[lelanthran]

> Under these rules an AI generated country and western song that makes it to number 1 on the billboard chart makes Tidal money and the uploader nothing.

Why should the uploader get anything? I can agree that maybe they get a couple of dollars to cover their token cost, but since the uploader isn't paying royalties to the people who were used to train the model, I don't see any moral reason for the uploader to get anything,

[smithoc]

By that argument, why should any musician get anything? They're not paying royalties to the musicians who they listened to in the past and whose songs they trained on while they learned to play.

An LLM can be a tool to make music. So is a synthesizer. So is a drum machine. So is a drum set. So is a piano. So is a guitar.

Should everyone who used an 808 or autotune or amplifier distortion have their music be demonetized? Or is the line on acceptable new technology drawn at exactly the moment you became an adult?

[lelanthran]

> An LLM can be a tool to make music. So is a synthesizer. So is a drum machine. So is a drum set. So is a piano. So is a guitar.

This is a nonsense argument. The drum, the synthesiser, piano and guitar exists without the need for millions of other peoples music to exist first.

The AI model cannot exist without being fed with other people's music.

> Or is the line on acceptable new technology drawn at exactly the moment you became an adult?

The argument is not "we should demonetise new technology", it's "this new technology cannot exist without existing art".

If you can create an AI that does not need to slurp up existing art (possible), then sure, you'd have a point. All you have now is a strawman.