151–160 of 335 posts
Anyone feel like with the flood of AI generated content there's a risk of the past being 'erased'. Like in 10 years we won't be able to tell if any information from the past is real or fake - sounds, pictures, videos, etc.. Like we need to start cryptographically signing all content now if there's any hope of being able to verify it as 'real' 10 years from now.
The past ended in 2022
It is not to "own more rights" to shit. Sorry, but no one actually owns what they create, that's the point of creation. And if you take issue with the term create, that only reinforces my point. We're all influence machines, input and output, the future should not be about preserving some peoples rights to limit our collective advancements over their personal wants. Tough shit.
I know training data would be much more harder to get, (notwithstanding legal ramifications), but I think that creating structured, procedural data will be much more interesting than just the final, "raw" output!
The fact that it generates a song for the prompt "Earthy tones, environmentally conscious ... organic instrumentation" goes a long way to proving that English words no longer mean anything particularly.
I've played guitar 25 years, and it's funny how the music community has been using all kind of words to describe music or tone. Describing certain tone as "hairy", "mushy", "wooly", "airy", "buttery", etc. is just very common.
CC-BY-NC Isn't an open source licence, it violates point six of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd/
Anyone feel like with the flood of AI generated content there's a risk of the past being 'erased'. Like in 10 years we won't be able to tell if any information from the past is real or fake - sounds, pictures, videos, etc.. Like we need to start cryptographically signing all content now if there's any hope of being able to verify it as 'real' 10 years from now.
If you're watching a movie or TV show, a vast majority of the sounds you are hearing are not "real". Has that bothered you before?
*my favorite is always the nightclub scene that goes real quiet when the actors act using their voices (which are real, but may be dubbed in afterwards).
Anyone feel like with the flood of AI generated content there's a risk of the past being 'erased'. Like in 10 years we won't be able to tell if any information from the past is real or fake - sounds, pictures, videos, etc.. Like we need to start cryptographically signing all content now if there's any hope of being able to verify it as 'real' 10 years from now.
If you're watching a movie or TV show, a vast majority of the sounds you are hearing are not "real". Has that bothered you before?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If one "large player" like the NYT decides to "alter the past", you can compare with the WaPo or any other newspaper. You can compare with the Internet Archive. You can compare with microfiche. These aren't "impossible to detect", they're trivial to detect if you bother to compare. We have tons of credible archived sources owned by different institutions. And these sources are successful in large part due to their cr…
The suggested large player was Facebook and Facebook posts. Which trustworthy independent sources of authenticity do we have for that? I do not think those you mention reach inside their walled garden?
Second, people take screenshots of Facebook posts all the time. They're everywhere. If you suddenly have a ton of people with timestamped screenshots from their phones that show Facebook has changed content, that's exactly the kind of story journalists will pounce on and verify.
The idea that Facebook could or would engage in widespread manipulation of past content and not get caught is just not realistic.