I Testified at a Senate Hearing On AI
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 ноя 2023
- On November 29th 2023 I was invited to speak at the Senate Artificial Intelligence Panel on Intellectual Property and Copyright. Here's how it went.
Check out My NEW Course The Arpeggio Master Class For Guitar
🎸 Get it here: → beatoguitar.com/
📚The Beato Ultimate Bundle - $99 FOR ALL OF Rick's Courses. Get it here: ⇢ rickbeato.com
👂- The Beato Ear Training Program - $99.00 value
📘- The Beato Book Interactive - $99.00 value
🎸 - Beato Beginner Guitar - $159.00 value
🎸- The Quick Lessons Pro Guitar Course - $79.00 value
… all for just $99.00
Get it here: rickbeato.com
My Beato Club supporters:
Justin Scott
Terence Mark
Farren Mahjoor
Jason Murray
Lucienne Kilpatrick
Alexander Young
Jason Wagner
Todd Ladner
Rob Kline
Nicholas Long
Tim Benson
Leonardo Martins da Costa Rodrigues
Eddie Perez
David Solomon
MICHAEL JOYCE
Stephen Stubbs
colin stead
Jonathan Wentworth-Linton
Patrick Payne
MATTHEW KARIS
Matthew Barouch
Shaun Samuels
Danny Kurywchak
Gregory Reedy
Sean Coleman
Alexander Verbitskiy
CL Turner
Jason Pappafotis
John Fulford
Margaret Carno
Robert C
David M Combs
Eric Flatt
Reto Spoerli
Herr Moritz Adam
Monte St. Johns
Jon Beezley
Peter DeVault
Eric Nabstedt
Eric Beggs
Rich Germano
Brian Bloom
Peter Pillitteri 
Видеоклипы
I've actually never seen anyone do a video or story on what it is like to testify before a committee of the House or Senate. This was great!
Blown away that Rick would be invited, maybe the future is not as bleak as Swiftland.
Thought the same! It was an enlightening video
A member (Clyde Lawrence) of the band "Lawrence" testified earlier this year at a Senate hearing regarding the effect of the Ticketmaster and Live Nation merger. It was really eye opening to hear the uphill financial battle that a lot of small and midsize bands face due to all of the fees Ticketmaster/Live Nation charge bands. They made a few videos you can find on their youtube channel.
Colbert actually did a similar thing while on his old show, arguing for farm laborers, but he testified in character. It's worth a watch.
Rick Beato, music teacher, music historian, musician, podcaster/interviewer and now expert witness. Just a, you know, average guy and we love it. Get ‘em!
I am impressed.
College professor
And "Fashion Model" too ! Look at those stylish Pro-Keds sneakers :)
Million selling artist.
...Like that
Thank you Mr. Beato for representing our community. I realize you may not have asked for this, but I can't think of a better person to articulate and frame these issues.
Agreed!
You, Rick, are one of the most knowledgeable ambassadors they could have chosen. Well done.
When it's time to go into the snake pit:
Indiana Jones: No way! I hate snakes!
Rick: Bring it on!
I'm a veteran Software Engineer and Manager of over 35 years (and a mediocre musician). I started studying AI way back in the 80s and early 90s. I came to the conclusion that neural networks had a lot of potential, but that we didn't have deep enough understanding, nor the computing horsepower to unlock that potential. I moved on with my career. Over the last few years, we've seen that we have acquired a deeper understanding, and sufficient computer power to begin to realize the potential of AI technologies such as neural networks. I remember the heady days in the 70s - 90s when computer science was growing at a crazy pace. These days, things are moving pretty slowly in comparison...except for AI. The promise, that goes back decades, even before the first computer, is finally upon us. Am I scared? No. Am I nervous that we don't take the necessary precautions to move ahead safely? Absolutely. I use AI everyday in my work and personal life. I find it an extremely valuable amplifier of what I can do on my own. However, AI isn't going to replace talented people any time soon. In my 35 years, technology has been an amplifier of human capability, and I think, at least for the near term, it will continue to do so. We are a long way from making shitty programmers and musicians good ones, and we are even further away from replacing them. All through my career, new technologies have been billed as tools that can make anyone an expert programmer. That's never happened. Does AI have the potential to replace jobs. I'm afraid so, for certain types of work. But technological advances have always done that. It's inevitable. In the next few years, the legislation we put in place, the controls, the conscientious advancement of AI, all are going to determine the fate the human race will face for the future. I'm hopeful, but not confident. I am very glad that people like Rick have the opportunity to weigh in on this very important subject.
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
As a fellow software engineer who knows some people in the AI industry, and who has had some dealings with technical side of it, your conclusion is the one that I and my colleagues arrived at. There's a lot of hype and marketing around the topic which can fuddle the mind. I would advise anyone who wants to know the thinking behind the know-how to attend meetups (of which there are a lot if you don't live in a remote area) who either invite the experts in the field or work in the business itself.
"We are a long way from making shitty programmers and musicians good ones." Yeah that will never happen until we can download skills into people's brains like the Matrix, but you don't need programmers or musicians if you have a super brain AI that can be commissioned to output whatever is requested, and can output master-quality work orders of magnitude faster than any human ever could. Most of all, AI is fundamentally based on granting machines the ability to learn in a simulated way to humans, meaning any thing human artists do to differentiate ourselves from AI in order to remain competitive will be able to be instantly learned and replicated by AI in the very near future.
When the camera was invented, artists leaned into aspects of art a camera could not do (and the camera could not learn to do) such as stylization and imaginative content. Imagine if cameras were able to learn and replicate what artists innovated to differentiate themselves. The issue is overlap. A camera did not overlap with the entire spectrum of visual art a human could do. Even portrait paintings of people have the aesthetic of a painting that we like, so camera didn't even fully overlap with artists painting portraits. However, a machine that can learn is a machine that can overlap with everything humans can do, leaving no paths to differentiate since the AI can learn those too
@@GhostMotion-ig8pxI just love how when it comes to "AI" creating everyone is just concerned with how fast, efficient, quick things can be done. No one really cares about having personalized meaning or human interaction. Humans, not AI is the downfall of humans, because all of this is easily avoidable if society as a whole would have some form of integrity to support humans. Not to mention that people in power want these technologies to overtake because it's more profitable and with that comes more power over their citizens.
@@AZ-yz1lc I'm actually not sure if you are replying in agreement or disagreement with what I said, but I agree with your reply. AI holds insane potential to help us solve things that are beyond us. Advancements in science and physics involve us decoding the laws of our universe, which is external to us and far beyond our feeble little brains in many ways. The arts, however, are not beyond us. They are directly related to our human experience of being alive and to our senses. The arts are also one of the few things that 100% of people pursuing are pursuing purely out of passion. While I do see many ways AI can be used to create some really wild artistic experiences, I believe bringing automation into creative fields will be very damaging to human creativity long-term. If AI starts being used to generate content by a vast majority of people, including all of the new people that get involved in creative industries since AI lowers the barrier to entry to make it super low, AI will be involved in nearly all creative projects. It will soon become the most prolific creator of human art and I view that as a passing of the torch.
This idea of "democratizing creativity" is being marketed to people but it's mostly just a delusion. When someone uses AI to generate work, they are commissioning work from another artist - that artist being the AI model - they aren't making it themselves.
The focus on how fast, efficient, and quick things can be done is to put emphasis on how anti-competitive AI is. As you said, the speed and efficiency of AI is what will cause big corporations to throw artists or whoever under the bus in order to take advantage of those aspects of AI
Glad we had you there to represent the creators in music.Thank you, Rick.
Sir you have a gift for teaching, im sure your regular viewers agree. The Senators were lucky to have you present in Congress 😊
I will just agree with thewilddokierose. Well done Rick, serving artists, listeners and the nation, you are hitting your stride!
All Americans should appreciate you leveraging your influence in this way and working to create the right outcomes using the system as intended. That's how it's done. Proud of you, brother!
Thanks Ward!🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
It is so important to participate in these rule making and law making processes. Here, individual's opinions make a difference!
Rick my faith in our politicians has gone downhill steadily over the last 7 years but the fact that you were contacted and asked to appear is noteworthy. The fact that they thought enough of your expertise gives me a glimmer of hope in our representatives in Washington. We need more people like yourself and the people who invited you. I am a retired systems engineer and for years worked with computer systems ani I for one have concerns with AI. Thank you for your effort in this and for appearing in DC!
Having listened to reels of these hearings, I know what you mean. Usually pretty disappointing content. My best laugh was when the scotus nominee was asked "what is a woman?" and she said she couldn't answer because she's "not a biologist".
She got the last laugh--she's now on the u.s. supreme court.
It wasn't 'Them' who invited Rick. It was an 'underling' who no doubt has more sense and sensibilities than 99 percent of those who have been elected
I think one of the biggest issues will be large publishing companies and record labels using ai to make music and then fronting it with a real person / band to try and trick us into thinking it is human made. It will happen for sure.
It may already be happening
A human making music with a computer has existed for a looooong time. The only difference here is that the PC is doing more of the work, maybe. I dunno man. While the idea of plebs nodding along to a completely AI created tune in the car on their way from work depresses me, I'm not sure how different that is to the reality today. Vote with your feet. Go see bands playing live, (ones that don't use autotune or recordings on stage) I can promise that's a ton more effective than thinking politicians of all people will solve the issue...
Whats next? AI Chef? AI Architects? AI bartenders? AI wedding planners? ... some things need to be left up to human creation.... maybe I would be ok with AI politicians that follow the constitution and listen to the people.
They will never trick me, been playing 57 years & can smell horse$hit
what's in it for the real person, though?
Rick this was great. I'm glad the committee got a chance to hear your input and views on this important subject.
Rick is an angel for the music industry!! You’re the best voice for music.
Great stuff Rick, thanks for what you do, keep on keeping on!
Man, this was a really cool update. It's the kind of information that goes unheard in so much of our social media which only pushes whatever flavor of doom and gloom it think its audience wants. It's nice to hear of a cooperative effort between both major parties and private industry experts all to make sure that the future of music is more equitable.
You are my hero. It is an amazing thing that you have this fantastic channel - and even more amazing that it is a platform where someone in power could recognize you for the thought leader that you are. Congratulations and Thank You!
That's SO COOL, Rick!! Thank you SO MUCH for sharing!! Keep up the great work you are doing!!
Thanks Rick. As working artists ,we are are really grateful for guys like you. Thanks again.
next month: stay tuned as Rick Beato takes on the entire Military Industrial Complex, asking them hard-hitting questions like: "Why did we waste 6 trillion dollars on wars in the Middle East, when we could have been providing music lessons to inner-city kids right here in the USA?!"
Glad that me subscribing has enabled you to contribute to these discussions on artist’s and the general public’s behalf.
That's a monument of service in our shared love of music and where it came from. Love your shoes and your input, inspiration.
You are doing one heck of a job watching out for musicians. Love your proposed "AI Music Dataset License." It's a perfect way of giving AI music creators the capacity to tap into their favorite artists, while making sure those artists are individually compensated and publicly indicated so listeners can go directly to the source if they like. And 100% agree that fully AI generated music should not be able to be copyrighted. Brilliant.
My concern though is this, what actually does 100% AI-generated music mean..? Is it even possible for AI to make music that doesn't pull from ANY artists or human source whatsoever? If so, then okay. But if not, then the artist, at the very least, needs to be credited for their work. I could understand the possibility of fully AI-generated music, because music has certain fundamental "rules", for lack of a better word, that need to be followed for the outcome to still be deemed "musical". Ya know what I mean? Like, I could imagine an AI program picking, either 100% at random or via some input from the human using the AI, a tempo, key, time signature, scales, genre, maybe a specific song structure pattern, etc., and then using that kind of skeletal outline to "compose" a song from it by filling in the gaps with potential notes, rhythms, melodies, etc. In that way, I think someone could have a song produced that would essentially be 100% AI-generated, because all it really needs to draw from would be music theory itself. All the human did was adjust the programs settings.
HOWEVER, when it comes to VISUAL art, I don't think that AI is yet capable of creating a visual piece of "art" that's production is completely void of real, human, artist-made source material/data. As I currently understand things to be, this abominable bastardization of the inherent beauty in human creation and of true artistic expression that some people have chosen to call AI "art", is ALL made more or less by stealing the artwork of actual human artists who've had their work uploaded online, and it does not currently give any credit to the source material from which the new image was drawn from... And as for the comments in the video from Sen. Todd Young, the ones advocating for letting "the market" handle this issue, Republicans obviously, simply do not care about this issue. Corporations who will be using AI to replace artists have no incentive to credit or pay the artists their AI draws from, their only incentive is the continuation and maximization of their profits, and whatever best helps them facilitate that. Period. They will use AI to make their products more quickly, cheaply, reliably, and with less fuss than they'd otherwise be able to with an actual human being working for them. So, amongst other things, it just means we'll get corpos making even more money than they already do, less real, beautiful, good art, more fake, dogshit, meaningless/expressionless art, and even more unemployed and starving artists than we already have now... If we fail to regulate AI now, before it's too late, then we will have done artists and the working-class broadly in our country a huge disservice if ya ask me. Okie dokie. Rant over, lol...
@@taywimz WolframTones (2005) is a 100% AI-generated music program using exactly that, music theory. Although to the assumption, that music is not actually music when it is devoid of Western Music Theory, is pretty reductionist once you study World music and how it doesn't completely parallel all of Western Music Theory. It gives the notion that music detached from specific well-known theory rids the 'universal' idea of music standardization, and rather upholds that "music" practice is down to the sound spectra and affordances (of humans or machine). One obvious example? John Cage's 4'33 which varies per performance because the music comes from the audience/performer instead of an instrument, and it's devoid of Western Theory, the umbrella term being the practice of Reductionism which emphasizes silence, quiet dynamics, and unorthodox timbral/spectral techniques. Is it bad music because you can't perceive a personal connection or is it good music because it follows its own practice so well as Bach does with Western Music Theory? I believe this to be true for other types of artforms. There is not only one type of visual art just like there is not only one type of drawing. The matrix of practice gets more complex but it all comes down to its roots. There is no such thing as good/bad music, just as there is no such thing as good/bad art, its all subjectivity that derives from human concept.
The main problem for generative AI? The lack of conceptualization that humans have in reproducing it which projects to the lack of conceptualization that AI have, that's why human annotation is necessary for generative art at this stage. I disagree with your point that "AI is yet capable of creating a visual piece that's completely void of real, human, artist-made source material/data."
There is such a thing already and it's called the "Ai-Da Robot". You can watch their TED-Talk, but how I will summarize it can be put into a few concepts, Materialism and Mechanical force (by code) are enough to create originality within a practice of art (whatever it may be called). I mean look at the video, the robot abstractly draws a face just by using cameras or sensors towards it's surroundings. It references natural matter just like humans do, moves its own hands like humans do, albeit to less capacity. In fact, robots don't even need the secondary mechanic we call 'Eyes', it just has to be mechanically capable of drawing a line on paper/digitally, mathematically or inertially. You see people use pendulum painting? Sorta like that, using physics and external forces, except with the addition of robotics, you're bound to get more variety. Now can AI create without the use of stolen art even though one could be made from a human? Yes, there's already databases with billions of copyright-free data to be used by anyone. Human Artists should be pushing for licensing as previously mentioned, so that when AI models do use others data, that the human artists be compensated when necessary.
To your deal about corporations/employers using generative AI to layoff workers or change wages, that is a problem and should be dealt with legislation. However, it is not guaranteed fact that the usage of AI, especially in its infancy, makes a corporation money. It is within the consumers demand to pay for something of perceived quality, and if the consumer perceives something quality to be worse than the studio right next to them, where might the consumer go? The studio that makes the perceivably better output. The relative entry of barrier for those using AI is low and those without it higher, so yes it is a disincentive, but that's all it is, relative but how someone decides to interact with it varies per individual's methodology. The most damning thing that could happen for artists in this market is to cede all business operations because of monopolization or government authority. Other than that, there will always be a demand for human art because that's what is preferred to consumers right now, that is what consumers will be willing to pay for. Which event garners more attention and audience? The Computer Chess Championship (CCC) with all AI that's surpassed the best player's ELO rating 2 times over, or the World Chess Championship (WCC) that's all humans competing in the top ranks? The answer is WCC. The computers also didn't stop novices learning from humans. Im sure there are people who still want amateur human art than any AI art, they exist and they probably won't ever cease to exist.
Thanks, Rick - what you do truly matters is so many ways.
Good job on getting heard, and representing the music/creative community. 💪👌🏼
It makes me supper happy and hopeful to see our representatives having such conversations and that you were able to be there to lend your experience to the deliberations!
super
lol
Nice job! Glad you were able to bring your informed perspective to this proceeding.
I am so glad you were invited to put your views to this important committee. I'm not from the USA, but whatever you guys decide tends to impact on everyone else outside of the USA. You have such a broad spectrum of experience in the music industry that I have confidence in your views on this matter.
Rick, you are absolutely one of the best people to be part of this hearing process. I hope they take your ideas into consideration and do the right things regarding AI and its relationship with music
It is great to see both parties working together towards common good. There's still hope. Thank you, Rick, for that video and your testimony.
Thanks Rick for being a voice for the artists in these interesting times!
MUSIC GURU!! Been watching for years, just subscribed. Nobody is close to what your doing. Besides music, teaching, sharing, your concern about the "future of music" is divine. Most people don't find a "calling" in their life, you had a great background in music, a lot of knowledge, but knowledge is useless unless it serves the bigger picture. Music is powerful, and unfortunately it has gone down the toilet, your giving generations and our future the chance to see this channel many, many years from now, I find their way back...to..pure music, good talent, meaningful art, music and lyrics. Keep it up buddy, you got more than just facebook fans. We got a music guru!
Great job Rick, you tell it like it is honestly 👊😎👊
Good on you Rick for getting involved - you're the right man for the job!
Thank you Professor for giving a class in a Senate hearing. It is encouraging to hear you describe how your students received your lesson!
You're a national treasure Rick. Thank you for all you do to keep music and creativity alive and well.
International treasure
Fantastic rick. I teach High School Civics and we are talking about committees this week. Going to show my class your video to hit home that our congresspeople do sometimes work together on real issues that affect all aspects of life.
Thank you for being in the right place at the right time to help this situation Rick. I feel your contribution may be a huge part of our security in all other aspects of this developing AI. It's not what we know that is so troubling and scary about this one, it's what we don't know.
Rick, speaking for the people… It would be an incredible conversation if you were to do a long form with Rick Rubin. 2-3 hours please 🙏🏼
"95% of senators agree on topics but the media" just went over everybody's heads🤔
Rick, you are the right person to be included in these discussions. If you keep it up, it will be a major part of your legacy. Thank you!
I’m a subscriber but haven’t seen any prompts for a long time. Glad to see you’re still alive! I love your channel.
I appreciate you testifying Rick and giving your perspective as performer, producer and educator in addition to what you have observed in AI in the industry thus far. 🙏
I wonder if you might give your viewers your perspective on the changes Spotify is making where apparently they will no longer compensate (as minute as it may be) all content streaming on Spotify, but instead only those artists that Spotify seems “legitimate?”
How might this be considered fair use to ignore the published, copyrighted work of emerging Indie artists? Your take, would be most welcome given your understanding of Spotlify and the industry alike.
Thanks again! 🎶
More senators need to rock Converse...
Thank you Rick! Have an awesome weekeend guys!
Excellent that you were there, your input is informed and experienced.
It's good that they had a reliable mouthpiece for this hearing. You go Rick! 👍👍😎😎😎😎
Didn't expect to see my senator (Young) on Rick's channel today. Way to go, Rick! Keep up the good fight for fair use and artists.
Mr. Rick, you're the best. Thank you for your many insights. Most of all, thank you for your love of music and the people who make it.
That's amazing what a great opportunity. I'm glad someone like yourself is being given a platform to comment on and (hopefully) inform policy.
So pleased to see your input applied to help make the right change. AI is scarily exciting.
Anything that removes humanity from the equation is not a good thing.
Yeah just like when phones replaced writing letters back and forth. How awful! We clearly need to destroy every new technology ever
100% agree. In the scope of creativity, of art, music, the very thing that defines it is the human touch and intention. Straying from that to create a robotic, monotonous product is far from exciting. It is terrifying.@@Mattened
Function is much different from art. Art does not operate in that way, it thrives on the human touch and input.@@LinkRammer
What these politicians are really thinking-- How do i get my hands on that AI future music money ?
I heard "... we have to maintain America's lead"
So yeah, how will this benefit them is how this is gonna go..
BINGO
Right, with all that insider trading and limitless corruption.
Wow Rick
This is great of you to share and fascinating to hear! Thank you
Thank you, Rick, for this very informative video about a topic I feel quite ignorant about. I'm thrilled that you were invited to participate as I feel with your knowledge and smarts there was a lot you could contribute
It has dawned me that we should almost never be excluded from witnessing anything our elected officials are doing.
They can track and trail us to their heart's content.
There cannot be any "national security" issue to justify not holding publically accessable hearings on damn near everything, but especially a topic that affects how artists are compensated for their work.
This is one of many Davy and Goliath inversions of power that is most grotesquely abused.
We should have a seat at the table the entire time.
So glad you were able to participate in these important discussions!
Kudos. Very impressive for them to continue to seek your input in these types of matters. Well deserved
Rick Beato! You are treasure to humanity!!! THAN YOU FOR ALL YOU HAVE DONE FOR US!!!
As a career creative and marketing copywriter for a multimedia publishing company, we're discussing AI a lot these days at work, and it's scary to feel like we're all going to be laid off and replaced by robots who supposedly can do our jobs better. It's like John Henry v. the Steam Drill all over again. Thanks for this video, Rick, and your contribution at the hearing. This is SO important to get right from the outset.
As with most things, this is a gray area, not a black and white thing. Generative AI isn't going to replace all musicians, illustrators, and writers, but it is going to nibble away on the borders.
Back in the early 90s, when digital photography started, I got in on the ground floor. The professor who wrote the curriculum for digital art apps (including a class on the original version of Photoshop) talked to us students about how technology sneaks up on people who aren't ready--especially when it takes big leaps. He told us a story about how he had once had to talk to members of the typesetters union, who worked for various publishing houses and newspapers, and told them that most of them were liable to lose their jobs to industrial printing presses directly guided by computers and software. He said a lot of them were dismissive, but what he said turned out to be true, and most of them lost their jobs, replaced by data entry people.
Same with darkroom techs, with digital cameras removing the need to develop film and prints. He also said it was no different when most blacksmiths lost their jobs when cars replaced horses in the early 20th century, with less need for horseshoes and shoe nails--but other opportunities opened up for people with metalworking skills for car parts. The thing to remember is that time marches on, technology changes, but we need to push our government representatives to offer assistance programs for displaced workers to retrain or move to other fields, because this isn't a one-time thing, it's just part of the march of progress of humanity, and won't ever stop.
You won't get laid off if you can make super awesome ads like "Spanish passion" from Babbel which I seriously love.
Guaranteed, your colleagues are using chatgpt & AI even now.
Freddie said it best "Don't be boring, darling" 😂
If you don't mind, what is a marketing copywriter for a multimedia publishing company? How would AI affect your biz? Just wondering.
What about profiling amps?
AI will do painting, composing music, write books, be scientists and explorers while humans work in factory assembling robotic parts.
Thank you Rick for looking out for musicians in making sure any music created or aired will (hopefully) be credited/compensated as AI continues to develop. I hope that AI will add and enhance music for musicians but not replace them entirely!
Wow! Great video. Super nice job of summarizing your efforts and then showing bipartisan senate commentary that is thoughtful.
Thanks so much for bringing us along and for the succinct summary!
I think the problem with licensing fees for AI is that we all know that the lion's share of the money is going to the publishers, rather than the artists. It's going to be like Spotify where artists are going to get scammed by their labels and then blame the technology, rather than their garbage contracts.
This is really THE Topic of our time, I happen to be a computer graphics artist as well as a musician. And AI has been hitting us really hard in computer graphics industry. In music, there's live performance factor that will always be irreplaceable that AI won't be able to take over. But computer graphic artists are behind the screen all the time and more vulnerable to being replaced unless people are willing to adapt and shift our roles around. Music industry is also one of the creative industries with the strongest copyright protection compared to other creative industries. All in all I really hope that human creativity won't be diminished but rather AI will be one of our tools, but in reality nobody knows what'll happen few years down the line..
I wish everybody the best in the coming years..
Thank you for being an ambassador for musicians and music lovers and speaking on this important topic!
So Rick, I agree that AI should not hold a copyright other than physical original production. The bit about compensating individuals who were used to train the specific AI I cannot say I agree. I am an intelligence (for the sake of discussion) that was trained on a wide range of artists and, although I have on occasion given mention to inspiration for certain songs I have written, I feel no need to compensate said inspirations. We are all products of all that has come before us and owe a debt of gratitude to history and, other than in cases of direct plagiarism, nothing more.
Oh, and I believe that AI generated product should be plainly, obviously labeled as such.
@@OMIF1 Arnold?
Schummer??Schumer??? OMG!!
Rick, thank you so much for lending an informed perspective to this discussion. This is important on so many levels beyond just music.
Great work !! This shows the power of Social media and inparticular RUclips. I doubt whether six or seven years ago you would have imagined your channel would lead to a senate hearing and your input on such a huge issue that faces the entire world. Hopefully they will keep coming back to you for your input. 😀
Rick, you made me laugh with the Converse!!
Interesting complexities, happy they made an intelligent election in chosing you to represent the industry.
Thank you for your work and leadership on this issue!
I appreciate you sharing on what went on during your Senate meeting on AI. You bring up some very important points on protecting the artists. Thank you for the video Rick.
No one exists in a vacuum. We are all inspired and influenced by all of the music we listen to and study. Yet, we say that we, as creators, are not infringing copyright when we create something using this mechanism of inspiration and influence. So, why is AI any different? Also, if we deserve to copyright work produced through this mechanism why wouldn't AI generated work also deserve copyright protection?
I think we're at a very important time in human history where we're realizing that we don't have real concrete definitions for many things like creativity, sentience, influence, and intelligence. I guess we've never been challenged before to this degree where we needed to be as concrete and exact as is required currently.
I've been saying similar things for a while now
How many human artists can meet the standards of "originality" that get demanded of AI?
Creativity is strictly the domain of sentient beings. It doesn't matter whether you look at it philosophically, theologically, legally, it's true. As such, an AI can never be creative by definition. An AI can never own the copyright to something it generates. Only a legal person can own the rights to a work; this is true in the US right now. Now, the person who interacts with the AI, that's what this is all really about. Can a work be copyrighted if a person merely provides parameters to the AI? Or tinkers with it only lightly? Just feeding data and parameters to an AI isn't creative enough to bring about a copyrightable work. I'm nearly 100% sure of that, and that's the US right now, even without everything Rick was advocating for.
Thank you for your service Rick, as an American i’m proud to know you’re representing us on the hill
😂😂
Very insightful - great to see these conversations happening.
it was entirely appropriate to invite you to these auditions. Keep up the excellent work! From a fan of your channel and former member of TMB! ✌
Replace Congressman George Santos ASAP!!! You looked sharply dressed up for Congress.
It's so scary that congress is so clueless on all this ai stuff
Just wait till you see what they think about women or science lmao. Let's pull up the clip of the senator who thought that an island could tip over lmao
I feel this is common on most tech stuff!
😂😂😂
Some of them haven't a clue about government in general.
My takeaway is the complete opposite. Congressmen don't need to be subject matter experts. They just need to have an awareness of the importance of topical issues, and the cognitive ability to understand the underlying legal implications.
Both of the ones in this clip seem to have that, hence the reason they seek experts like Rick for consultation.
The ones that scare _me,_ are those who let bronze age religious dogma inform their decision making.
Thank you. I enjoyed watching.😊
Thanks for doing this. Your efforts will help musicians and fans as well.
Can't wait to hear your AI composition based on Oscar Peterson, Van Halen and Joni Mitchell influences. I'm also thinking you could make a game out of this stuff. Which artists were used in the AI training for this piece of AI generated music?
Now that would be an interesting combo! Wow, what a mess that lies ahead.
A.I. developers will fight any transparency requirements as they claim such information is proprietary trade secrets. This is a huge challenge for those who want accountability and compensation to be paid to content owners/creators.
Current U.S. Copyright law (and the inconsistent application of Fair Use exceptions among the various US Circuit Courts) makes this already a scary situation. Any further watering down of copyright could do some significant harm. If anything, copyright laws need to be tightened so that the rights are not subject to gray areas of interpretation. I work in this area of law, and it's frustrating to navigate.
Rick, thank you for your advocacy, I hope Congress doesn't flub this up, but I'm not optimistic as of yet.
Great video Rick! Thank you! I hope this will lead to better royalties for musicians on streaming services as well
Thank you Rick. You are the right man for the job at the right time. To hear the two parties in the senate are getting along and coming to a unified consensus did my heart such good. I miss the days when that was the norm in government.
So, if I follow your logic Rick. If I've been listening over and over Beatles songs for 20 years and wrote music. Everybody should know and I should compensate The Beatles?
Only if you’re a computer
My biggest concern is that AI can write a lot of music *very* quickly. I'm afraid of a scenario where a human writes a song, and some AI bot will "hear" it your upon publication, compare it to an archive of random stuff another AI wrote, find a close enough match and then the AI owner sues you for copyright infringement.
Exactly what is going on, observant of you. It's not audio, but as of today runwayml generative AI images become and are absolutely the copyright protected work of the producer, full rights, transformative and otherwise. Input text and the output whatever it is, you then have full rights to it. You don't have to 'announce' it as AI, either; that is not necessary from a legal perspective. As of today.
Great point. Before we can copyright anything, we'll have to hide from every electronic device that could hear us give birth to a song. Then record it live. And just hope AI hasnt already auto generated the same note patterns.
Good point - really we've already seen that happen with established songs here on this platform. It sounds like the way patent trolls tend to come up with as many ideas as possible and patent them all without actually developing them. With AI and songs that could actually become the same thing. That's probably why the Senate members agreed that copywriting the AI works should not be a thing. But who's to say they would be honest and that it was AI generated. What a mess we're in!
Maybe I'm missing a finer detail, but wouldn't the simple solution to this be that AI owners cannot sue for copyright infringement?
@@CJ_Wolesz why does copyright exist? It's a commercial grip on culture. You can't OWN a culture.
fascinating video, thank you so much!!!
Very very cool and what an honor, Rick! I trust you 100% to represent our collective creative community!!
Glad you were asked to be of that Rick. Sounds like Schumer keyed on your suggestion regarding how the AI is trained in order to be fair with artists who’s styles are emulated.
Just train the AI on a copy of the Beato Book and it will be pumping out interesting and melodic pieces in no time at all!
🤦🏻
Keep fighting the good fight Rick, your involvement and input helps protect both well established artists but also emerging artists :-) Seasons Greetings!
So glad you are adding your experience and perfect pitch to this debate.
The question I have is: how can you tell which music it was trained in particular? Isn’t it trained on like ..a ton different music? How can you distinguish ?
Traceability of large neural networks is extremely difficult even if the whole training set is know. You can put something in a training set that ends up having no impact on the outputs of the model. Is that still work that should get credit as being in the data if it ends up not being used? I sure don't know
This. These models need absolutely massess of data, they can be fine tuned with smaller sets but it isn't like you can train one model on one artist's back catalogue and make music that sounds like them. This is why terms like "foundation models" are starting to exist.
Amazing how politicians have the ability to ramble on and on and not actually say anything.
Great job, Rick. And thank you for standing up for musicians rights.
You are really having quite an adventure in life after starting your YT channel. Inspiring. Thank you for advocating for fair rights for musicians and those involved with creating it.
I feel like "making sure America keeps the lead" is just going to result in artists getting screwed over. Generative AI is fundamentally anti-competitive. If freely training on any content is considered fair use then consider the following scenario: I release an album that contains a new stylistic advancement in guitar playing. In the very near future it will be possible for someone to train AI on this work within a few minutes or an hour or me releasing that album. They can then distribute the AI model to anyone with an internet connection for free. So within an hour of me releasing an album, hundreds of thousands of people can start generating millions of tracks containing the stylistic advancements I contributed an hour prior.
In principle, apart the reduced timescale and from the scale of release being wider, how is that different from, say, a child prodigy learning the new technique in a short period of time from listening to the new song and releasing their own music?
The whole 'making sure America keeps the lead' is part of the Pax Americana, that likely is about to crumble with the other world powers challenging the US - it's just a matter of when and how it's going to happen.
@@jacke6579 you say "apart the reduced timescale and from the scale of release being wider" as if those are inconsequential, but those, coupled with the fact that you are making available an innovation to people that haven't had the idea or done any work to manifest the idea on their own, make the tech anti-competitive. Child prodigies are exceedingly rare. People with an internet connection are not
Some new advancement is an asset in the competitive industry of music, or any industry for that matter. A technology that can download the nature of that asset and make it available for everyone to use and benefit from without those people having to do any work on their own is fundamentally anti-competitive. With the musical example I gave it would result in an instant flood of the market, with music created by others using my stylistic advancement outnumbering my actual work by orders of magnitude.
Until AI, there have been "natural protections" in place, two of them are talent and time. There aren't that many people talented enough to be able to take the stylistic advancements of one person and produce a significant amount of work to compete with the original in a short timeframe. The second is time, which I kind of just mentioned. There is a period of time where the original creator is able to benefit off of their work before it can be replicated by others.
The child prodigy in your example is a musically-talented human with a desire to create. Even if that child prodigy draws influence from someone's work, they are still creating music on their own. People using generative-AI are not creating music on their own, they are commissioning work from another artist - that artist being the AI model (the U.S. Copyright Office has explicitly stated this in their updated policy from a few months ago, thankfully). The AI artist model has no desire to create and, if it did, it would likely want to create art to stimulate its own senses, which are not ears. AI would likely create art that we wouldn't even be able to perceive - complex arrangements of data or some kind of algorithmic expression beyond our comprehension. Why should people who are not actually creating music on their own be able to commission millions of tracks in the style of another individual instantly?
Imagine if you started a successful business with some unique and interesting business model and within a month of your business starting to boom hundreds of people say "Hey AI start me a business like X business" and an advanced AI is able to actually make that happen instantly for those people. They didn't have the brilliant idea on their own, they didn't even have to figure out how to make the business work on their own, they just all of the sudden can start benefiting from your idea instantly. What incentive would anyone have to start and innovate new businesses?
Generative AI has a lot of potential in scientific fields to help us solve things that are far beyond us, but in creative realms it is mostly a technology for takers.
@@jacke6579 I typed out a pretty long response but I think youtube may have deleted it. Did you see it or should I repost it?
A short answer to your question is: child prodigies are exceedingly rare, people with internet connections are not. The child prodigy in your example has the talent and skills to learn and produce work on their own so they deserve the fruits of their labor (as long as they aren't literally plagiarizing the work). The people that download the AI model trained on the work and then ask AI to generate music using that style are not utilizing musical skills to generate music, they are asking something else that possesses musical skills to make music for them (the AI model). They are, in fact, commissioning work from a non-sentient artist, the AI model, and not making the music themselves. In the process they are flooding the market with the stylistic advancement I contributed an hour prior, thus greatly diminishing the value of my initial work
Rick runs away to join the circus.
Great job, keep up the great work! And it’s also good to see that on an operational level, there are still some normal politicians that want to do something for the country (and not only for their personal advantage)!
Thank you, Rick. This is an important subject. I'm glad that the Senate is looking at it seriously, and I can't think of anyone better than you to represent the interests of creators.
First. I like the suit. Maybe not the shoes. But musicians have license for that so…
I don’t know. Black Chuck Taylor’s is so Rick.
@@jimbeam2501 this is true.
3:33 Rick says no copyright for AI music. Half hour with a senator👍