WAR AGAINST THE MACHINES : AI IN MUSIC WILL DESTROY THE HUMAN TOUCH AND DIMINISH POTENTIAL INCOME !
LET'S FIRST TALK MORALITY AND OUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THINGS GOING SIDEWAYS:
Music is far more than words set to notes, it has the vibrational capacity to open doors to both heaven and hell. To soothe encourage and fortify a nation or to contribute to it's destruction. So why is it that we slight the process by taking shortcuts? Is it greed, ego, laziness or all of the above?
And before anyone finger points to AI as being the sole force that is destroying the heart in music we must first understand who ultimately models to AI how to behave and rationalize.
STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH : Taken from ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue ( Follow this link and we will take you straight to the developer's website.)
Here is the official synopsis that the organization is telling the public regarding the instruction and issues related in teaching AI to function at the moment :
" We’ve trained a model called ChatGPT which interacts in a conversational way. The dialogue format makes it possible for ChatGPT to answer followup questions, admit its mistakes, challenge incorrect premises, and reject inappropriate requests. ChatGPT is a sibling model to InstructGPT, which is trained to follow an instruction in a prompt and provide a detailed response.
(Tap on the graphic to view the video)
We trained this model using Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), using the same methods as InstructGPT, but with slight differences in the data collection setup. We trained an initial model using supervised fine-tuning: human AI trainers provided conversations in which they played both sides—the user and an AI assistant.
We gave the trainers access to model-written suggestions to help them compose their responses. We mixed this new dialogue dataset with the InstructGPT dataset, which we transformed into a dialogue format."
(Tap on the graphic to view the video)
THE CURRENT SETBACKS THEY ARE WILLING TO ADMIT:
ChatGPT sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers. Fixing this issue is challenging, as: (1) during RL training, there’s currently no source of truth; (2) training the model to be more cautious causes it to decline questions that it can answer correctly; and (3) supervised training misleads the model because the ideal answer depends on what the model knows, rather than what the human demonstrator knows.
While we’ve made efforts to make the model refuse inappropriate requests, it will sometimes respond to harmful instructions or exhibit biased behavior. We’re using the Moderation API to warn or block certain types of unsafe content, but we expect it to have some false negatives and positives for now. We’re eager to collect user feedback to aid our ongoing work to improve this system.
So here we go family MICROSOFT, GOOGLE and BING's products are potential psychopaths' acting as your search engine and what of the answers they provide you in their search? Will it be the truth? Who knows, and at this moment the bigger question is who cares? Because let's be honest very few people are motivated to do anything about issues often citing them to be their neighbor's duty to correct.
If you did take the time to view the videos it soon comes clear that two truths are emerging. There is a nefarious scheme to replace human beings and to rewrite morality and truth to suit a handful of demons placed in powerful positions (who no one to date is challenging because shoot, "that CHATbot is fun to mess with and it's not threatening my job at the moment so who cares.")
We are not going to go in depth on the job loss expectations that AI will cause on a Global scale but here's a link to an article if you are curious and want to dive deeper. It is unimaginable the depth and breadth of hurt that this will all cause.
Go one step further and think how this will effect the creation of music when there are even fewer investors, advertisers and paying music consumers to go around. Now factor in the economic challenges already facing the industry mentioned in ARTICLE 1 of this trilogy.
“The societal impacts these algorithmic developments are having on the production, circulation, and consumption of culture remain largely unknown,” says Ashton Anderson, an assistant professor in the department computer science in the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Arts & Science and a faculty affiliate at the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society." Algorithms and art: Researchers explore impact of AI on music and culture
(Tap on the graphic to view)
In article two of this trilogy we mentioned that there are a handful of individuals, enemies of humanity who have a vision of planet earth with several billion less people on it, and that "They are hitting the battlefield on many fronts to keep the targets in perpetual chaos and flux. And one of those strategies is to OWN everything" Here is KLAUS SCHWAB'S take on the situation and his vision for our future. Are you scared yet? You should be!
LET'S TAKE THE DISCUSSION INTO THE FORUM OF THE ARTS:
Because that's what we are interested in, the ability to freely express ourselves without censorship and perhaps with a remunerated benefit at the back end so we can continue to create and collaborate.
AI is already raising eyebrows and huge questions regarding content management, ethics and copyright in the visual arts. Here's a quick look at the problem: AI art is almost human, but fueled by unwilling artists. Exactly what are the ethical, legal and moral boundaries of creating AI-generated content from other people's works?
And what if you are an artist who does not buy into all this technological nonsense, what if you want to keep it organic? Well let's hope your neighbor feels the same way that you because AI allows people other than creators to make up their own narrative potentially using YOUR IDENTITY! And as the technology is so new, so are the laws to protect you as well. Immorality always outpaces morality because it is the cheap and easy way out.
Why do people create with AI rather than apprenticing their craft? I ask this again, "why is it that we slight the process by taking shortcuts? Is it greed, ego, laziness or all of the above? "
Here's another question for you, "are you not ultimately responsible for your own demise by buying into the AI program in the first place?" Just asking!
Currently, AI music composition works with an algorithm that is fed examples of certain music. The AI then creates music that resembles what it was fed
Many feel that AI in the music industry will open up many new avenues in music production including a “golden era of creativity” as the AI will be able to combine sounds and genres in ways that was unthought of before. This would allow artists to produce music that goes beyond known genres and reach an entirely new level of personalization.
Meredith Rose (who specializes in technology law and policy, with a focus on copyright, music licensing and competition) states,
“There’s nothing legally requiring you to give the artist any profits from it unless you’re directly sampling,” So what would this mean for established and upcoming artists trying to make their way through the industry? Would this hinder their creative processes?
AI could be used to create the next hit pop song by using old popular songs as data and creating a similar composition, thus being able to replace actual artists.
Moreover, other issues that may arise include marketing songs as being similar to songs of an artist in order to get more traction. This may result in artists having a difficult time proving that a song is meant to sound like theirs. Unless they know exactly what the AI was trained on, it would be difficult to work backwards as it is very hard to extrapolate the original data that was given to the AI "
The legality around AI produced music is truly obscure. Whether the creator of the algorithm, the AI itself, or the owner of the music that the AI was trained on is the owner of the piece created by the AI continues to create a lot of ambiguity as to how AI will be used going forward.
AI-advocate Steven Thaler filed a copyright application for AI-generated artwork. The Copyright Board rejected his applications three times, finding that the artwork was not “created with contribution from a human author” and thus failed to meet the human authorship requirement. (Thaler has since sued.)
It is a question of degree. Under traditional principles, the more human involvement, and the more AI is used as a tool (and not as the creator), the stronger the case for copyright protection.
The AI-generated music sector is moving quickly.
Tencent Music Entertainment (TME) – the owner of China’s largest music streaming platforms – has created and released over 1,000 AI-generated tracks. And MENA-focused Spotify rival Anghami is claiming that it will soon become the first platform to host over 200,000 songs generated by AI.
AI-generated music is generally of a lower quality. It isn’t yet – and may never be – good enough without any human involvement to launch as commercial music that would be sought out by music fans in great numbers. But who knows, far stranger things have already happened!
AI “training” looms as the first major battle ground
Generative AI software is “trained” by feeding it vast quantities of content – text, lyrics, code, audio, written compositions – and then programming it to use that source material to generate new material.
October 2022, accusations were already emerging over the AI-based extractors and mixers infringement on artist's’ rights by using their music to train AI models. They argued that AI’s mindboggling ingestion of copyrighted music violates the Copyright Act’s exclusive rights to reproduce and create “derivative works” based upon one or more preexisting works. Because generative AI produces output “based upon” preexisting works (input), copyright owners insist that a license is needed.
Proving infringement is a two-step process. The plaintiff must demonstrate that copying occurred; and that the copying is unlawful, because the defendant copied too much of the plaintiff’s protected expression and is, therefore, substantially similar.
Just how deep this rabbit hole is going to go is anyone's guess unless artists in each and every genre stand up to protect their own intellectual property. We are not going to suppose whether or not that is going to happen. But we do know one thing " STARVATION is often the necessity of invention and intervention." Stay tuned family, this is only the beginning!