“Suno’s training data includes essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet.”

“Rather than trying to argue that Suno was not trained on copyrighted songs, the company is instead making a Fair Use argument to say that the law should allow for AI training on copyrighted works without permission or compensation.”

Archived (also bypass paywall): https://archive.ph/ivTGs

  • tweeks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I’d say that open for discussion. Even taking a dump can be seen from the perspective of art, although I agree for us humans it’s quite far out there.

    Perhaps to smallen the gap, think of a dung beetle rolling a ball of poo.

    I’m not saying you have to like it or even that it’s noteworthy, but art in my opinion as definition can be anything that is created by something. As long as an observer looks at it as if it were art.

      • tweeks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yes, in the same way a field of corn on a farm can be seen as art. We do not have full control over how it actually looks in the end, but it’s an expression by natural phenomena (sometimes guided or initiated by humans).

        You could argue about the amount of free will required to create art. But in that case one could philosophically raise the question if humans even have free will, and if anything may be called art then at all.

        I think if something is observed as art, it is by definition art. And perhaps everything that exists and is created could fit that description. But personally one of the more interesting types of art to me are where living beings are involved in the creation, while they’re actually thinking of creating art; and I think most discussions are about that concrete level.

        • ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          hm. but an ai could create an infinite amount. and each item might be perceived as art by some individual. and you say it has the same value as the mona lisa? i doubt that. an ai could even replicate billions of near similar mona lisas. yet none of them is art even if there is an individual that perceives the ai image as art. the only that is taking place is narcism.

          • tweeks@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Value of art is always in the eye of the beholder. If many people see the value, then it receives that from the public.

            I would not say AI generated art has the same value as the Mona Lisa per se, quite the contrary. I’m only declaring both as a form of art.