Are AI-Generated Songs Ethical? Let's Talk About It.

[whyterabbyt]

I'd believe they were ethical to be released original work if one could train them without anybody else's original work to train them.

Do humans prevent themselves from experiencing any other work whatsoever before releasing work ?

Do humans get given an analysis of hundreds of thousands of examples of other people's work before using that analysis to release work specifically designed to sound like any of those other people?

[koalaboy]

I'd believe they were ethical to be released original work if one could train them without anybody else's original work to train them.

Do humans prevent themselves from experiencing any other work whatsoever before releasing work ?

Do humans get given an analysis of hundreds of thousands of examples of other people's work before using that analysis to release work specifically designed to sound like any of those other people?

Not in the same way directly - but most composers go and study classic works and many other pieces (via transcription) etc.

They may well try 'not' to sound like others, because they know they are more likely to be rejected, but at the same time many will try to be 'similar' because that's what people are often looking for.

Those writing pop music will often try to be as close as possible to others, whilst retaining some legal 'clearance' to be able to sell well.

Where do we draw the line ? Just saying "AI can do more things more quickly" isn't really an ethical problem, unless any automation is also an ethical problem.

[whyterabbyt]

Not in the same way directly - but most composers go and study classic works and many other pieces (via transcription) etc.

Might be 'many' composers (doing first-hand analysis) on a human scale, but you cant handwave away the fact that its a trivial number compared to the scale of what gets feed to the current crop of generative AIs.

[koalaboy]

Not in the same way directly - but most composers go and study classic works and many other pieces (via transcription) etc.

Might be 'many' composers (doing first-hand analysis) on a human scale, but you cant handwave away the fact that its a trivial number compared to the scale of what gets feed to the current crop of generative AIs.

I'm not handwaving anything away overall - just as to how much that determines if something is 'ethical'.

If there is (for example) a local gardening business, and they are doing a good job, and then a new business sets up with ten people who will do the work much quicker for a slightly slower price (due to being able to move fast across more jobs), is that also unethical ? Or is it just 'business'.

Where does the 'monopoly' line get drawn, vs 'strong competition' ?

How much 'more' analysis do you have to be able to do as a human, before you become 'unethical' ? Is it like sports, where 'enhancing' drugs are banned, or is it different for creative/intellectual pursuits ?

[CrystalWizard]

How much 'more' analysis do you have to be able to do as a human, before you become 'unethical' ? Is it like sports, where 'enhancing' drugs are banned, or is it different for creative/intellectual pursuits ?

machine level analysis, not sure how you are confusing "human" with "machine."

[koalaboy]

How much 'more' analysis do you have to be able to do as a human, before you become 'unethical' ? Is it like sports, where 'enhancing' drugs are banned, or is it different for creative/intellectual pursuits ?

machine level analysis, not sure how you are confusing "human" with "machine."

I'm not confusing them - I'm wondering where the line is.

If a human uses a computer to analyse EQ, is that unethical ? If a deaf person uses visual tools to assist in analysing audio, is that unethical ?

People are constantly saying "if it's a machine" but that is clearly not an ethical issue. Then it's about 'how much' the machine can do versus the human, but where is the line ?

Was the industrial revolution unethical, and if so are we all complicit in buying goods manufactured in that way ? Is it unethical to use computers to communicate over the internet as we wouldn't be able to do so without machines, or at the scale we do.

Most research these days, uses machine-level analysis. Is that unethical ?

I am trying to ascertain *which* part of the argument makes it unethical, vs just 'better'.

[whyterabbyt]

I'm not handwaving anything away overall - just as to how much that determines if something is 'ethical'

If there is (for example) a local gardening business, and they are doing a good job, and then a new business sets up with ten people who will do the work much quicker for a slightly slower price (due to being able to move fast across more jobs), is that also unethical ? Or is it just 'business'.

Where does the 'monopoly' line get drawn, vs 'strong competition' ?

How much 'more' analysis do you have to be able to do as a human, before you become 'unethical' ? Is it like sports, where 'enhancing' drugs are banned, or is it different for creative/intellectual pursuits ?

Let me know when you've defined the universal metric for 'ethical' because that'll be when you've got a yardstick to quibble over edge-cases with.

In the meantime, when a tool mandates mass-scale analysis of other people's work because its primary purpose is basically the creation of 'new' work ostensibly replicating the unique artistic fingerprints of those people, then all someone objective would need to do is consider why forgery isnt usually considered ethical.

How much 'more' analysis do you have to be able to do as a human, before you become 'unethical' ?

Why would analysis as a human be part of the conversation? I thought we were talking about the ethics of using a level of direct analysis that couldnt possibly be done by a human, in order to specifically replicate what a human already did.

[whyterabbyt]

Most research these days, uses machine-level analysis. Is that unethical ?

Is it using machine-level analysis of other people's copyrighted work that was not intended to serve as a template for something that was specifically designed as a forgery of work by those people?

[koalaboy]

Most research these days, uses machine-level analysis. Is that unethical ?

Is it using machine-level analysis of other people's copyrighted work that was not intended to serve as a template for something that was specifically designed as a forgery of work by those people?

We have no idea what it uses. I wasn't aware that this discussion was just about 'forgeries' anyway, but more about AI-Generated in general.

If we're just on about copyright and forgery, then the question "Are <any> forgeries of copyright material, ethical ?" is a solid no, no matter whether human or AI.

(Unless you want to go down the 'satire'/education etc. route and then there's a whole other question)

[whyterabbyt]

We have no idea what it uses.

Then why did you ask us about something you have no idea about?

I wasn't aware that this discussion was just about 'forgeries' anyway.

But since we're talking about generative AI which is specifically designed to create work that, on a sliding scale, sits along 'resembles work by X' to 'would pass for work by X' then 'forgeries' should certainly be prt of the conversation.
Or are you moving goalposts to exclude the patently obviously unethical because its not 'just' about the examples that can actually be highlighted as unethical?

If we're just on about copyright and forgery, then the question "Are <any> forgeries of copyright material, ethical ?" is a solid no, no matter whether human or AI.

~~

Now you're starting to get the point.

[koalaboy]

We have no idea what it uses.

Then why did you ask us about something you have no idea about?

Because unless I've missed the memo, most research is considered ethical, or at least this question isn't as commonplace.

I wasn't aware that this discussion was just about 'forgeries' anyway.

But since we're talking about generative AI which is specifically designed to create work that, on a sliding scale, sits along 'resembles work by X' to 'would pass for work by X' then 'forgeries' should certainly be prt of the conversation.
Or are you moving goalposts to exclude the patently obviously unethical because its not 'just' about the examples that can actually be highlighted as unethical?

If we're just on about copyright and forgery, then the question "Are <any> forgeries of copyright material, ethical ?" is a solid no, no matter whether human or AI.

~~

Now you're starting to get the point.

I'm not moving goalposts, but perhaps the question is too wide/vague ?

If something is explicitly illegal, no matter what, it's likely also already considered unethical by most, as the two often go hand-in-hand, and if we don't ignore that then the question is effectively 'can AI generated songs be unethical' which isn't what was asked.

If we rephrase that to 'can AI generated songs be ethical' then perhaps it brings a different angle, because if the answer is 'no' then the wider answer is 'no'.... but I don't think the answer is 'no'.

I think AI generated songs can be ethical, in the same way humans are able to emulate other humans in a non-copyright fashion.

So I guess what I'm saying is, the answer to the OP is "Only if they are used in an ethical way", which likely won't satisfy those who wan't to keep arguing around the facts.

I don't think that AI is different from any other technology in that regard as of the moment, as it is not sentient and therefore cannot be unethical in and of itself. It's purely down to how humans use the output (the same as research and anything else).

Does it make it easier for humans to be unethical ? Yes. That's not specific to Songs or anything else though.

[whyterabbyt]

Because unless I've missed the memo, most research is considered ethical, or at least this question isn't as commonplace.

So you had already decided on the answer.

I'm not moving goalposts, but perhaps the question is too wide/vague ?

If something is explicitly illegal, no matter what, it's likely also already considered unethical by most, as the two often go hand-in-hand, and if we don't ignore that then the question is effectively 'can AI generated songs be unethical' which isn't what was asked.

If we rephrase that to 'can AI generated songs be ethical' then perhaps it brings a different angle, because if the answer is 'no' then the wider answer is 'no'.... but I don't think the answer is 'no'.

Well yup if you rephrase a question from 'is everything that is X also Y' to 'can something that is X also be Y' then you're starting to get my point.

I think AI generated songs can be ethical, in the same way humans are able to emulate other humans in a non-copyright fashion.

Obviously. The opposite of 'X is true for everything' is not actually 'X is true for nothing', it is 'X is not true for everything'

So I guess what I'm saying is, the answer to the OP is "Only if they are used in an ethical way", which likely won't satisfy those who wan't to keep arguing around the facts.

well, simultaneously 'yes' and 'not quite'.
If your tool wasnt created ethically, then it isnt magically made ethically-created just because you use it ethically.

Does it make it easier for humans to be unethical ? Yes. That's not specific to Songs or anything else though.

Noone said it was specific, as far as Im aware.

[0degree]

It's obviously unethical - not sure what's the point of even arguing it. Those AI tools were trained on every possible and accessible music (whether legally or not) and not on loyalty free audio sources. Once again big companies/corpos are taking away bread from artists' mouths to fill execs/CEOs/shareholders pockets. Those services would be completely useless without processing terrabytes of audio materials so in essence it's an intellectual theft but in an obfuscated and hard to prove way. I'm pretty sure those companies were hoping to make a quick buck before any regulations would protect artists from stealing from them

[eassae]

Australian Government Rejects Proposal to Allow Text and Data Mining by AI Companies:

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/a ... 234759253/

[havran]

---