Emily Portman had fans liking her new album, but she had no knowledge of it.
The downside of AI, of course.
We’re on the slippery slope.
2 Likes
When it comes to AI, the lack of proper copyright protection poses an existential threat not only to professional musicians but music in general. The impact will be devastating if this is not adressed any time soon. I fear that most people don’t realize what’s at stake here.
5 Likes
This is indeed a debate that will be widely discussed in the very near future; in fact, it’s already begun. But in reality, it’s a very old debate: the one about technology increasingly taking over, or even replacing, human activity. Remember the arrival of digital sampling and drum machines? At one time, this was a huge topic of discussion, as these samplers slowly seemed to have the potential to replace human musicians.
Yet today, we make symphonic music with VSTs.
AI is here to stay, and so is human dishonesty. Thousands of years of human history have proven that humans are capable of the best and the worst.
Enjoy the debate!
Except this is a different beast than the invention of magnetic tape, sampling techniques or anything else before AI. I really wish it was as simple as that.
Just read the article above which gives you a first taste of the problem at hand. You will notice that this one goes way beyond sampling and alikes.
1 Like
I understand the problem perfectly, but we must distinguish between the tool and the person who manipulates it.
As always, they want to demonize the tool as if IT were responsible for current and future fraud.
As I’ve already mentioned, human nature seems to be fundamentally dishonest, with very few exceptions, and even then, in a survival situation, we would probably all commit the irreparable.
The debate shouldn’t be about the tool, but about the person who manipulates it. Is it possible to have laws that prevent all misuse of AI, regardless of its intended purpose?
Humans are experts at circumventing a law and making it serve them rather than harm them. We have the best example of this right now with everything happening in the Americas.
There will always be criminals, and they will always be on the lookout for new tools that allow them to commit crimes with impunity.
It’s the sad reality of our world… It’s human nature…
We can’t turn back time and of course, there are benefits to AI as well.
Nonetheless, copyright laws must be adapted starting with the usage of copyrighted material for training purposes. It is also necessary to define the threshold for AI crafted material to be regarded as genuine compositions. It’s not a simple task. If this is not adressed the very foundation of music as a professional art form is at risk. With future implications that go way beyond the scope of this discussion.
Not doing anything and simply hoping for the best is not an option in my opinion. That reminds me of a prominent slogan following a similar line of wishful thinking: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” I know, this is a bit far-stretched. Nonetheless, when it comes to AI this approach would have disastrous consequences on music in the long run. New regulations need to be in place in order to protect and compensate musicians. Better sooner than later.
2 Likes
I believe the opposite to be true.
Unfortunately, the “person” sometimes becomes the “tool”.
Please, don’t go there.
True.
2 Likes
I totally agree with you; there absolutely must be some form of oversight regarding the use of these tools to minimize fraud. But honestly, this is no small task, and it will inevitably require collaboration from streaming platforms to reduce these crimes; preventing them completely is utopian, in my opinion. In the minds of many people, laws are made to be broken…
But who will implement these regulations? The streaming platforms…
Who is capable of regulating what happens on the internet? Our governments…
Let’s be aware that without the internet, we would still be selling CDs that would probably be copied…
To be honest, I have no idea what message or opinion you are trying to get across here, sorry.
I think collaboration might be the wrong word. Laws are created for the greater good of the people and they don’t require voluntary “collaboration” from a streaming platform like Spotify (which is not exactly known for its altruistic attitude towards musicians/composers). With laws in place everyone can claim their rights. Without laws, well…
Don’t take this the wrong way but “the internet” and “our governments” - that sounds like… you know what it sounds like.
Let me put it that way: if evolution didn’t bless us with being a species that can walk erect we would need two pairs of matching shoes nowadays…
I don’t get your point, sorry… 
1 Like
@Reco29, you know, I’ve agreed with you from the start.
When @Googly_Smythe published this post containing the article about Emily Portman’s experience, like you, I realized we were completely off the rails. Googly says: ‘The downside of AI’. What does AI have to do with it? It’s just a tool that was used maliciously on a platform that, for its part, implies that it cannot be held responsible for such a scam. Ultimately, the artist should ensure that they are not the victim of any fraud.
Googly adds: ‘We’re on a slippery slope.’ You know, it’s more than slippery… anarchy is here…
Should we hold AI responsible for such a slippery slope? AI is fundamentally not malicious. On the other hand, human beings are…
I completely agree with you regarding the protection of the rights of original content creators. But the question is how do you regulate all this? I would never oppose a system that would protect the rights of creators.
This tool called AI is developing very rapidly in all spheres of human activity. Who will use it? Who will be tempted to use it for malicious purposes? Humans…
How unspeakably sad to use such a tool to appropriate someone else’s efforts and try to profit from it $$$ … What a pitiful human…