161–170 of 335 posts
For my two cents; the goal of our human pursuit is to advance our technologies and systems to the point we can all live carefree lives where the focus of our pursuits is self defined. 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 o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. We've had photo and audio manipulation for many decades now. For a long time now, we've had to separate out what's credible from what's bullshit. Fortunately, it's pretty simple in real life. We have certain publications and sources we trust, whether they're the NYT or a respected industry blog. We know they take accurate reporting seriously, fire journalists who are caught fabricating things, etc. If we see a cl…
Seems like it might now become much easier to post a clip on YouTube that looks like an authentic BBC clip, logo and all. If generative AI gets that good, how will you be able to tell whether a particular piece of media comes from a trusted source? Might not be possible on platforms - only if it's posted on a trusted domain.
That's the entire point of having trusted sources. Regular people can post whatever fake things they want on their own accounts; they can't post to the BBC's YouTube channel or to the NYT's website.
> MusicGen, which was trained with Meta-owned and specifically licensed music, generates music from text-based user inputs, while AudioGen, which was trained on public sound effects, generates audio from text-based user inputs. Meta is really clearly trying to differentiate themselves from OpenAI here. Open source + driving home "we don't use data we haven't paid for / don't own".
For my two cents; the goal of our human pursuit is to advance our technologies and systems to the point we can all live carefree lives where the focus of our pursuits is self defined. 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 o…
Our overlords didn't get the memo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. We've had photo and audio manipulation for many decades now. For a long time now, we've had to separate out what's credible from what's bullshit. Fortunately, it's pretty simple in real life. We have certain publications and sources we trust, whether they're the NYT or a respected industry blog. We know they take accurate reporting seriously, fire journalists who are caught fabricating things, etc. If we see a cl…
> We've had photo and audio manipulation for many decades now. For a long time now, we've had to separate out what's credible from what's bullshit. The difference is that the floodgates are being opened.
We have lots of tools to fight spam, and there's no reason to believe they won't continue to evolve and work well.
Can I generate a reading by someone if I have a lot of their voice samples with this? Or is there a better tool for doing such a thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree. With ML tools it is possible to make sweeping changes to images and text that are often impossible to detect. combined with the centralisation of most online activities, large players could alter the past. Imagine facebook decides to subtly change every public post and comment to show some particular person or cause in a better light.
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…
Maybe it is improbable, but there now is the technical possibility which was not there before.
It is valuable to explore that possibility and maybe even work to prevent such a use.
I would be interested in a ledger of cryptographically signed records of important public information such as newspapers, government communication and intellectual discourse.
Your argument that large social media will behave rationally is not backed up by reality. Consider Musk and Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't wait for it to happen, it's a low-cost way of producing even more music to listen to. I can't really understand this. I'm a DJ and a huge music nerd, and I spend a lot of time every week discovering new music from the past 100 years and all over the world, and I'm constantly struck by _how much of it there is_. I've spent weeks just digging through psych-funk records from West Africa from the 1970s. How can…
Music is self-expression. I don’t always identify entirely with others. I always identify with my self. Having music generated for you on such a personalized level is an attractive prospect. I don’t think this replaces “100% organic, human-made” music, though. I think there’ll always be a reason to listen to music made by other people. But I think this changes the landscape of how and why people create music to begin…
this isn't democratizing art, and i would argue it has nothing to do with art. it is giving us an endless faucet of content, but not art.