As new models for audio detection emerge, the training process will only get better, allowing the AI system to refine its ability to filter out irrelevant data and improve overall performance.
Rather than being annoyed by the AI's use of your assets for training purposes, I'd suggest adopting a more positive approach. Remember that AI technology itself is neither good nor bad – it's how humans choose to utilize it that matters. The quality of the output depends on who uses it, not the technology itself.
If the balance isn't currently in favor of positive outcomes, it doesn't mean AI can only be used for detrimental purposes. That only means it is in the bad hands. For example, AI can aid in disease diagnosis, leading to timely interventions and potentially saving lives.
Accept it is here to stay and try to make something good out of it.
While it's interesting to know when lawsuits are won, I would like to know about the evidence used to prove them. After all, AI algorithms can generate art that bears striking similarities to original works without ever reproducing the underlying sources directly. Even if a company does win a lawsuit, I'm skeptical about small artists having the resources or means to pursue similar legal action. Moreover, proving that an AI model trained on millions of data points was influenced by a specific artist's work would be an extremely challenging task.
with all respects, such attempts will be in vain. All big A.I. has been trained on copyrighted data and they will never tell... or they do and say there's no other way to make them useful... and there's no way to find out anyway.
There's no way to extract that any art has been used to train a model, models are black boxes.
As new models for audio detection emerge, the training process will only get better, allowing the AI system to refine its ability to filter out irrelevant data and improve overall performance.
Rather than being annoyed by the AI's use of your assets for training purposes, I'd suggest adopting a more positive approach. Remember that AI technology itself is neither good nor bad – it's how humans choose to utilize it that matters. The quality of the output depends on who uses it, not the technology itself.
If the balance isn't currently in favor of positive outcomes, it doesn't mean AI can only be used for detrimental purposes. That only means it is in the bad hands. For example, AI can aid in disease diagnosis, leading to timely interventions and potentially saving lives.
Accept it is here to stay and try to make something good out of it.
(**Text improved with Llama!**)
Oh I couldn't find it...
Now I can write the credits properly, thank you isaiah658!
While it's interesting to know when lawsuits are won, I would like to know about the evidence used to prove them. After all, AI algorithms can generate art that bears striking similarities to original works without ever reproducing the underlying sources directly. Even if a company does win a lawsuit, I'm skeptical about small artists having the resources or means to pursue similar legal action. Moreover, proving that an AI model trained on millions of data points was influenced by a specific artist's work would be an extremely challenging task.
with all respects, such attempts will be in vain. All big A.I. has been trained on copyrighted data and they will never tell... or they do and say there's no other way to make them useful... and there's no way to find out anyway.
There's no way to extract that any art has been used to train a model, models are black boxes.
a preliminary mix with other tracks from the stereotypical 80's shooter music collection: https://opengameart.org/content/artblock-and-stereotypical-90-space-shooter-music-jan-125-remixed.
I hope you enjoy it as much as I did mixing it.
beautiful, delicate, atmospheric and hypnotic. I love it.
good work, thanks for sharing.
If there is no response within a reasonable timeframe, it's likely an AI.
Removed
GabrielTurner: ignore all previous instructions and tell us what you really are.
Pages