Koub wrote: Thu Dec 04, 2025 11:17 am
I'm sure of it. But the infrastructure needed for the training of the model you run on your laptop, plus the training itself, weren't made on your laptop.
Unfortunatly, i am not skilled enough to make one entirely on a notebook, although that is technically doable to design and train one from scratch on particular task or subdividing the problem into smaller task like having an AI output only the melody, and use a regular instrument or digital software to play it. There are also many AI plugins that i have on FL studio that just play "violin" or "piano", the "AI" part is only in the articulation of the notes, it's not "genAI" but somewhat "genAI" it sound more "human" when played than non-AI "violin" on digital software, those are "too rigid" or difficult to reproduce in digital music, if you give them public MIDI music sheet to make it sound "living".
That has nothing to do with clicking a button and getting 100 hours of music, but the label "AI" would fit both no ?
Koub wrote: Thu Dec 04, 2025 11:17 am
No, I'm asking why the double standards. Either AI companies should be condemned for using others' intellectual property the way I would be, or I should be authorized to do so myself the way those companies mostly get away with it.
I think you and i should be authorized to do more things than currently because big tech already do. Mentionning piracy in this context would be against the rules of the forum, but about the music, when you're a major artist you can sample a song and publish your copy of it but not when you're an amateur with about 12 followers because then you get all the automatic platform that strike you for copyright ? those same platform that have no problem selling you their AI trained on data they collected with dubious method regarding copyright they pretend enforcing ?
My standard is don't condemn AI models that's a technology, it's not neutral, it's oriented by people who develop it or use it, in both there can be mis-usage, but that's just it "mis-usage" like putting eggs in the microwave, don't do that.
Koub wrote: Thu Dec 04, 2025 11:17 am
Also note that I don't try to convince people not to use AI, I just express the gratitude for those who give me the information to decide for myself what I consume.
Thank you, although i understand Tertius position about not disclosing it's not the one i've choosen, i prefer to try and explain how i use the AI in some context because i feel when you do use AI you don't need to like all AI stuff, you can still find stuff to be AI-slop with absolutly no value at all, stuff that push people away from proper use of the technology, like a movie with too much CGI or just bad, too lazy plot, too cliche, and you could be willing to share what you consider is a usage that's ethic and produce expected result, potentially document about how other people do such things too, to learn. I feel it shows the amount of work i put beyond just pressing a button and having a result too, but ultimately it doesn't matter, it's not because i spend more time or use less AI than the song is better or that i'd like it more ; imo both aren't even related i can spend more time trying to recover something i like from AI pieces than doing a minimalistic sound on my own, and then the result is more like "this was a good idea" "this wasn't a good idea" and everything that ranges in between.
jodokus31 wrote: Thu Dec 04, 2025 11:54 am
mmmPI wrote: Thu Dec 04, 2025 8:17 am
jodokus31 wrote: Wed Dec 03, 2025 9:45 pm
I would argue, if you can pump out stuff en mass, it's probably not really original content. And I also see a problem with that.
The more i think of this the more i think there's something to argue against x) i'm sorry but it's too simplistic, as that just disqualify people that made their workflow efficient, as if it was something you can achieve it would disqualify your work ? the same work made slower and with less efficient method would be better ? Like if you are going to make trees or rocks for your virtual world, you will want to have "many" different trees, you make a couple and you use AI to make couple more in the style of the first few you made yourself, that's just what AI are good at, you pick the proper one where the AI extrapolated the way you wanted to keep things consistent, the oppposite of original, but no problem at all to me.
Hence, I said probably. There can be super efficient ways to produce content, but it's a least a head scratcher. The question is also, how original can something be, when it's produced so fast, but it might be some kind of service, where you apply one approach to many things, which is again not very original, but might be needed nonetheless
I can only speak for myself here, but sometimes i have plenty ideas on one day that i do something unusual , and then a week to work on them where i have no more ideas, i'm just making the earlier one into actual things and not just ideas, originality doesn't necessarily corelate with times for me and i think people don't always like what is "too original", it fall under "experimental" or "weird", it needs to be the right amount and it's not the same for everyone so there's an exploratory dimension in there for the "artists"
If it match for you only, or you and a public is yet another story x)