever the models generate something that directly takes bars from an existing song. If the output is sufficiently different in melody from any copyrighted song, how can it be considered illegal?
@@Gee3Oh We as humans have trained on copyright data as well. Humans accidentally plagiarize (my sweet Lord), we are all copying what came before and changing it slightly to make it "new". Humans are no better than AI. In many cases they are DUMBER and the fact that humans think they aren't copying everything they've learned proves my point.
Chris Kirschoff did not bring much speculation of AI in modern warfare, if anything I felt as though he wanted to scaremonger and point to larger budgets. Very strange interview- can you please focus on more questioning lines that attempt to Hard Fork it? Sorry to say that one missed the mark for me, but it could just have been a poor interviewee
You're crazy. Listen to what he said. He doesn't even want to shut down the companies, he said they want to "use" the technology. The whole lawsuit is about who makes money from AI generated music, which they want to be the RIAA. It's not for artists.
"We've all seen these movies and wouldn't it be wonderful that were actually the reality" - i'm sorry, what? You do realise that most of these movies are cautionary tales? If "cool if it were real" is your takeaway from these movies, then you have the media literacy of a 12 year old and you should probably not work as a high ranking government official...
That's how the US built atomic bombs: "We have to build this otherwise bad actors will". It ended with Japan being bombarded with two of them just for a display of power. So, excuse me if I don't like hearing that argument again.
And we don't know what would have happened if the US didn't build an atomic bomb, but I'm pretty sure it would have been worse. Do you think nobody else would? There's also the fact that since the atomic bomb was built, there has never been a full-scale war between major powers.
@robbrown2 All the excuses the US government gives to go to war are just excuses. The real reason is just making money with guns and world dominance. Nothing else.
@@BarbaraBrasileiroThey are right though. The US built it because Germany was going to. Then the US was the only country to have nukes for 4 years. They could have used the nukes to dominate the world completely. Instead the US only stopped the war at a cost lesser than a full scale invasion of Japan.
I hope the RIAA lose this case because the implication of their victory is scary. That the IP holder owns the copyright, but also owns the data of anything that analyzes that song and,consequently, any song that sounds even remotely like any song that is currently under any copyright protection.
I don't buy it at all what happen when Agi_ came to court and ask for his rights With the Simple question who gets right for a wheel Who invented the circle Sam A.(AKA military guy) say UBI I don't see the friction
How ironic that it's the narcissism of (mostly) black artists tagging the beginning of their songs that gave them a smoking gun of evidence. I'm sure some people thought it was tacky for Jason Derulo or DJ Khaled to yell their names at the beginning of their songs but it's quite helpful now, lol.
