761–770 of 881 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people that I used to see idly sit at a screen and ingest things all day purely are creating things they like now and sharing them Like what? People say this kind of stuff all the time and it's either not true or they're generating things with very questionable taste.
Like the music being described literally in the thread you're responding to.
I think this labeling strategy has an immediate issue.
It doesn't seem clear if this sweep will pick up AI-generated maths, physics and CS videos on YouTube, which use AI-generated scripts, AI-generated voices and graphical animations which are presumably produced from AI-generated code for input to Manim or the like. Or all the AI-generated documentaries about military vehicles which apparently use a similar mix of AI-generated scripts and voiceovers combined with old video footage and photos pulled from archives at the AI's direction. These have been absolutely flooding their categories on YouTube for a while now.
There's a thoughtful video by maths YouTuber Mathemanic about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRO_QonhC2c . It includes a discussion of YouTube's "Inspirations" tab https://youtu.be/mRO_QonhC2c?t=331 (based on a Tibees video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd5EHfRerGI ) about Google's own efforts to push AI-generated video ideas at channel owners. Videos which result from "Inspirations" concepts presumably won't (in general) be flagged as AI, unlike Veo work-product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this stuff always reminds me of There is no antimemetis division [0] From Case Hate Red : > With some minutes to kill, he checks the headlines on his phone. Yet again, something dreadful and new which he doesn't understand is going viral. Today's fad is, you paint a black vertical rectangle on the wall, or on a mirror, or over the top of a picture. And then you chant something. Wheeler can't quite pick out the words…
That indeed, and The Entertainment or the samizdat from Infinite Jest. A film so entertaining to its viewers that they become lifeless, losing all interest in anything other than endless viewings of the film.
Of course the MPAA is against copying, I would say -- the ideal situation for the MPAA would be if when you left the theater, they could just wipe your brain of the memory of the film you just watched. You just remember that you had a fun time with your friends and it was a good movie, but you don't remember any of what happened there. "but those are MY memories" -- no no no we didn't touch YOUR memories, we left your memories just fine -- we only removed a copy of OUR copyrighted content from the world, consistent with our terms of service for the theater. But if you want to experience it again, by all means, come back to watch it again.
"That sounds like it would stifle all cinematic innovation" -- no you don't understand! Our artists are suffering because they don't get the full amount of money they are due because of all of these unlicensed copies moving about the world in peoples' heads. When people are discussing how amazing that movie was, our artists deserve to have them in a controlled cafe attached to the theater where they can control that experience and fully profit off of it. Don't you get it? Bigger financial incentives, bigger payoffs for successful artists -- therefore more artists, and more cinematic innovation! When you play back these unlicensed copies in your "memory" and pirate our works, you're really just contributing to monoculture by not rewarding the people who made your favorite things.
Children and seniors are victimized by AI content on a huge scale. Regular adults like most of us here don't ever get such videos in their feeds. I saw kids spend many hours a day watching automatically generated videos. Not always AI-generated, sometimes it's AI-assisted and procedurally generated. It is quite unbelievable how vulnerable weaker minds, for the lack of a better term, are to AI content. I saw a group o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What's so weird about creating your own stuff? If I paint something stupid (like by numbers) and hang it in my room you're going to judge me? This is not fine art, but it is creative. Lots and lots of creative pursuits are just tweaking shit others have provided as building blocks. I don't see how AI is different in this case.
You probably won’t listen, but trust me. You are missing out. Take a life drawing class. Learn to play an instrument. Live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My elderly uncle is completely addicted to these. We can barely complete a conversation without him getting bored and pulling out his phone to watch these nonsense videos. I don't even understand what the point is. The ones he watches are these clearly procedurally generated stories. It'd be one thing if the content was actually interesting, but ugh.
There are so many of these stories… it makes me wonder if humans in general have “general intelligence” either. Or whether it’s only a small subset who do.
If you disagree, I would strongly suggest you review where else you might be making this incorrect assumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if the courts won't uphold the copyright, that doesn't prevent people from claiming your videos and initiating YouTube's copyright process against you. This is a recurring problem for people who upload their own original performances of public-domain compositions, particularly solo piano.
What if you claim it first against them ? You wouldn't be punished for a false claim, since they're not.
Reasonable people can believe they have a legitimate ownership right when they petition YouTube for copyright enforcement for AI-generated work. The courts might eventually disagree, but that's a different thing than knowingly making a fraudulent misrepresentations to YouTube for financial benefit. This difference makes the proposed behavior criminal fraud. I highly recommend not risking twenty years of prison time for like maybe a couple hundred dollars in ad revenue.