No you don’t understand. When working with machine learning for long enough, you start to recognize what the artifacts and errors sound snd look like.

I believe that this might be fully true. I’ll tell you why:

I don’t know how many times I’ve felt like the voice of speakers in videos have sounded like they are AI generated.

Like, voices of people that I subscribe to.

I am was convinced that they were doing some AI fuckery, and this post only pretty much confirms it.

It’s probably to save bandwidth and storage on site, so makes sense.

Then check the JS source code

Why are you so interested in me? You seem a bit obsessed.

That’s weird. People on the internet are weird. You are hella weird that’s for sure.

Oh well, that’s just what I have to deal with.

Weird mfs on the internet 🤷‍♂️

What happened to discussing the laws around copyrights?

Oh yeah I forgot, you’re one of those losers who knows nothing about a topic so you resort to personal insults and stalking because you have no constructive knowledge of value to offer regarding the topic that you yourself started debating.

How does it feel to care more about others than yourself?

Fyi: GME did me good 😉 and looking at who universally dislikes me exposes the profile of most people: a bunch of dumbasses who are less than knowledgable in most areas.

You ever seen a bell curve for intelligence? I doubt it, but I’d be on the far right of it.

”You shall accept defeat only when you are wise enough to understand your past stupidity. And only then will you grow out of your fragile shell and build a new one from an indestructible resource, which is knowledge.”

Guess who said that. (Now you’ll franatically start googling it and go nuts over that you can’t find the source, only to later realize ”why am I wasting my time on this?”, and then you’ll think back to me and accept that I was right all along)

There’s nothing to 🤣 about.

It’s facts.

The law = Facts

Yes, because that’s all you can do.

You cannot debate my facts, so you scramble to find a way to feel important.

But it’s not working now, is it? 😂

There’s nothing to LMAO about.

It’s facts. And it’s the law 🤷‍♂️

It does not matter. The law is still the law.

What the judge decides is up to the judge.

You are missing the point completely.

Here is an example: Somone may kill someone, by accident, and the law says that the individual must go to jail.

However, the judge may still find the individual not guilty.

That’s an extreme example, but I hope you mind can comprehend the idea. I hope.

I have studied copyright laws. I understand it very well.

Fun fact: computer code written by humans is also protected by copyright laws.

There was no issue to begin with. You created an issue out of thin air.

You have no idea what you’re even debating anymore, so personal insults is all that you have left.

It’s the same thing with internet people, every time.

The law doesn’t care if a composition was created by accident.

If the composition has already been made by someone else before and it’s not in the public domain, then the rightful author is entitled to 100% of the revenue, pretty much.

It’s the law!

You can argue as much as you want about it, the law is the law and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

But as always, internet people who have zero knowledge in a certain domain argue with professionals and think they’ll win the debate.

Ignorance at its finest.

I am a music producer and I’ve worked in the music industry for over 10 years. Read one of my other comments where I explain a little what I’ve been through.

Don’t just pull things out of your ass.

I went off track answering you before. I was still in the mindset of music AI’s.

Your question was more generalized towards legal AI’s (legal as in law).

Answer to your question is: we must first ask what the purpose of the AI is, and what type of AI it is.

An AI that would solve the problem you mention would most likely be a classifier of some sort.

It would read cases, and depending on the input data it would generate a binary answer: guilty or not guilty.

That’s the simplest form.

A more complex version could maybe output a range of values, to more precisely dictate the sentence, such as: Social service 6 months, or prison 3 monrhs, or jail 2 years 4months 2 days 13 hours etc…

An even more complex model could maybe work as a Large Language Model much like OpenAI chatGPT or Google Lamda 2 which could output detailed information about the evidence presented, the defense presented, the circumstances, and the final decision, such as:

The defendant is found not guilty for murder because the victim had multiple times triggered psychological attacks by definition of the following medical research papers (see references) which caused defendant to enter a neuropsychotic mental state where the only perceived impression of the situation was death of defendant, which in such situation only fight would be the only solution to flight, given the layout of the room presented in the photos provided by law enforcement and the relative position between defendant and victim.

More so…

You get the idea.

Multiple models could be used to perform different tasks, such as describing by text, or visualizing by image and video, and speaking by audio.

I run an AI audio startup. Ten years ago I fought a legal case against a major music label concerning one of my original songs, out of court.

We simply settled without taking it to court, because: who has the energy anyways.

Evidence was strong on my side. My arguments were strong.

Given that I have personaöly been through this legal process, I am extremely curious about the legalities around music AI’s.

More so around voice AI’s that directly imitate artists voices, and purposefulky intend to sound like the original artist with zero goals of only ”deriving”.

Think about. It’s about to get wild out there.

That’s when we get into the legal greyzone area, which overlaps the concept of: genre.

A lotmof music sound alike. The idea or concept of a music style can be derived easily, without necessarily conflicting with the legalities of the original music.

So derived music is derived music, via AI or human, but is it similar enough to be considered plagiarism or simply inspiration?

That’s the discussion that people miss to discuss, and also something that people simply ignore.

The future of AI art will be interesting from a legal aspeect too.

There’ll be some interesting AI related lawsuits coming up in the future.

Parameter count does not dictate output originality.

Nothing does.

No AI so far generates original output.

AI’s so for are only math based relational machines.

The output will always be as good as the input data, never better.

Humans however have proven time and time again, every day, ever since inception of creation of life, that it is capable of learning little input and create large output that it was never trained on.

There’s something more fundamentally complex going on that gives us the capability to create original data. At least data that is so far away from the derived data that it no longer looks like the input data at all.

This is called: abstraction.

AI’s are not capable of abstraction… yet.

An AI does not know the concept of original work, compared to humans.

Humans can decide which data it wants to derive from, and how much of the selected data it wants to derive from.

AI cannot do this.

That’s why the art image AI’s always look like something it’s been trained on, and why music AI’s always sound like something they’ve been trained on.

And that’s why you are wrong, and I am right.

And that’s also why you and many others will downvote me.

If an AI is trained on existing artists music, then the output from the AI is and should be considered as derivative work.

Thus the original artists should be compensated.

If it can be proven is a different challenge in itself.

”We don’t want to deal with any legal cases, so we’ll let you deal with them instead”

This year alone feels like an explosion of ML