[HN Gopher] David Guetta uses ChatGPT and uberduck.ai to deepfak...
___________________________________________________________________
David Guetta uses ChatGPT and uberduck.ai to deepfake Eminem rap
for DJ set
Author : tomduncalf
Score : 291 points
Date : 2023-02-10 07:28 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| tagami wrote:
| Tiffany Blue(r) is a registered mark for a specific color. Using
| something like fourier transform, can a unique voice be
| trademarked?
| hoerzu wrote:
| Which Huggingface Space for voice cloning works best for you?
| https://huggingface.co/spaces/haoheliu/audioldm-text-to-audi...
| pictur wrote:
| This guy is a lot dumber than I thought. Sharing the theft he
| committed from his own account is another level of retardation.
| dawurstman wrote:
| "This is the future rave sound"
|
| Then plays a weak ass progressive psytrance drop from 2011
| kaoD wrote:
| Funny thing is according to Wikipedia David Guetta coined the
| term so...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_rave
| rchaud wrote:
| As long he doesn't somehow end up producing future posthumous
| 2pac albums...
| brailsafe wrote:
| Better call the genre police, don't want to get caught enjoying
| something
| rcarr wrote:
| Which one of you is going to make a real time AI rap battle
| website? I want to see AI Mark Grist slay some more teenagers
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp4wEewrQdU
| zachthewf wrote:
| If you want to do this, email me z@uberduck.ai. There is a LOT
| of awesome shit that can be built.
| cloudking wrote:
| Already done https://www.airapbattle.com/
| adultSwim wrote:
| Uberduck's homepage has a demo of "Eminem" rapping for a bank ad.
| Without the artist's explicit approval and compensation, I'm
| deeply uncomfortable.
| AndyPa32 wrote:
| Maybe I am late to recognize that, but with recent developments I
| get the feeling that AI and machine learning are really getting
| somewhere now. If it goes forward with the current trajectory,
| then this could change the world just like radio, television or
| the internet did.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Those things advanced average people's reach. This is not doing
| that.
| DeRock wrote:
| The internet broke down the barriers to content distribution.
| AI will break down the barriers to content creation.
|
| The future will not be "look I made an AI song that millions
| of people are listening to!" but will be "AI create and play
| me a song of my favorite rapper overlaid onto of my favorite
| techno genre" and you'll just listen to it yourself.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Today, right now, you can have a language model create
| lyrics to "AI killed the Internet star," a TTS model sing
| it in the style of The Buggles, and a single channel blind
| source separation model replace the voice track. Tomorrow,
| you will just talk to your voice assistant running an
| action transformer to have it done for you.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| I think you're wrong. These AIs are available to everyone. So
| anyone can create studio quality audio by clicking around.
|
| If anything, it potentially puts big studios out of business.
| Itunes and and Spotify and Youtube become the distribution
| channels.
| 13years wrote:
| How so, isn't that exactly what it is doing to an even
| greater degree? Those who would never have the capability of
| doing something are now able to do something they only
| dreamed about.
|
| It is exactly the inverse of previous advancements, in that
| those already at the top don't get nearly as much benefit as
| those at the bottom since I will be able to copy your skill
| no matter how good you are and reproduce it infinitely.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Don't we already have useful (YMMV) models that can run on an
| average gaming desktop ?
| nashashmi wrote:
| Imagine in the future when we will have AI ways of doing
| things locally on our smartphones, how would this be
| similar to radio/tv/internet changing everything?
| onion2k wrote:
| Nobody listens to techno!
| prmoustache wrote:
| Last time I checked, David Guetta was not producing techno.
| Eventually he spends most of his time with his arm in the air
| so calling him a dj is a huge stretch too.
| nextstep wrote:
| The comment you're replying to is an Eminem lyric; it's a
| joke.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Didn't knew that, thanks! Pretty sure someone electronic
| artist will have had it remixed right?
|
| edit: took me 30s to find several of them on youtube.
| [deleted]
| pwillia7 wrote:
| Oh -- so when David Guetta does it on stage it's interesting now?
| :P
|
| https://reticulated.net/dailyai/gpt3-uberduck-linux-gangster...
| pwillia7 wrote:
| I will also say -- UberDuck and AI TTS in general, when
| compared to the SURGE of development and tools that's happened
| on the image/video side of AI, is TERRIBLE.
|
| UberDuck's community specifically seems geared towards kids
| making memes -- I suspect they just ended up there and didn't
| design it that way, but wading through the terrible user
| created models to find ones that work was tiresome.
|
| I tried to get https://coqui.ai/ setup to do similar things,
| but have not been successful.
|
| Surely this will all explode in the next 18 mo max
| brailsafe wrote:
| Wow, people seem so ready to be aggro about Guetta or ai or w/e.
| Disappointing that people can't get past their high school
| opinions and have some fun.
|
| Check out his sets from Dubai and so on over the pandemic, Ultra,
| etc.. Dude brings good vibes, relax
| malthaus wrote:
| *david guetta's ghost producer
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Guetta, like most big DJs, definitely uses ghost producers. But
| he also very obviously knows how to produce as well. And if you
| are a producer, you're likely technically savvy enough to
| figure out basic AI tools.
| ggrelet wrote:
| What claim do you have to say that? Here is a 30-minute lecture
| from the guy recording himself producing a track:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfEhLdITOac
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| To be fair, the way he's moving around Ableton is very
| noobish. But maybe that's just because he's trying to show
| views.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > What claim do you have to say that? Here is a 30-minute
| lecture from the guy recording himself producing a track:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfEhLdITOac
|
| Joachim Garraud, among others, has been producing David
| Guetta's tracks for 20 years.
| sometimeshuman wrote:
| The video reference the common ChatGPT "in the style of" prompt.
| Is there a list of what "styles" ChatGPT's model has been trained
| on ? Or is this information not disclosed since it would be an
| admission that ChatGPT has been trained on copyrighted lyrics,
| etc. by which is produces these derivative results ?
| maronato wrote:
| You can ask ChatGPT which artists it's able to emulate, and
| it'll tell you. I asked for a few sample lyrics from its list
| and they were all as good as you'd expect.
| oezi wrote:
| Remember it is just a stochastic model. The prompt "in the
| style of" + any word just makes it more likely that certain
| words will be predicted next.
|
| If it never heard the name Eminem or read any of the lyrics it
| couldn't predict anything similar.
| gondolgames wrote:
| A YouTuber called "30 Hertz" has been making several fake Eminem
| songs (+other artists) for 2 years now, in very good quality. An
| example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMunOszEQHE
| whitemary wrote:
| Full length (much better): https://youtu.be/WtFNOSTTPYg
| stuckkeys wrote:
| Holly shit. This is...Amazing!!!!
| jc_811 wrote:
| How does he do this?
| lakomen wrote:
| Uhm lol kinda funny
| knaik94 wrote:
| The rules for live DJ sets is very different from copyright rules
| that limit published music. This is the same as when artists use
| samples of meme audio, which otherwise would be copyrighted.
| Guetta has a long very large body of work and deserves the
| benefit of the doubt when it comes to the question of Eminem
| okaying it. He very clearly wants there to be a discussion about
| this. Celebrity impersonators for singing have been a thing for a
| long time. This isn't about one artist in particular.
|
| I was playing with Tortoise TTS and was genuinely surprised by
| how good it is with just a few minutes of clean audio. It didn't
| take me hours to train or fine tune, the generation step is sort
| of long, 5-7 minutes for 30 seconds, but it feels really similar
| to stable diffusion where you do quick test with slow samples and
| iterations to find a decent seed, and then you let it do a more
| complete regeneration. It's zero shot generation that ran on my
| laptop 2070 max q and i7 10750h. It's not perfect but it's
| believable when layered with music.
|
| https://github.com/152334H/tortoise-tts-fast
| tlarkworthy wrote:
| The music industry will not like this, seems like a short circuit
| around royalties and the value of a music deal with an artist.
| rapsey wrote:
| It is like in the early youtube days where everyone was just
| waiting who is going to shut them down.
| iamben wrote:
| This case is probably pretty relevant right now - and this is
| with an impersonator and the _right_ to use the song:
| https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/jan/27/yung-gravy-sue...
| TheFragenTaken wrote:
| Guetta is not saying it's the real deal. The creativity, is his
| usage of the tools available. He could have hired an
| impersonator, it's the same thing (in my opinion).
| __alexs wrote:
| Using impersonators has its own issues. e.g.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
| williamcotton wrote:
| But that's in a commercial setting, this is during a
| musical performance. The audience was not tricked into
| showing up to an Eminem performance and were not tricked
| into thinking that Eminem was on stage at any point. This
| is protected speech.
| cj wrote:
| > This is protected speech
|
| According to a quick google search, even cover bands
| performing live are required to pay royalties to the
| original artists whose songs they're performing.
|
| Maybe there's some loophole when using an artist's
| likeness while changing the actual music and lyrics, I
| don't know.
|
| But "protected speech" isn't meant to be a way to make
| money off of other people's work.
|
| Curious what part of "Midler v. Ford Motor Co" you think
| wouldn't apply to a musical performance.
| 101008 wrote:
| > According to a quick google search, even cover bands
| performing live are required to pay royalties to the
| original artists whose songs they're performing.
|
| It's more than that. If you were part of a band and now
| you are solo (plenty of cases), you need to pay your old
| band if you play an old song you were part of (unless you
| own 100% of the lyrics and music rights, which is rare).
|
| By the way, I am totalyl OK with this deal/agreement/way
| of doing things.
| williamcotton wrote:
| You're thinking about this wrong.
|
| Do I need to ask permission to impersonate Eminem during
| a comedy performance? How about during a musical
| performance?
|
| The answer is no. This is fair use 101.
|
| If you cover a song of his while doing an impersonation
| then this is covered by the performance fees the venue
| you're playing at pays every year to ASCAP and BMI.
| __alexs wrote:
| > Do I need to ask permission to impersonate Eminem
| during a comedy performance? How about during a musical
| performance?
|
| The answer is maybe. See the case I cited above.
|
| > This is fair use 101.
|
| Voices are not copyrightable so fair use doesn't seem
| terribly relevant here.
| williamcotton wrote:
| Fair use is relevant for parodies that are not subject to
| copyright or royalties so it is indeed relevant, but
| you're right, the issue with Bette Midler is the common
| law right of publicity, of which David Guetta is not in
| the wrong because no one was tricked into thinking that
| he was Eminem. Even if David Guetta's DJ sets became
| nothing but Eminem songs it would be fine because he
| would still not be tricking anyone into thinking that he
| was Eminem.
| nailer wrote:
| Satire is protected under fair use so yes you don't need
| permission for a comedy performance. A musical
| performance? Hell yes.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Satire protects you only _if_ you needed the thing
| imitated to make your point [and you have $$$ for lawyers
| to argue that]
|
| The example I like (even though Weird Al always obtains
| permission so doesn't need Free Speech protection) is
| "Smells Like Nirvana" compared to "Fat".
|
| Smells Like Nirvana is satire. The thing criticised _is_
| Nirvana 's "Smells Like Teen Spirit", and the wider
| Grunge phenomenon it exemplifies. Al's song talks about
| how Kurt's lyrics are mumbled and hard to understand,
| "It's hard to bargle nawdle zouss / With all these
| marbles in my mouth", and about how it's too loud so
| it'll annoy your mom and dad, "We're so loud and
| incoherent / Boy, this oughta bug your parents". This
| _can 't work_ if Al uses Mariah Carey's "All I Want For
| Christmas" instead of Teen Spirit.
|
| "Fat" isn't satire. Michael Jackson wasn't obese or even
| overweight, and his song isn't causing people to eat too
| much junk food, Al's song is just using the outline
| structure of Jackson's "Bad" because that fits and his
| new song is funny. If his lyrics had fitted better to
| Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" that would have
| been fine.
| williamcotton wrote:
| No, you're not correct. Cover bands don't need to ask
| permission. The venues they play at should be writing
| down the songs they're playing and submitting them to
| PROs, but the bands don't need to do anything.
| cj wrote:
| Whether it's the band or the venue paying, someone is
| paying (which is the point).
| williamcotton wrote:
| Yeah, but only for the songs covered, not any originals
| that the cover band did in the style of anyone else.
| Which is the point.
| CPLX wrote:
| Maybe. The concept of derivative works seems to be the
| one that keeps popping up in these kind of AI
| discussions.
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| > But that's in a commercial setting, this is during a
| musical performance.
|
| This means he wasn't paid for the performance, is that
| correct?
|
| Because otherwise doing it for paid performances and
| promoting it on social media but saying "it's not
| commercial bro" doesn't seem very genuine
| justusw wrote:
| Chiming in here, even if he was not being paid for
| performing this song here, the tweet and publicity still
| serve to market his work, right? How is that not
| commercial? I mean, this is to sell more tickets in the
| future, one would assume.
| williamcotton wrote:
| Sure, but in the Bette Midler case, I was talking about a
| literal television commercial:
|
| _Midler pursued a common law judgment against Ford for
| using her distinctive voice without her authorization.
| The appellate court pondered the question of whether or
| not an artist 's voice is a distinctive personal feature
| over which a person has controlling rights from
| appropriation. Midler was not seeking damages for
| copyright infringement of the song itself, but rather for
| the use of her voice which she claimed was distinctive of
| her person as a singer. The recognition of Midler's voice
| in the commercial was found to be the intentional
| motivation and a major feature of the commercial._
|
| This is a common law right to publicity. This is our
| common law right to be in control of our likeness.
|
| David Guetta is being paid but he is not being paid by
| the promoters or the audience because he says he is
| Eminem so there is no reasonable claim to a violation of
| Eminem's common law right to publicity.
|
| Whereas with Midler, the commercial production crew was
| seen by the jury to be paying an artist to convince an
| audience that Bette Midler was endorsing the product.
|
| These are completely different situations.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| There is a very big difference between putting out a record and
| playing something at a performance. The latter is a lot more
| lax.
| Bad_CRC wrote:
| yup, this could be more like Daft Punk using samples.
| ahoya wrote:
| Which is completely illegal without permission from the
| artist they sample.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| In reality just like a DJ doesn't need to go and get
| permission for each record they play, they just pay a
| blanket fee for that.
| knaik94 wrote:
| This isn't going to be released commercially, as a very
| successful artist, he knows that better than most. No record
| label would release songs without clearing things with the
| relevant artist. Many artists and DJs don't release live
| sets/remixes because it would be impossible to clear all the
| samples, I don't see why this would be any different.
| dao- wrote:
| David Guetta makes tons of money just performing live, so
| "not going to be release commercially" feels like a cop-
| out... But then again, that's sort of how DJing works anyway.
| Would he have had to pay some sort of royalties had he just
| remixed one of Eminem's actual works on stage?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| The venue he's playing at would have to have a general
| license with the big labels, from which some money would go
| to Eminem.
| phpnode wrote:
| In which country is that true? In the UK for example
| venues need to be registered with the PRS (Performing
| Rights Society) but their fees are relatively low and the
| funds they collect are distributed based on surveys with
| the venues - once every year or two someone will come to
| the venue and ask them to write down the top 20 or so
| artists / tracks that they play. It's not very targeted
| or accurate.
|
| https://www.prsformusic.com/
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Sorry, didn't mean to suggest it was target specifically
| to Eminem, just that some of the money would get to him
| via the general performance license. As far as I
| understand PRS is a common model.
| sigmar wrote:
| >No record label would release songs without clearing things
| with the relevant artist.
|
| What would that email look like? "Here's some lyrics you
| never wrote and some audio you've never heard. Can I use it
| in my song?"
| [deleted]
| knaik94 wrote:
| Something like that, lyrics about other artists are often
| cleared too. There's a mutual understanding in certain
| genres, but there's the infamous example between Taylor
| Swift and West where the conversation was leaked because
| West mislead Swift. The candidness of it and the beginning
| of the line Taylor was willing to let slide was
| interesting. That wasn't even AI or a sample, just a
| reference in a demeaning line.
|
| https://genius.com/Kanye-west-kanye-west-and-taylor-
| swifts-f...
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| On the other hand, you might be able to clear royalties
| quicker, so long as you emphasize its AI with permission, now
| nobody has to spend money on studio time recording new vocals
| for some one off DJ remix.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's too late, this is just advanced remixing.
| zorr wrote:
| Which artist will be the first to sell a licensed LLM (and
| other models?) trained on their own discography?
| Mougatine wrote:
| In a way, it's similar to the actors selling their digital
| images in the movie The Congress. It's inevitable.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Based (how closely ?) on the 1971 black humour science
| fiction novel "The Futurological Congress" by Stanislaw Lem
| !
|
| (For those that would not know, he coined the term "robot"
| from the slavic root "work".)
| blackshaw wrote:
| Are you sure? Wikipedia says the word was coined by Karel
| Capek:
|
| https://wikiless.org/wiki/Karel_%C4%8Capek?lang=en
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Oh damn. My bad - it's funny, I even though to myself :
| <<he would have been quite young, wouldn't he ?>>
| andrewfromx wrote:
| wow, not many people have seen this movie. 100%.
| CaptWillard wrote:
| I'd never heard of it, but definitely going to check it
| out now. A lot has happened in the ten years since it was
| created.
| nickelcitymario wrote:
| Well now that's an interesting thought. I bet you're
| absolutely right with this prediction.
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| depending on the artist some fans might not enjoy being
| short changed if the drop in quality is perceivable.
| flangola7 wrote:
| What song did Eminem write that he would be owed loyalties for?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| His entire discography, the thing that ChatGPT's
| impersonation of him is based on.
| flangola7 wrote:
| None of his discography is being used verbatim. The UK has
| already determined AI training is explicitly protected use,
| and does not require rights licenses or royalties.
|
| Some countries will try to hamstring AI development by
| saddling it with perversions of copyright use, and those
| countries will increasingly fall behind technologically and
| economically.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| The voice synthesis models can be done with as little as a
| few seconds of someone speaking. Not an entire discography.
| williamcotton wrote:
| This is a tired cliche.
|
| Does Supabase owe him royalties when they use that same
| model that trained on Eminem's lyrics to make a chat bot
| that can interact with their support documentation?
|
| https://supabase.com/blog/chatgpt-supabase-docs
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| Chat bots are not in competition with Eminem in his
| industry. Whereas other music artists are.
|
| Its entirely fair game for subjects in a given field to
| protest when an AI is trained on their work and then is
| used to power competition to them without any form of
| remuneration or licensing to compensate them.
| williamcotton wrote:
| Great, so we agree that it is fair use for OpenAI to
| train on copyrighted works as long as the person using
| the model does so in non-infringing ways and that the
| liability rests with the person using the tool.
|
| Logically, the model must be considered in fair use if we
| are to allow Supabase Clippy. This is how the courts will
| see it!
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Possibly yes, though it's more likely that OpenAI owes
| royalties on the revenue they get from ChatGPT.
|
| We have yet to see this play out in court, but we likely
| will in the following years.
| rapsey wrote:
| OpenAI will 100% need to start paying royalties. For
| instance it knows a whole lot of things that are not
| publicly available and locked away behind science journal
| paywalls.
| flangola7 wrote:
| I don't see why that would require them to pay royalties.
|
| The training data is also publicly available,
| https://pile.eleuther.ai/
| williamcotton wrote:
| From The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for
| Language Modeling:
|
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.00027.pdf
|
| _7.1 Legality of Content
|
| While the machine learning community has begun to discuss
| the issue of the legality of training models on copyright
| data, there is little acknowledgment of the fact that the
| processing and distribution of data owned by others may
| also be a violation of copyright law. As a step in that
| direction, we discuss the reasons we believe that our use
| of copyright data is in compliance with US copyright law.
|
| Under pre (1984) (and affirmed in subsequent rulings such
| as aff (2013); Google (2015)), non-commercial, not-for-
| profit use of copyright media is preemptively fair use.
| Additionally, our use is transformative, in the sense
| that the original form of the data is ineffective for our
| purposes and our form of the data is ineffective for the
| purposes of the original documents. Although we use the
| full text of copyright works, this is not necessarily
| disqualifying when the full work is necessary (ful,
| 2003). In our case, the long-term dependencies in natural
| language require that the full text be used in order to
| produce the best results (Dai et al., 2019; Rae et al.,
| 2019; Henighan et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2018).
|
| Copyright law varies by country, and there may be
| additional restrictions on some of these works in
| particular jurisdictions. To enable easier compliance
| with local laws, the Pile reproduction code is available
| and can be used to exclude certain components of the Pile
| which are inappropriate for the user. Unfortunately, we
| do not have the metadata necessary to determine exactly
| which texts are copyrighted, and so this can only be
| undertaken at the component level. Thus, this should be
| be taken to be a heuristic rather than a precise
| determination.
|
| 1984. Sony corp. of america v. universal city studios,
| inc. 2003. Kelly v. arriba soft corp. 2013. Righthaven
| llc v. hoehn._
| williamcotton wrote:
| Universal tried to make the same argument with Sony and
| the VCR. They wanted a royalty payment on every sale.
| They won their case!
|
| It took the Supreme Court to overrule, where they created
| the legal doctrine of "commercially significant non-
| infringing use" as part of determining fair use. They
| looked at the VHS rental market and the numerous other
| industries that were dependent on this technology. The
| courts do not want to be in a position where a ruling can
| have a profound impact on commerce especially when
| balanced with extending copyright claims at the detriment
| to freedoms of speech.
|
| This is why legal experts keep saying the model and the
| outputs will be considered different and why the model
| itself is fair use and why the risk-averse lawyers at
| Microsoft are getting behind these tools... and even why
| they are letting people build on top of them before they
| were ready for prime time, to flood the market with non-
| infringing uses!
| simiones wrote:
| While I think the case you're presenting is very likely,
| I don't think Sony v Universal applies too significantly.
| The VCR was demonstrably not in any way based on
| Universal's IP - it was only a tool that could be used to
| create copies of Universal's IP.
|
| In their capacity as tools, LLMs probably would fall
| under a similar model. However, the LLM itself is
| substantially based on the IP of all of the creators of
| the data used in its training set. This may or may not be
| granted fair use status, or it may or may not even be
| seen as infringing on the copyright of those works at all
| - but either way, it is not covered by that case as a
| legal question (at least in my own non-lawyer
| interpretation).
| williamcotton wrote:
| Sony v Universal established a very important legal
| doctrine with regards to "commercially significant non-
| infringing use". You can take my word for it, you can go
| an do your own research, you can confirm with an IP
| lawyer, or you can wait for the the court's opinion.
|
| Or I guess you can give me a little bit of time to go and
| help you do some of your own research, which I will do
| right now, so just hold on a bit!
|
| I'm not trying to trick people or win some hypothetical
| argument, I'm trying to help people see how the courts
| will consider these issues and how and why we should
| agree with their rulings that these tools are fair use of
| copyright protected works!
|
| I love copyright, probably more than most people on these
| forums, but the liability needs to be on the people using
| these tools. Supabase Clippy is fantastic and they should
| not bear any costs, even implicitly through OpenAI paying
| royalties. Someone who releases a "Sarah Anderson Cartoon
| Maker" tool using Stable Diffusion should still be found
| to wrong Sarah Anderson's common law right to publicity
| just as someone who releases a "Vacation Photo Background
| Cleaner-Upper" tool using Stable Diffusion should not
| bear any costs, even implicitly through StabilityAI
| paying royalties to Sarah Anderson.
|
| These must be considered in their capacities as tools
| regardless of how they were made and for reasons
| foundational to the law itself: How can you prove that I
| used a given tool such as Stable Diffusion or the
| "Vacation Photo Background Cleaner-Upper" tool without
| concrete evidence of the tool, such as the presence of
| the software on my laptop? Can law enforcement get a
| warrant to search based on literally no visual evidence
| that Sarah Anderson's works were somehow used in the
| training process of a tool that I have on my private
| property?
|
| Edit:
|
| ---
|
| _In the Texas Law Review in March, 2021, Mark Lemley, a
| Stanford law professor, and Bryan Casey, then a lecturer
| in law at Stanford, posed a question: "Will copyright law
| allow robots to learn?" They argue that, at least in the
| United States, it should.
|
| "[Machine learning] systems should generally be able to
| use databases for training, whether or not the contents
| of that database are copyrighted," they wrote, adding
| that copyright law isn't the right tool to regulate
| abuses.
|
| But when it comes to the output of these models - the
| code suggestions automatically made by the likes of
| Copilot - the potential for the copyright claim proposed
| by Butterick looks stronger.
|
| "I actually think there's a decent chance there is a good
| copyright claim," said Tyler Ochoa, a professor in the
| law department at Santa Clara University in California,
| in a phone interview with The Register.
|
| In terms of the ingestion of publicly accessible code,
| Ochoa said, there may be software license violations but
| that's probably protected by fair use. While there hasn't
| been a lot of litigation about that, a number of scholars
| have taken that position and he said he's inclined to
| agree._
|
| https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/19/github_copilot_cop
| yri...
|
| https://texaslawreview.org/fair-learning/
|
| Both Lemley and Ochoa state that the models themselves
| are probably protected by fair use. Meaning, it is
| perfectly fine for OpenAI to train their models on
| publicly accessible copyright protected works without
| asking for permission or having to pay any royalties or
| having to adhere to any of the terms of the license.
|
| They are also free to distribute this tool and to charge
| for people to use this tool.
|
| What Ochoa is saying about there being a good chance of
| there being a copyright claim is that this tool doesn't
| absolve the users of the tool from copyright violation.
| The liability is on the person using the tool regardless
| of the tool being used. It's not the intent that matters
| with copyright, it's that you ended up publishing
| something that looks enough like someone else's picture
| that twelve people consider it to be not too different
| than a simple photocopy.
|
| Now, this can still be a problem for Copilot because an
| engineer's company might not want to be injecting a lot
| of copyright protected code into their products, but for
| the most part the outputs from Copilot have been non-
| infringing. That it sometimes produces infringing code
| does not matter to anyone other than the person using
| Copilot.
|
| Ochoa goes on in detail about what is and isn't covered
| by copyright with regards to code, which is one of the
| things that gives me confidence to use Copilot and know
| that I'm not putting myself at risk:
|
| _But in terms of where Copilot may be vulnerable to a
| copyright claim, Ochoa believes LLMs that output source
| code - more so than models that generate images - are
| likely to echo training data. That may be problematic for
| GitHub.
|
| "When you're trying to output code, source code, I think
| you have a very high likelihood that the code that you
| output is going to look like one or more of the inputs,
| because the whole point of code is to achieve something
| functional," he said. "Once something works well, lots of
| other people are going to repeat it."
|
| Ochoa argues the output is likely to be the same as the
| training data for one of two reasons: "One is there's
| only one good way to do it. And the other is [you're]
| copying basically an open source solution.
|
| "If there's only one good way to do it, OK, then that's
| probably not eligible for copyright. But chances are that
| there's just a lot of code in [the training data] that
| has used the same open source solution, and that the
| output is going to look very similar to that. And that's
| just copying."
|
| In other words, the model may suggest code to solve a
| problem for which there's only really one practical
| solution, or it's copying from someone's open source that
| does the same thing. In either case, that's probably
| because a lot of people have used the same code, and that
| shows up a lot in the training data, leading to the
| assistant regurgitating it._
|
| So in practice it is pretty easy to tell that Copilot is
| spitting out purely functional suggestions basically all
| of the time as there isn't really any other way to wire
| up a unit test or call a specific API.
|
| Ironically, if Copilot gets better at "software
| architecture" then it starts to cross over into the
| expressive parts of software that are indeed covered by
| copyright, meaning these issues of liability become
| harder to discern to the end user and enough of a problem
| that GitHub would want to figure out attribution or
| somehow "clear" the suggestions for the user.
| simiones wrote:
| Edit: after the text you added, I believe we are
| essentially in agreement. _IF_ it is accepted that the
| way GPT3 was created is a fair use of the works in the
| training data, _THEN_ I fully agree that (1) OpenAI has
| every right to sell it even if (2) some uses of it would
| still constitute copyright infringement, since (3) only
| specific users would be liable for copyright infringement
| in their uses.
|
| Where we differ is in how certain we are that the IF is
| true. I for one believe there is a good chance that the
| training of an LLM on copyrighted works _does_ infringe
| on the copyright of those works (if no other exceptions
| apply, such as the LLM being trained only for academic
| research purposes, of course).
|
| My original response:
|
| Where Sony v Universal definitely applies though is when
| evaluating whether OpenAI's selling of GPT3 to others who
| then use it to create copyright-infringing works would
| make OpenAI liable for contributory infringement. Here,
| the similarities are crystal clear, and the conclusion is
| simple: since there clearly exist non-infringing uses of
| GPT3 (such as Supabase Clippy), OpenAI is fully in the
| clear to sell GPT3, just as much as Sony was for selling
| the VCR.
|
| However, this assumes that OpenAI has the rights to the
| IP of GPT3 itself in the first place, which is a
| prerequisite to them being allowed to sell it at all.
| Sony certainly had the rights to the IP of the VCR -
| Universal never claimed that the VCR was a derivative
| work of their movies.
|
| Essentially, in Sony v Universal, Universal was claiming
| (1) that Sony was liable for contributory infringement,
| since (2) all customers of Sony who used it to record and
| then playback a Universal show were guilty of copyright
| infringement. The court established that (2) was in fact
| fair use, and from there automatically (1) become false,
| since now there was an established legal way of using the
| Sony product.
|
| But, in a hypothetical OpenAI v Universal, Universal
| could plausibly claim that (1) OpenAI is liable for
| copyright infringement directly, since they are
| distributing GPT3 , (2) which is a derived work of
| Universal's IP used in the training set of GPT3.
| williamcotton wrote:
| I honestly think you're more certain because you want the
| courts to rule in a certain manner.
|
| I'm more certain because I'm thinking about this
| separately from my opinions as to how the courts will
| rule. Yes, I will just so happen to agree with that
| ruling because I happen to agree with the logic and
| knowledge contained in our legal process. I agree that
| the existing legal doctrines already capture the spirit
| of what we are asking them to judge. I agree that the
| statutory law, case law and doctrine that informs their
| judgement will successfully balance both the limited
| rights of copyright holders and the natural rights of a
| public to unburdened access to the arts, knowledge and
| information. I agree with their process of balancing the
| potential impact on existing commercial practice with the
| potential impact on new forms of commercially significant
| non-infringing practices.
|
| Some things in copyright might just seem unfair, like the
| case of Baker v Selden:
|
| _In 1859, Charles Selden obtained copyright in a book he
| wrote called Selden 's Condensed Ledger, or Book-keeping
| Simplified. In it the book described an improved system
| of book-keeping. The books contained about twenty pages
| of primarily book-keeping forms and only about 650 words.
| In addition, the books contained examples and an
| introduction. In the following years Selden made several
| other books, improving on the initial system. In total,
| Selden wrote six books, though, evidence suggests that
| they were really six editions of the same book.
|
| Selden, however, was unsuccessful in selling his books.
| He originally believed he could sell his system to
| several counties and the United States Department of the
| Treasury. Those sales never happened. Selden was forced
| to assign his interest--an interest that apparently was
| returned to his wife after his death in 1871.
|
| In 1867, W.C.M. Baker produced a book describing a very
| similar system. Unlike Selden, Baker was more successful
| at selling his book-selling it to some 40 counties within
| five years.
|
| Selden's widow, Elizabeth Selden, hired an attorney,
| Samuel S. Fisher, a former Commissioner of Patents. In
| 1872, Fisher filed suit against Baker for copyright
| infringement._
|
| The poor old widow lost. Boohoo. But this was a just
| ruling!
|
| I'm not sure that the people who think that ChatGPT is
| guilty of copyright infringement are thinking about the
| issue in a balanced manner. Luckily our courts probably
| will!
|
| One strategy that the defense could use to lower their
| risk profile is to allow open access to their models and
| allow an entire ecosystem of commercially significant
| non-infringing uses to blossom because they are aware of
| how the courts will be influenced based on existing
| statutory and legal doctrine...
| khmii wrote:
| [dead]
| realusername wrote:
| Sure but that existed before, you could always ask somebody
| else to write you a song in the style of Eminem to use in your
| own song, the difference is how easy it became.
|
| For somebody like David Guetta, it always has been financially
| possible.
| whazor wrote:
| This seems very close to remixing or covering music, which
| already happens on a big scale, with royalties in place. If
| they can clearly recognize someone's voice/style, then they
| would want a piece of the pie. Outside the law, music industry
| still has a lot of power, and platforms like Spotify are not
| going to risk those relationships.
| an_aparallel wrote:
| yeah - i wonder if uberduck has paid licenses to any of the
| rappers voices they have available on their site...
|
| they're flouting a sample clip with eminem on their homepage.
|
| this just seems like clever marketing to me.
| justinclift wrote:
| Audio NFT's for the win? ;)
| an_aparallel wrote:
| Custom Eminem Roast Sounbytes - $10 a pop...highschool just
| got a whole lot crueller :/
| zachthewf wrote:
| We have some, working on more...
| jameshart wrote:
| Suspect Eminem himself would have a more nuanced take on this
| than the 'of course this is okay' or 'this is never okay'
| responses it's getting right here.
|
| Number 1: Hip hop's built (to at least as great an extent as EDM)
| on sampling. And while the degree of respect for clearing and
| getting authorization to use samples has varied over the years
| and between artists, as a reference point, Eminem's breakthrough
| 'My Name Is' uses a Labi Siffre sample as its hook, and Eminem
| altered the lyrics and content when requested to make changes by
| Siffre (who is gay, and did not want to be associated with
| homophobic slurs, for example) in order to get clearance to use
| it. So there's evidence there is some basic respect for the
| artist you're borrowing from over and above just doing the
| minimum the law allows or asserting your rights over them. So you
| know, it might have been nice for Guetta to call and let him
| know, you know?
|
| 2: he's also part of a culture of musical insults and attacks and
| rap battle dissing, where throwing out names of other artists and
| making jokes about them (and worse) is part of the game (see my
| tongue-in-cheek sibling comment 'nobody listens to techno', which
| is an Eminem lyric about Moby of all people). So he's more likely
| to just drop a mean word about David Guetta in a track in the
| future and call it even than to take him to court. Which would
| have the advantage of giving Guetta an awesome sample he could
| drop into future sets, and so the whole cycle completes.
| citizenkeen wrote:
| As Guetta notes on Twitter, he's not releasing this
| commercially.
|
| Both hip hop and EDM have a huge culture of sampling live
| things they couldn't sample and release on an album.
|
| Eminem has rapped over songs he doesn't own at concerts.
| justaj wrote:
| > As Guetta notes on Twitter, he's not releasing this
| commercially.
|
| Yet he used it on stage, on a gig he's getting paid for. How
| is that not using it commercially?
| antoniuschan99 wrote:
| He mentioned what he did in the video. Pretty sure he went
| on ChatGPT and asked it for some lyrics in the style of
| Eminem and on Future Rave.
|
| Copied & pasted the lyrics in an AI voice generator and
| probably had to use some Eminem acapellas to train it.
|
| There's plenty of AI Voice generators I watched a segment
| on one a few days ago https://youtu.be/OEoU9k5hApM?t=1061
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| I think if the venue is paying ASCAP/BMI, then the DJ can
| play a recording from that entire catalog. That probably
| doesn't apply to an AI-generated track, but it's how
| recording artists are generally compensated for appearing
| in a DJ set.
| creaghpatr wrote:
| >So he's more likely to just drop a mean word about David
| Guetta in a track in the future and call it even than to take
| him to court.
|
| He could use AI to produce a track in the style of David Guetta
| and rap over that, would be pretty clever.
| knaik94 wrote:
| I am not sure what gave you the impression that he didn't call.
| I don't think there's been confirmation either way. I know
| people aren't always familiar with Guetta or EDM, but it's
| important to know how prolific and genre blending he and his
| music is. I would give him the benefit of the doubt. He's at
| the top of the list of artists who would do this intentionally,
| but respectfully to cause a discussion. Guetta has many song
| collaborations with mainstream artists in R&B and Hip Hop. His
| full songwriting credits list is huge but just looking at the
| credits page for who he's done music videos with should give
| you a clear understanding of him. He needs to show respect to
| the artist, but he doesn't need to defend that he did publicly.
|
| https://m.imdb.com/name/nm1615892/fullcredits
| pachico wrote:
| I think I need an Explain like I'm 5 of why people like this and
| is willing to pay money for it.
| SnowHill9902 wrote:
| Don't try to understand it.
| sekai wrote:
| People enjoy different things, let's let them
| pachico wrote:
| Hardly an explanation. I really wanted to understand.
| c7b wrote:
| I believe David Guetta that he was really just playing around
| with these cool tools here (who isn't blown away by them?). But I
| guess it won't go unnoticed by the teams and investors of
| uberduck and other AI startups that this is the perfect guerilla
| marketing stunt.
|
| Gotta admit it, I am guilty too, never heard of uberduck before
| and caught myself creating an account and browsing their pricing
| site today.
| profstasiak wrote:
| what makes you think it wasnt sponsored by uberduck?
| zachthewf wrote:
| It wasn't, we didn't know until it happened.
| c7b wrote:
| Oh wow, you built this. Congratulations, really impressive!
| Do you have a post somewhere about how you built those AIs?
| htrp wrote:
| Context: This guy founded uberduck
| jameshart wrote:
| Nobody listens to techno
| imaginationra wrote:
| [flagged]
| yreg wrote:
| I think the significance is that something we have been
| excitedly debating and closely observing for years on this
| forum is starting to pop up everywhere in the mainstream
| culture.
| seydor wrote:
| When I do it, nobody cares :(
| Zetobal wrote:
| You can do it yourself use a track of your fav rapper without
| background music and feed it into tortoise-tts and play with the
| heat.
| tomduncalf wrote:
| Interesting, hadn't heard of Tortoise TTS. You can use
| something like Meta's Demucs to extract the vocal from a full
| track in surprisingly good quality too.
| _joel wrote:
| You could use https://vocalremover.org/ to remove music. I've
| used it for sampling speech out of tv programmes with
| background audio and the results are immense.
| notpushkin wrote:
| Whoa, tried https://vocalremover.org/splitter-ai on a couple
| tracks and it sounds better than Spleeter, Demucs and Serato.
| What model do they use?
| sbarre wrote:
| Stem Roller is a free downloadable version of a similar
| tool (can't comment on a quality comparison) if you want a
| non-web version:
|
| https://www.stemroller.com/
| ukuina wrote:
| UVR5 is pretty easy to use and effective:
| https://github.com/Anjok07/ultimatevocalremovergui
| _joel wrote:
| No idea, I'm afraid.
| prmoustache wrote:
| koala sampler (app for android and ios) works well for that
| too.
| djfobbz wrote:
| WoW, I just tried it too and I'm blown away with the
| results!!!
| tshanmu wrote:
| sounds interesting - but no privacy policy etc. looks a bit
| dodgy..
| qikInNdOutReply wrote:
| But who will those gansta rappers turn to, should some hn-
| gansta steal there IP, likeness and ID?
|
| We should create a retribution gang, that rolls up with
| flashing lights and distributes punishment. They could hang out
| at strip clubs and cocktailbars while not needed.
|
| We could call it pole-ICE..
|
| History producing strange staircase humor..
|
| But these moments, they were what they told me to expect, when
| the singularity begins to dance through the streets..
| CrypticShift wrote:
| Rappers built their music (literary) over others' samples. Now it
| is their turn to be "creatively" used.
| hdlothia wrote:
| Rappers had to pay for those samples
| CrypticShift wrote:
| Not in the 80s TMK (between the first samplers and first
| lawsuits). Now what will this be called ? stealing voice
| style ?
| hdlothia wrote:
| That's a great point it will be interesting to see how laws
| and norms evolve
| mvc wrote:
| Kinda like how IP only became a thing once the US started
| producing it.
| thfuran wrote:
| It was always a thing in the US. It's in the constitution.
| CrypticShift wrote:
| Only for local goods. There was no international copyright
| until the late 1800s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internat
| ional_Copyright_Act_of...
| amelius wrote:
| "Good artists copy, great artists steal"
| aphroz wrote:
| You should remove the quotes then
| SnowHill9902 wrote:
| He's just a good artist.
| [deleted]
| amelius wrote:
| You mean, if I agreed with it.
| say_it_as_it_is wrote:
| I just want an entirely new collection of music by the AI
| formerly known as Prince so that we can move the lawsuits forward
| and rule in favor of the new-creator. Derivative works will win.
| Prince will roll in his grave.
| nextstep wrote:
| Anyone got a link to a longer clip of the actual audio?
| _old_dude_ wrote:
| He played it last month at Santiago de Chile.
| justinclift wrote:
| Skimming through the available Youtube videos for that, it's
| not showing up. :/
| tomduncalf wrote:
| I saw this via a LinkedIn post which said it used ChatGPT and
| uberduck.ai, the search on there doesn't seem to work for posts
| so I can't find the original source unfortunately, but it would
| make sense that he used those tools
| raverbashing wrote:
| I don't see why he would need ChatGPT, seems like a short
| enough snippet to just write it yourself
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| All The Cool Kids Are Using It so he needs to, as well.
| input_sh wrote:
| I'd bet he got more lyrics than that from ChatGPT, but was
| unable to make Uberduck "rap" something that matches the
| rhythm in any meaningful capacity. So he ended up using just
| a short snippet of the output.
|
| Even the real Eminem sounds horrible around that speed (~130
| BPM), you're way more likely to hear a Drake mashup in that
| range (or up-until-recently Kanye). I know these sorts of
| famous AI voice generators don't have the notion of speed or
| rhythm, but I'd still bet AI-generated Drake would've been
| much easier to work with.
| n4r9 wrote:
| If what you can hear in the video is the full extent of the
| playable lyrics, I'm struggling to see what's impressive
| about this.
| testbjjl wrote:
| ChatGPT can emulate rappers who use versus create new language,
| metaphors and expressions. It's a natural impression twice
| distilled from its origin, a lived experience.
| drcongo wrote:
| My favourite thing about this is how proud he is of copying this
| idea from a million people on TikTok.
| prepend wrote:
| It seems similar to the DJ process though, right? Their
| creation process involves sampling, mixing, curating, etc. so
| the novelty is in figuring it out and getting it to work with
| his set.
|
| I'm sure the first person to release a rap record felt proud
| even though they were copying lots of people who were rapping
| on the street.
|
| The novelty here is being the first dj to do this for his
| crowd, not that he invented the process. So it's exciting to
| him and the people in the audience.
| drcongo wrote:
| All of this is true, I think I made the mistake of assuming
| some domain knowledge here - he's seen as a bit of a joke
| character by a lot of people in dance music, largely down to
| his seeming total lack of self-awareness. In some ways it's
| actually kinda charming, like here he has a child-like joy at
| having done this, whereas sometimes it's completely tone-
| deaf, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEI7oX0XxJw
| thatswrong0 wrote:
| I mean.. there's a reason that others haven't really done
| this as far as I know and that he only used a tiny sample for
| a couple seconds: the output from AI voice generation
| generally has a ton of artifacts and isn't something you'd
| want to play on a festival sized sound system for more than a
| few seconds.
|
| So he basically did the only acceptable thing I'd consider
| doing with this and.. it's just not that interesting?
| prepend wrote:
| It's certainly your prerogative to not find it interesting
| and your feelings are valid.
|
| However, I think it's interesting and can't wait to see
| more djs and even new artists using this technique to
| create some neat art. And of course, it looks like there
| are tens of thousands of fans in that stadium who seemed
| kind of interesting.
|
| I don't think statistical sanity is a good measure for
| value, especially art, but I don't think it's noteworthy
| that you don't find it interesting.
| Miraste wrote:
| I don't think this is true any more. At least, I've heard
| generated audio from the latest models that runs for well
| over a minute without obvious artifacts.
| thatswrong0 wrote:
| I don't know what else I expected to hear since progress
| in these spaces is moving crazy quickly. What models?
| Miraste wrote:
| Elevenlabs, by some ex-googlers:
| https://beta.elevenlabs.io/ If anything, the results I've
| heard from this are better than the demos.
|
| And VALL-E by Microsoft, which isn't quite as good, but
| notable because it can clone real voices with only three
| seconds of training data: https://valle-demo.github.io/
| secretsatan wrote:
| He's a bit mainstream, it's not so different from a million
| other mainstream artist picking up on underground trends
| kleiba wrote:
| That's probably why it's newsworthy.
| _joel wrote:
| Very mainstream!
| vanjajaja1 wrote:
| The pride isn't from creating it from what I saw, the pride is
| from finding something that was very popular. He said in an
| interview that it was a throwaway gag he did and wasn't
| expecting much from it.
| canadiantim wrote:
| That's supremely dope. Wish he could release it commercially
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-10 23:02 UTC)