If it was up to me, i wouldn't mind seeing everything AI being shut down. We were better off without it, as music creators and as society. Nobody needs that sh*t.
I agree but realistically, even if they “shut down” to the public AI will continue to be used by corporations. They won’t be shut down they’ll just be bought and used privately.
Futurama - Season 3 Episode 15 "I Dated A Robot" Very very similar to what's happening right now. There's always been an awareness and concern for this and it's gone unheeded for decades.
That episode wasn't even intended to be based on what is happening today. It was meant to be a reference to the trouble Napster was getting into, in the early 2000's, with peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted music. A copyright problem perpetrated by private citizens, instead of mega corporations. They also referenced deep fake porn, when Bender created a website full of fake nudes of Amy. Something no one expected could ever be convincing at the time, without being an obvious photoshop, and was just meant to be a joke. The Simpsons may have been the prophet of the last decade, and Futurama is now the prophet of the 2020's.
@@carultch yes but please, please don't say Simpsons and Futurama are "prophet" shows. I really hate that has become so widespread. You even just explained how they were referencing Napster in the episode and you still say their prophets. Nah bro, we just repeat our mistakes over and over for generations. People forget, so when they see a pattern re-emerge, its a "prophecy" - please and "deep fake" porn got its start from horny teenagers cutting out pictures of girls and pasting them inside nudie magazines. the rest is just an evolution of that lol sorry for the rant
This is my biggest problem with people in the business of and for the use of AI, they could’ve just paid someone to read and record their voice for their AI to study, but no, they took the short cut and just stole someone’s voice, that’s the mind set behind most people who want to use AI and people who want to create AI systems. No talent, no ethics, no originality and they end up paying for it later down the line, or get away with it and everyone they fooked over has to pay.
We live in such a low effort content ecosystem that the people without the skills to "Actually" create the content they are pushing out can't grasp how pathetic that is.
It is becoming painfully obvious that copyright laws just aren't suited for this time. With digital technology, then internet, and now AI, we might have laws that say that you aren't allowed to use things in a certain way, but that is not how it is in reality. Like with pirated music, the law might say it is not ok, and they might enforce it some of the time, but realistically it is unstoppable, everybody downloaded music.
Yeah. Fuck everyone who says that the way we use AI these days is fair use. Lol. When you steal someone's work and use it to put them out of a job, its literally as unfair as it gets.
I do think AI models are using copyright materials on the dl, but those 2 voices did not sound that similar to me. I guess if I was a fan of her work and very familiar with her voice, maybe I could hear more subtle similarities, but just listening to that example a couple times... I'm more sus about eleven labs' reaction than the actual sound comparison. When I hear my voice on an AI song, I'll know I've made it though.
"They claimed that removing her voice from the API was a technical challenge" ... Either their software engineers are some of the most incompetent in the world, or they're full of horse-shit.
The issues is that these companies for the most part aren't interested in criticisms to AI, because they have a massive portion of the population blowing smoke up their ass and investing crazy money. It's another silicon valley get rich innovation that's only real achievement is further devaluing something that millions of people do for a living (not to mention the very act of creating and consuming art). Like a lot of these innovations it has no planned longevity or any real theory behind its integration into society, ultimately leading to its downfall, probably after most the damage has been done. For the most part the fad of it being interesting is over. It's becoming too expensive to maintain, only being kept afloat by prospective investors (which like streaming, etc, doean't mean the business model works). Not to mention that they have already found the limit to AI, an unbeatable curve which it cannot surpass (look it up). To top it off most models only get worse as its use increases, oroborousing itself as it gorges on data it generated, birthing worse results (for real chat gpt is having problems with basic maths). If it is to have a future, I think it should be a framework that you have to train yourself on your own data, or when its using licensed data it needs to distribute the funds to the different creators of the data it used.
@@harrysmith5340 Your comment is really underrated. Probably most people don't even realize the truth you're telling - especially the motivations for pushing AI into society despite the foreseeable increasing flaws and despite not having a real plan, and without any regard for potential damages.
2:10 "Narrating audiobooks, which is crazy to me that that's an actual job": You watch other people's videos and occasionally pause it to make a comment, so let's not throw stones
Think you might be reading into this a little too deeply. I don't think youtube is this guys job. And regardless, narrating audio books for as a full time job is certainly a lot crazier than low effort react content. Which this channel clearly is not
@@SuperMonibuvy Narrating audiobooks is an acting job, and I think everyone accepts that acting is a job unless they're weird. There's no difference between being a really good audiobook reader or a radio actor or a VO. Streaming is Weaver's job, and that's fine -- it takes certain talents to entertain an audience -- but he's simply not in a position to mock an entire profession as not real work.
omg 30 seconds before you said it, i was fantasizing about cloning your voice and have it say i love bizzy 😂😂 Then you went full demon mode and mentioned mustache man. i died today 🤣🤣💀💀💀
I'm all up for the AI push it's a great tool to help with my workflow like Serato Sample or any other stem separation program. Or Nvidia DLSS uses AI. But it's all about the regulations and fairly compensating the original media. For the future of AI there is no going back can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Or try to stop peeing after holding it for a hour AFTER downing a beer( or a bottle of water). It's not going to stop even if you try.
The thing with all these AI lawsuits that people seem to be debating is that ultimately I don't think it matters. The fact is, the US gov't sees kneecapping AI as a much greater risk than pissing off some copyright holders. I think ultimately none of these AI companies will get any major judgements against them, because that would put a cold, chill on the industry, and that's probably something the gov't would like to avoid, as AI is a big industry, with lots of jobs, and obviously the gov't wants the US to keep its lead. If suddenly some companies get multimillion dollar settlements against them, VC money will pretty quickly dry up, which could kill momentum in the industry. I wouldn't be surprised if either we just don't see judgements made against AI companies, or if a large one is made, it doesn't get overruled by the supreme court, since this isn't a partisan issue it would be pretty easy for the gov't to influence the courts on it.
protections on for musicians, artists, writers, actors, etc. is not kneecapping AI, its just putting protections for the people. what you are saying is irrelevant. AI production wont stop, it will just be regulated, btw, a law was passed recently that is in favor of actors against AI no likeness of actors can be used in AI in life or death. you seem to be speaking out of ignorance on the subject. US has its own up to date GPT and it is being constantly worked on, it has nothing to do with entertainment industry which will crumble without people. and that is an established industry, that will hurt the GDP
Too many people are ignorant regarding IP and place their standards for harsh lawsuits as anyone defending the market value of their work/expression instead of actual egregious lawsuits like suing to own a basic fundamental groove, drum pattern, progression, or technique.
Semi incoherent. That long statement is just one big run on sentence. Try to be more concise. You can’t copyright a drum pattern or chord progression. That is already established law. What exactly is your point?
@@matthewgaines10 You can look up the recent Fishmarket vs Bad Bunny reggaeton case which is an attempt to set precedent over a drum pattern because theyre arguing its "complex enough to be distinct" or the Marvin Gaye estate vs Ed Sheeran case as examples. Frivolous as they seem. People still attempt to do this.
You can mock all you want, but we all know that transformative use is fair use and what is more transformative than having a computer look at 1 billion pictures or listen to 1 million words and then create a mathematical model based on those observations? The mathematical model has nothing in common with the original material, when all of these cases get to trial that point is going to be made and it’s gonna be made very clearly & effectively in favor of the AI companies. Because it IS fair use.
when it comes to companies, its too much of a liabilty to try to circumvent copyright and this is why studios and companies never try to circumvent copyright. some joe shmoe with an offline generator can do what they want, it wont hurt the industry ;)
Fascinating future when/if multiple people (voice actors) shares the same sounding voice and all claims the copyright to it and someone gets the legal right to it. Then all the others, has to shut up or be sued using their voice in public/business situation? 🤔
FWIW i've been generating a lot of stuff based on my own voice as the model but pushing it through the controls ( or exporting with pitch or autotune). you can roll your own without copyright problems. i wouldn't wat to see the tech go away entirely.
your argument makes no sense. its called Right Of Publicity ;) The right of publicity protects an individual’s identity from unauthorized commercial use. It gives people control over how their name, likeness, or voice is used, particularly in commercial contexts like advertisements, films, or other media. If someone uses another person's distinctive voice for commercial purposes without permission, this could be considered a violation of their right of publicity TLDR: its not like a bass guitar tone XD
@@skrollreaper there's a difference between voice and speech, and from law perspective it's simultaneously a biometric data (high privacy) and also public resource content (movies, news, youtube videos etc...) xD
Imagine thinking your voice is somehow unique as if we all dont have the dame vocal chords. You cant own your voice. You did not develop your own voice. Ai software engineers actually do develop the voice with hard work while these "artists" were just born with their voice and NOW they think they are the only ones with their voice?
It’s not Art. And it’s not creative. And it’s not their work. It’s them talking. And I’m sure they signed a waiver saying it could be used for this purpose. They didn’t just sit there and talk for hours and get paid and think that nobody was gonna try to make money off of that
@@sheateeley1 They got paid. Just like they paid me to read a book for an audiobook. They give me $1200 And then they make a $65,000 selling the audiobook What if you we give you $20,000 and You never have to come read again
Yeah but you accepted to offer your voice for that specific book. They can't just take you reading the fox and the hare and turn it into reading Adolf's "Mein Kampf"
No ones mistaking Pearl Jam for Creed, people are being misled by 3rd parties that an artist, content creator, etc. worked on something they didn't, using their likeness without consent and making profit. Also yes its okay for a person to copy cause it's not really copying and not for a computer that can literally replicate someones likeness and style which is not really the computer doing it, its the business behind it.
What i do support though is willing inclusion in training data. When it comes to education and science though... is THAT okay to copyright in the first place? like you dont have money for acurate and updated education so F your future slave. But thats not the question. NO. it should be illegal to clone joe bidens voice. But it should NOT be illegal to learn how its done.
Software dev here. I’m warning you now, do not bet against AI. This tech is in its infancy. Yes, some practices are unfair right now. No, the laws have not caught up. It’s still very early, the tech will mature and the legality will clear up. My recommendation: use as many AI tools as you possibly can every day. Learn how to incorporate it into your workflows. Hack it together. There are tons of free tools you can run on your own computer. Take AI generated content and give it your own creative twists, same as with samples. The best time is now. Do not listen to anyone saying it’s a fad or that it’s a bubble. It’s not. I’m warning you now. Get on the train, or get left behind.
I disagree with the get on the train or get left behind thing. I do agree that if used creatively to enhance a workflow it can be a great addition and even multiplication to efficiency. just try to be ethical about it and dont support the growth of online AI. thats my main philosophy on it
@@skrollreaper I agree with you that we should try and be ethical about how we use AI, but I don’t understand what you mean by “don’t support the online growth of AI”. How can you both use these tools and not support their growth? These tools, by their nature, are “online”. It’s how they live and spread. Additionally, how does this support your point that you shouldn’t “get on the train”? Let me tell you a story. When I was a teenager, I was one of those kids that got my driver’s license late. Why did I do that? Well, one reason was because I was lazy. But it was really because I was afraid. I was afraid of growing up, getting on the road, really driving, etc. The fact is, I was going to need to drive and get my license. This was inevitable. All this AI tech is not exactly magic. Being a software dev who is developing tools with this stuff every day, I get the opportunity to understand how it works at a deeper level. You don’t need to have this understanding in order to use AI effectively, but it’s made me see clearly that the better your intuition is about how AI works, the better your results will be. You gain this intuition by USING these tools. It’s kind of like learning an instrument. Over time as you play the instrument, you get a sense of how that instrument is supposed to be played and how to get the sound you want from it. Here’s a hard truth: AI is growing, and will continue growing, regardless of whether you support it or not. The genie is out of the bottle. The toothpaste has been squeezed out. There is no going backwards. Get on the train and learn how to use AI my friend!
I have no interest in furthering the development of AI based off my work they already scraped. why do you think I should show support back to something that unethically has taken from me and my community?
@@jordanmartinez8652 the ai bro has leeked out of you, it was easy to spot. I dont care about your hard truth, ill leech off of it just like you and the devs who like to brag about taking from artist have leeched off of us
bro stop complaining about ai bros and stuff like a lot of these peapole just think that we have to learn to live with this technology and not ban it and stop it from growing bc then you coukd end up in a dystopian cyberpunk world
*AI companies need to raise their price to 500 and up to use. That will eliminate a whole bunch of leeches and scrubs for flooding the market with AI garbage and people will use it for better use.*
@@tilogo The discourse is around copyright infringement unless I am missing something. I will take Weaver's word that he really got a license to use a trademarked image.
@@songmuse5421 Yes, it's about copyright infringement, however, there are different severities of that. I think you'd agree that there's a difference in having a pfp from a popular show vs. explicitly selling/marketing a product that takes data from thousands of artists. Weaver does not profit from the thumbnail. If he'd change the avatar, nothing would change. If you'd prohibit AI companies from using music, voices, texts, studies etc., the whole business model would basically collapse or best case suffer tremendously. So yes, technically, the avatar is copyright infringement. It is, however, not significant for a lawsuit nor does it lead to ethical questions concerning identity theft.
Everyday, AI gets closer to perfecting Identity Theft
Absentee ballots
If it was up to me, i wouldn't mind seeing everything AI being shut down. We were better off without it, as music creators and as society. Nobody needs that sh*t.
I agree but realistically, even if they “shut down” to the public AI will continue to be used by corporations. They won’t be shut down they’ll just be bought and used privately.
wishing the worst for these AI companies
We can’t stop it…it’s like the record industry trying to stop downloading
A $1 billion company can't simply HIRE and PAY voice actors to voice their AI overlords? Yep, that sounds about right. 🤣
It's not innovative unless it's screwing labor out of getting paid.
They were worth nothing when they started.
Futurama - Season 3 Episode 15 "I Dated A Robot"
Very very similar to what's happening right now. There's always been an awareness and concern for this and it's gone unheeded for decades.
👁👄👁
That episode wasn't even intended to be based on what is happening today. It was meant to be a reference to the trouble Napster was getting into, in the early 2000's, with peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted music. A copyright problem perpetrated by private citizens, instead of mega corporations.
They also referenced deep fake porn, when Bender created a website full of fake nudes of Amy. Something no one expected could ever be convincing at the time, without being an obvious photoshop, and was just meant to be a joke.
The Simpsons may have been the prophet of the last decade, and Futurama is now the prophet of the 2020's.
@@carultch yes but please, please don't say Simpsons and Futurama are "prophet" shows. I really hate that has become so widespread. You even just explained how they were referencing Napster in the episode and you still say their prophets. Nah bro, we just repeat our mistakes over and over for generations. People forget, so when they see a pattern re-emerge, its a "prophecy" - please
and "deep fake" porn got its start from horny teenagers cutting out pictures of girls and pasting them inside nudie magazines. the rest is just an evolution of that
lol sorry for the rant
This is my biggest problem with people in the business of and for the use of AI, they could’ve just paid someone to read and record their voice for their AI to study, but no, they took the short cut and just stole someone’s voice, that’s the mind set behind most people who want to use AI and people who want to create AI systems. No talent, no ethics, no originality and they end up paying for it later down the line, or get away with it and everyone they fooked over has to pay.
"I Have No MPC And I Must Beat."
🤖
We live in such a low effort content ecosystem that the people without the skills to "Actually" create the content they are pushing out can't grasp how pathetic that is.
It is becoming painfully obvious that copyright laws just aren't suited for this time. With digital technology, then internet, and now AI, we might have laws that say that you aren't allowed to use things in a certain way, but that is not how it is in reality. Like with pirated music, the law might say it is not ok, and they might enforce it some of the time, but realistically it is unstoppable, everybody downloaded music.
On a person by person basis maybe yeah, but this isn't a person, its a massive company valued at Billions of dollars
Generally speaking, I think AI is the greatest art and programming teft seen in history….
It should be banned unless they open up how they trained it.
Nah, fuck AI tools that just copy human art and writing.
Yeah. Fuck everyone who says that the way we use AI these days is fair use. Lol. When you steal someone's work and use it to put them out of a job, its literally as unfair as it gets.
I do think AI models are using copyright materials on the dl, but those 2 voices did not sound that similar to me. I guess if I was a fan of her work and very familiar with her voice, maybe I could hear more subtle similarities, but just listening to that example a couple times... I'm more sus about eleven labs' reaction than the actual sound comparison. When I hear my voice on an AI song, I'll know I've made it though.
"They claimed that removing her voice from the API was a technical challenge" ... Either their software engineers are some of the most incompetent in the world, or they're full of horse-shit.
I was thinking the same thing. It'd take no more than an hour tops to do so if not a few minutes
The issues is that these companies for the most part aren't interested in criticisms to AI, because they have a massive portion of the population blowing smoke up their ass and investing crazy money. It's another silicon valley get rich innovation that's only real achievement is further devaluing something that millions of people do for a living (not to mention the very act of creating and consuming art). Like a lot of these innovations it has no planned longevity or any real theory behind its integration into society, ultimately leading to its downfall, probably after most the damage has been done.
For the most part the fad of it being interesting is over. It's becoming too expensive to maintain, only being kept afloat by prospective investors (which like streaming, etc, doean't mean the business model works). Not to mention that they have already found the limit to AI, an unbeatable curve which it cannot surpass (look it up). To top it off most models only get worse as its use increases, oroborousing itself as it gorges on data it generated, birthing worse results (for real chat gpt is having problems with basic maths).
If it is to have a future, I think it should be a framework that you have to train yourself on your own data, or when its using licensed data it needs to distribute the funds to the different creators of the data it used.
@@harrysmith5340 Your comment is really underrated. Probably most people don't even realize the truth you're telling - especially the motivations for pushing AI into society despite the foreseeable increasing flaws and despite not having a real plan, and without any regard for potential damages.
the Shaggy cut is developing nicely, can't wait to see the final form
2:10 "Narrating audiobooks, which is crazy to me that that's an actual job": You watch other people's videos and occasionally pause it to make a comment, so let's not throw stones
Think you might be reading into this a little too deeply. I don't think youtube is this guys job. And regardless, narrating audio books for as a full time job is certainly a lot crazier than low effort react content. Which this channel clearly is not
@@SuperMonibuvy Narrating audiobooks is an acting job, and I think everyone accepts that acting is a job unless they're weird. There's no difference between being a really good audiobook reader or a radio actor or a VO. Streaming is Weaver's job, and that's fine -- it takes certain talents to entertain an audience -- but he's simply not in a position to mock an entire profession as not real work.
Funny thing is that the ElevenLabs voice cloning feature makes you sign a contract that confirms that you have full permission of what you are cloning
I preciate the Busy Works Beats reference :D
knew this was comming
Love to see this
they say AI will improve our workflow.... this is correct, to the extent of 'yes all of it will be taken'.
The best source of music and music production news on the internet. You're awesome, Weaver. 💙
Very informative, nice one.
Oh and I lol'd a few times too. 🤣🤣
omg 30 seconds before you said it, i was fantasizing about cloning your voice and have it say i love bizzy 😂😂 Then you went full demon mode and mentioned mustache man. i died today 🤣🤣💀💀💀
poeple are sleeping on AI. it will do more damage than good to the average person.
ahhhhh zoinksz raggy zoinksz raggy ahhhhh zoinkz raggy arghhhhh zoinkz raggy
Does anyone have a link to that lawsuit document?
I'm all up for the AI push it's a great tool to help with my workflow like Serato Sample or any other stem separation program. Or Nvidia DLSS uses AI. But it's all about the regulations and fairly compensating the original media.
For the future of AI there is no going back can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Or try to stop peeing after holding it for a hour AFTER downing a beer( or a bottle of water). It's not going to stop even if you try.
depends on if the end user has a paid subscription, the human is the middle man now...
make some goal where if you don't do it, you'll grow your hair like Cousin Itt from Addams Fam 😂😂
We don't anymore regs ... thanks you sir.
Uh oh! Weaver mention BWB after mentioning Hit)(ler! BWB gonna be pissed ... :P
Situaion
DID WEAVER JUST DROP THE C BOMB???
Suing someone is fine losing the lawsuit is also fine.
The thing with all these AI lawsuits that people seem to be debating is that ultimately I don't think it matters. The fact is, the US gov't sees kneecapping AI as a much greater risk than pissing off some copyright holders. I think ultimately none of these AI companies will get any major judgements against them, because that would put a cold, chill on the industry, and that's probably something the gov't would like to avoid, as AI is a big industry, with lots of jobs, and obviously the gov't wants the US to keep its lead. If suddenly some companies get multimillion dollar settlements against them, VC money will pretty quickly dry up, which could kill momentum in the industry. I wouldn't be surprised if either we just don't see judgements made against AI companies, or if a large one is made, it doesn't get overruled by the supreme court, since this isn't a partisan issue it would be pretty easy for the gov't to influence the courts on it.
protections on for musicians, artists, writers, actors, etc. is not kneecapping AI,
its just putting protections for the people. what you are saying is irrelevant.
AI production wont stop, it will just be regulated,
btw, a law was passed recently that is in favor of actors against AI
no likeness of actors can be used in AI in life or death.
you seem to be speaking out of ignorance on the subject.
US has its own up to date GPT and it is being constantly worked on, it has nothing to do with entertainment industry
which will crumble without people.
and that is an established industry, that will hurt the GDP
A. I. "Hold my beer..."
I see what you did there with the title ;)
Weaver it was obvious they shifted and pitch shifted the voice to make it appear not so apparent..
I pressed like, but clone my voice anyway!
New microphone?
Too many people are ignorant regarding IP and place their standards for harsh lawsuits as anyone defending the market value of their work/expression instead of
actual egregious lawsuits like suing to own a basic fundamental groove, drum pattern, progression, or technique.
Semi incoherent. That long statement is just one big run on sentence. Try to be more concise.
You can’t copyright a drum pattern or chord progression. That is already established law. What exactly is your point?
@@matthewgaines10 You can look up the recent Fishmarket vs Bad Bunny reggaeton case which is an attempt to set precedent over a drum pattern because theyre arguing its "complex enough to be distinct" or the Marvin Gaye estate vs Ed Sheeran case as examples. Frivolous as they seem. People still attempt to do this.
Are those AI traced teeth ? Whats that thumbnail bruv
I'd like to see you give an example of fair use, where you play an example voice actor's voice, and make your own human impression of it.
that could be fair use if it was a parody of the voice
You can mock all you want, but we all know that transformative use is fair use and what is more transformative than having a computer look at 1 billion pictures or listen to 1 million words and then create a mathematical model based on those observations? The mathematical model has nothing in common with the original material, when all of these cases get to trial that point is going to be made and it’s gonna be made very clearly & effectively in favor of the AI companies. Because it IS fair use.
Holy tooth whitening thumbnail
Not sure regulation would even be possible at this point, given how easily it's circumvented. :/
when it comes to companies, its too much of a liabilty to try to circumvent copyright and this is why studios and companies never try to circumvent copyright.
some joe shmoe with an offline generator can do what they want, it wont hurt the industry ;)
isn’t AI simply sampling from the internet?
Fascinating future when/if multiple people (voice actors) shares the same sounding voice and all claims the copyright to it and someone gets the legal right to it. Then all the others, has to shut up or be sued using their voice in public/business situation? 🤔
globox from rayman taking over a,i and it gets stupid
Dame vs SumnSumnSumn on livestream more beef
For not being a fan of hair, you sure have a whole lot of it.
HEHEHHE. U HAVE NEVER HEARD MY VOICE BROW! :)
shut it down
FWIW i've been generating a lot of stuff based on my own voice as the model but pushing it through the controls ( or exporting with pitch or autotune). you can roll your own without copyright problems. i wouldn't wat to see the tech go away entirely.
well you cannot own/copyright your own voice, so the lawsuit makes no sense, in a similar way like you can't own/copyright your bass guitar tone :P
your argument makes no sense. its called Right Of Publicity ;)
The right of publicity protects an individual’s identity from unauthorized commercial use. It gives people control over how their name, likeness, or voice is used, particularly in commercial contexts like advertisements, films, or other media.
If someone uses another person's distinctive voice for commercial purposes without permission, this could be considered a violation of their right of publicity
TLDR: its not like a bass guitar tone XD
@@skrollreaper there's a difference between voice and speech, and from law perspective it's simultaneously a biometric data (high privacy) and also public resource content (movies, news, youtube videos etc...) xD
@@TazzSmk 🧐
I used Bella voice for a machinima project in 2023. No regrets.
copyright is the right to copy anything you need, why don't you copy a good show Weaver lol
The scalability and speed of AI makes any Fair Use argument effing stupid. But, those dude seems unmoved by logic, so.... what're you gonna do, lol?
Imagine thinking your voice is somehow unique as if we all dont have the dame vocal chords. You cant own your voice. You did not develop your own voice. Ai software engineers actually do develop the voice with hard work while these "artists" were just born with their voice and NOW they think they are the only ones with their voice?
Spoken like someone who commits identity theft 24/7 my guy
It’s not Art. And it’s not creative. And it’s not their work. It’s them talking. And I’m sure they signed a waiver saying it could be used for this purpose. They didn’t just sit there and talk for hours and get paid and think that nobody was gonna try to make money off of that
@@sheateeley1 They got paid. Just like they paid me to read a book for an audiobook. They give me $1200 And then they make a $65,000 selling the audiobook
What if you we give you $20,000 and You never have to come read again
Yeah but you accepted to offer your voice for that specific book. They can't just take you reading the fox and the hare and turn it into reading Adolf's "Mein Kampf"
So does this mean Pearl Jam can sue Creed? Point being if a band does it then it's okay but not when a computer does it?
you are retarded
No ones mistaking Pearl Jam for Creed, people are being misled by 3rd parties that an artist, content creator, etc. worked on something they didn't, using their likeness without consent and making profit.
Also yes its okay for a person to copy cause it's not really copying and not for a computer that can literally replicate someones likeness and style which is not really the computer doing it, its the business behind it.
Im an AI bro. But i do not support no consent monetisation of a persons talents.
What i do support though is willing inclusion in training data. When it comes to education and science though... is THAT okay to copyright in the first place? like you dont have money for acurate and updated education so F your future slave. But thats not the question. NO. it should be illegal to clone joe bidens voice. But it should NOT be illegal to learn how its done.
Software dev here. I’m warning you now, do not bet against AI.
This tech is in its infancy. Yes, some practices are unfair right now. No, the laws have not caught up. It’s still very early, the tech will mature and the legality will clear up.
My recommendation: use as many AI tools as you possibly can every day. Learn how to incorporate it into your workflows. Hack it together. There are tons of free tools you can run on your own computer. Take AI generated content and give it your own creative twists, same as with samples. The best time is now.
Do not listen to anyone saying it’s a fad or that it’s a bubble. It’s not. I’m warning you now. Get on the train, or get left behind.
I disagree with the get on the train or get left behind thing.
I do agree that if used creatively to enhance a workflow it can be a great addition and even multiplication to efficiency.
just try to be ethical about it and dont support the growth of online AI.
thats my main philosophy on it
@@skrollreaper I agree with you that we should try and be ethical about how we use AI, but I don’t understand what you mean by “don’t support the online growth of AI”. How can you both use these tools and not support their growth? These tools, by their nature, are “online”. It’s how they live and spread.
Additionally, how does this support your point that you shouldn’t “get on the train”? Let me tell you a story. When I was a teenager, I was one of those kids that got my driver’s license late. Why did I do that? Well, one reason was because I was lazy. But it was really because I was afraid. I was afraid of growing up, getting on the road, really driving, etc. The fact is, I was going to need to drive and get my license. This was inevitable.
All this AI tech is not exactly magic. Being a software dev who is developing tools with this stuff every day, I get the opportunity to understand how it works at a deeper level. You don’t need to have this understanding in order to use AI effectively, but it’s made me see clearly that the better your intuition is about how AI works, the better your results will be. You gain this intuition by USING these tools. It’s kind of like learning an instrument. Over time as you play the instrument, you get a sense of how that instrument is supposed to be played and how to get the sound you want from it.
Here’s a hard truth: AI is growing, and will continue growing, regardless of whether you support it or not. The genie is out of the bottle. The toothpaste has been squeezed out. There is no going backwards. Get on the train and learn how to use AI my friend!
@@jordanmartinez8652 because they stole from artists without our permission. they didnt support artists growth
I have no interest in furthering the development of AI based off my work they already scraped. why do you think I should show support back to something that unethically has taken from me and my community?
@@jordanmartinez8652 the ai bro has leeked out of you, it was easy to spot. I dont care about your hard truth, ill leech off of it just like you and the devs who like to brag about taking from artist have leeched off of us
First
Firtht
bro stop complaining about ai bros and stuff like a lot of these peapole just think that we have to learn to live with this technology and not ban it and stop it from growing bc then you coukd end up in a dystopian cyberpunk world
*AI companies need to raise their price to 500 and up to use. That will eliminate a whole bunch of leeches and scrubs for flooding the market with AI garbage and people will use it for better use.*
this won't happen for the same reason grocery stores wont drop prices, profit
Voice actors are so talented that they were replaced by The Rock, Kevin Hart and Ellen DeGeneres and nobody cared
That would mean The Rock, Kevin Hart, and Ellen Degeneres are the voice actors.
Bro complaining about AI stealing while he uses a picture of Shaggy as his avatar. Did you get permission to use it Weaver?
Yes
If you think that this is a good comparison, you don‘t understand what the discourse is about 😭
@@tilogo The discourse is around copyright infringement unless I am missing something. I will take Weaver's word that he really got a license to use a trademarked image.
@@songmuse5421 Yes, it's about copyright infringement, however, there are different severities of that. I think you'd agree that there's a difference in having a pfp from a popular show vs. explicitly selling/marketing a product that takes data from thousands of artists.
Weaver does not profit from the thumbnail. If he'd change the avatar, nothing would change. If you'd prohibit AI companies from using music, voices, texts, studies etc., the whole business model would basically collapse or best case suffer tremendously.
So yes, technically, the avatar is copyright infringement. It is, however, not significant for a lawsuit nor does it lead to ethical questions concerning identity theft.
@@tilogo COOOKED HIM!!! FACT CHECK!!! KING YOU DROPPED THIS 👑