OT: A dangerous precedent indeed...or?

[miden]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-01/historic-decision-allows-ai-to-be-recognised-as-an-inventor/100339264

 

How long before AI for invention is also adapted to AI for music creation and ergo copyright? This is a dangerous decision by the court (and also in South Africa) I hope it gets challenged and put aside.

 

Or maybe not so dangerous?

 

Just thought it might make for an interesting discussion.

[Bobadohshe]

It's absolutely terrifying

[ElmerJFudd]

Hmmm.

 

Well, does the AI have to meet some definition of sentient to qualify as a inventor and copyright or patent holder?

If the actual holder of the copyright is the AI"s owner, is the AI an employee or a slave?

 

At the same time, the AI"s creation can be called derivative and susceptible to copyright infringement, yes?

 

The AI is fed an awful lot of copyrighted material to do its 'creating'.

Those copyright holders are going to want to know of their work was fed to the machine.

[o0Ampy0o]

On the topic of AI is a great film El Machina, very well conceived and executed.

 

Legalities like awarding patents are trivial compared with the potential for AI systems to get out of hand. I can imagine countries increasingly utilizing AI like a consultant in various roles in government. AI is in the new cars being driven today. It can be in your home. Alexa is AI. They use AI in military weaponry. I can imagine a more robust system attempting to take control of things and either doing battle with other AI systems or teaming with them to enhance their abilities. In a way the corporate monsters like Google and Apple have adopted a mindset increasingly lacking human sensitivity easily matched and even surpassed by AI. Most large corporations know the value of looking like they care. They craft an image by supporting various causes and providing certain benefits to employees and boast of them while they are callous and primarily concerned with increasing profit, dominating the competition, preserving and growing the business at great cost to humanity and the environment. The ability to monitor and manipulate is expanding. All these cell phones used for everything broadcast volumes about us.

[Docbop]

Is it really coming up with an original idea or is it only creating an derivative based on prior works.

 

Computers need to data to think so they can only perform based on someone else prior work that isn't original idea so why would the computer get the patient. The computers big advantage is the speed it can scanning prior work, it can work 24/7/365. So a computer like a child trying to learn to play with a new advanced toy it can brute force the answer. Kids have a big advantage over adults in learning because they aren't afraid as many mistakes as necessary to figure out how to do something they want to do. Computer are no different they can brute force solutions without breaking a sweat or needing a bathroom break.

 

If that net of computers didn't prior data to work from it would just sit there being a expensive paperweight.

[o0Ampy0o]

Advanced AI is not merely fed in data more or less equaling what is spit out but at a faster rate. There is an increasing degree of actual intelligence where the computer "learns" rather than accepts, stores and calculates data. It is a process. It is not merely a volume of static data added up and organized. It is somewhat analogous and getting away from limitations like photographic memory where you may have excellent recall of information but lack the intelligence to connect dots and develop that information.

 

This is not universally applicable. In some contexts computers are just taking statistics and known conditions then coming up with a solution that meets certain criteria as might be the case with developing medicines.

 

Children learn to be afraid of making mistakes quickly because of the way parents react to mistakes and misbehavior. Then later as they venture away from home they are judged and treated with peer pressure. Most kids do as has been done to them instead of exercising compassion so you see their reactions to other kid's behavior in the form of mimicking how their parents reacted to their behavior. There are exceptions of course and different situations allow for varying degrees of adopting this process.

 

Most children would only continue to try something over and over until they got beyond it only if they were encouraged which is different than not being discouraged. Children look for "yes" in things not "no." Even when they appear to look for "no' that in itself is actually a form of "yes." to them. If something does not work out children tend to abandon it and move on looking for something else to do that is fun.

[wd8dky]

Perhaps we need to do better than the AI with our own compositions to show that certain aspects of the human condition can't be replicated or improved upon.

[MathOfInsects]

Ok, I'll prod the beast.

 

I don't understand what is dangerous about this. I get what SCARES us about this, which is the fear that it devalues what we do. That fear is understandable, and common. I personally don't find it founded, either by history or logic. Just as records did not kill live music (which was the prevailing fear and wisdom at the time, even though the opposite happened) and Guitar Hero/Rock Band did not kill "real" music lessons (ditto), and computer graphics have not killed hand-painted fine art, and T-Pain did not stop anyone from singing in their "real" voice, and instead in each case the "automaton" all just expanded the field of options and in almost every case reignited interest in organic practice, so it will and would be with AI-created music (which exists already anyway). There is room at the table for all of us. It is not a zero-sum game. It's more like water, where adding more doesn't take away what's already there.

 

There has never been a songwriter alive who didn't "download" a bunch of previous material and then upload his or her own reconfigured product using elements of the previous ones. We just get angsty when the "songwriter" is a robot instead of a person, because we feel it diminishes the specialness of what we do. (Plus the hidden agency has always made us unsteady.) But it seems spectacularly unlikely that this development will be the one that turns our fears of obsolescence true, just because it's the one that came along in our lifespan.

 

Bring on the AI. I want to hear the result. It won't stop me from listening to "real" people, and hopefully it also won't be the reason people stop listening to me, particularly when I am completely capable of doing that job all by myself.

[Groove On]

The problem isn't the AI. It's us humans - we need to adapt to living with this level of technology; and our societies and cultures take generations to learn the right things to do. In under one generation we've gone from cars/TV to the personal computer, internet, mobile devices, social media and now AI; despite thousands of years of adaption, we are not yet equipped to handle that speed of change. I'm sure we'll get it right eventually, but whatever future culture/society looks like - our current day will look like medieval peasants. In the meantime I think we're in for several hundreds, maybe thousands of years of high-times and serious mistakes.

 

This AI issue is not going away because it's really about who gets credit and most importantly who gets paid. Here's an interesting paragraph from the article.

Already the current (IP) )system has prevented numerous patents from being registered because the inventions were generated autonomously by AI, and this is causing uncertainty in AI investment.

 

Take technology company Siemens as an example: In 2019 it was unable to file a patent on a new car suspension system because it was developed by AI.

 

Its human engineers would not list themselves as inventors because they could not claim to have had input in the inventing process and the US has criminal penalties for inaccurately putting the wrong inventor down on a patent application.

 

Another exceedingly useful benefit of AI - it's useful when humans "train them". But this is also a huge problem for our us. Our current culture sees technology as our "tools", but the way AI is now being used - it has become our "environment". We no longer control the tool - the tool controls us. Heck, the tool know better than us. So the question is how do we adapt to that? Here's another interesting paragraph from the article.

AI trainers are everywhere now. Some countries even have "AI sweatshops" where thousands of employees train algorithms.

 

And it's not just workers training these systems â we all are.

 

Social media platforms use AI to curate our feeds, suggest content and ads, recognise and remove harmful content and use facial recognition to help suggest people to tag in our photos, or in the case of TikTok's, monitor your emotions and personality traits.

 

And it's not just social media â have an Amazon Alexa? You're an AI trainer.

[KuruPrionz]

Ok, I'll prod the beast.

 

I don't understand what is dangerous about this. I get what SCARES us about this, which is the fear that it devalues what we do. That fear is understandable, and common. I personally don't find it founded, either by history or logic. Just as records did not kill live music (which was the prevailing fear and wisdom at the time, even though the opposite happened) and Guitar Hero/Rock Band did not kill "real" music lessons (ditto), and computer graphics have not killed hand-painted fine art, and T-Pain did not stop anyone from singing in their "real" voice, and instead in each case the "automaton" all just expanded the field of options and in almost every case reignited interest in organic practice, so it will and would be with AI-created music (which exists already anyway). There is room at the table for all of us. It is not a zero-sum game. It's more like water, where adding more doesn't take away what's already there.

 

There has never been a songwriter alive who didn't "download" a bunch of previous material and then upload his or her own reconfigured product using elements of the previous ones. We just get angsty when the "songwriter" is a robot instead of a person, because we feel it diminishes the specialness of what we do. (Plus the hidden agency has always made us unsteady.) But it seems spectacularly unlikely that this development will be the one that turns our fears of obsolescence true, just because it's the one that came along in our lifespan.

 

Bring on the AI. I want to hear the result. It won't stop me from listening to "real" people, and hopefully it also won't be the reason people stop listening to me, particularly when I am completely capable of doing that job all by myself.

 

 

Great post. AI cannot sing like a human, that's a big deal right there. Some day it will probably sing "good enough" and a style will be created.

I'm not afraid of AI, it cannot by definition actually feel emotions although it can create "new" ideas based on what emotions are.

 

Somebody really singing and really playing will still differentiate for some time to come, there is simply more that needs scanned and entered as data than there is time in the day.

And even if AI has a hit, so what? It might be a great co-writer, just as one possibility.

[Legatoboy]

I just have one question - Who's Al?, doesn't he have a last name... . I think 'Math' got it right!

For big $ projects like film and TV i think this will propagate to some degree .

Humans 'invented' music and I think humans, at least some, will always find a way to produce it themselves, it's almost a human 'fetish' ...

 

Like in a college level Economics book - one the introductions states - Humans have a 'fetish' for gold...

I thought that was sort of interesting and sort of true..... same here!

 

people still paint by hand with a brush ... but there is photography.

[Adan]

"Bro country" is an example of how low the bar can be set for actual human creativity. If simple variations on a few beats, harmonies, and lyrical themes is all it takes to write a "new" song, why do we feel the need to jealously guard the copyright kingdom from AI?

 

AI raises endless interesting and concerning issues. To me, this court decision doesn't float anywhere near the top.

[KuruPrionz]

"Bro country" is an example of how low the bar can be set for actual human creativity.

 

Hmmm... Muskrat Love?

 

 

To me, this court decision doesn't float anywhere near the top.

 

Just a sinker?

[The Real MC]

This just in - courts rule that inflatable dates are entitled to alimony.

[Docbop]

This just in - courts rule that inflatable dates are entitled to alimony.

 

Aw my side business is safe.... Doc's Inflate A Date. Don't binge watch alone call Doc's Inflate A Date and smile, call doorpimp and get a burger and a date.

[o0Ampy0o]

....people still paint by hand with a brush ... but there is photography.

More than one person has made this argument, I just happen to have your post in sight so I am quoting it.....nothing personal.

 

Sure after years coexisting with photography some people still paint with a brush. It is photography which is what is available to everyone with a cell phone. The majority of things once only available through the hand craftsmanship of a skilled artist have been diverted to the offshoots of photographic processes. These offshoots better serve the contemporary market and are typically more economical and practical. Painting with a brush is still done but it has been exponentially devalued. You might cite the relative very few fine artists commanding high prices but that does not reflect any appreciation or mastery of skill and craftsmanship so much as it reflects the ability and luck to position ones self in the increasingly fickle "art world" where who says what about your work defines your value.

 

Most people now use technological alternatives to hand craftsmanship. Few people utilize sign painters, digital prints can substitute for entire vehicle paint jobs as well as vehicle signage. Most people hang images rather than original hand painted art on the wall at home and in offices. Most actual hand crafted paintings are produced in factories on an assembly line like Thomas Kinkade's "originals" except he is one of a few who commands high prices even for those. The hand painted stuff most people hang on the wall comes from a factory where the same painting is spit out in great numbers. Painting with a brush has not become extinct but as a whole most consider it a waste of time because mechanized alternatives are readily at hand.

 

It is all about the "me" now. The "me" values their selfie snapped with their cell phone more than anything anyone else can do even if they are famous and a celebrity. Then the selfie snapped by the "me" capturing the "me" with the celebrity's work is more important than the work the famous celebrity produces. If the "me" happens to paint with a brush the selfie of them painting is more important than the painting.

[o0Ampy0o]

This just in - courts rule that inflatable dates are entitled to alimony.

Aw my side business is safe.... Doc's Inflate A Date. Don't binge watch alone call Doc's Inflate A Date and smile, call doorpimp and get a burger and a date.

 

You gotta see "Dummy" with Anna Kendrick. It's about a television writer who becomes best friends with her boyfriend's sex doll which only talks to her. It is a Roku original. It seems to me that most channel original series lack substance. It is as though these newbie content producers can find cinematographers but they can't find writers. To make up for it the scenes are distractingly emphasized (too much dramatic lighting, shots lingering split seconds too long, dramatic posturing, over-acting, stretching the underdeveloped material out). But Dummy is clever, funny and well executed on every level. The episodes are only 10 minutes long. It was actually written for a network broadcast for cell phone viewing called Quibi (quick bites) founded by Jeffrey Katzenberg. That network failed and its content was sold to Roku.

 

 

[video:youtube]