> generative AI catch on not by just imitating other instruments,

but generative AI didn’t catch on by "imitating instruments." It caught on by imitating artists, which streaming platforms and record labels then repackage and outsell you with. false analogy.

▲

astrange 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This argument won't get you anywhere because "imitating artists" and "outselling artists" aren't actually the same thing.

i.e. complaining about training on copyrighted material and getting it banned is not sufficient to prevent creating a model that can create music that outsells you. Because training isn't about copying the training material, it's just a way to find the Platonic latent space of music, and you can get there other ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

https://phillipi.github.io/prh/

▲

rambojohnson 3 hours ago | parent [-]

you're dodging the point by retreating into silly abstractions. I’m talking about cultural and economic displacement of artists, not a pedantic debate about latent spaces. "Training isn’t copying" is the cynical AI shill statement that doesn’t address the fact that systems trained on artists are then packaged and monetized to outsell them. why is this part so complicated for you? or are you just being obnoxious...

dropping wiki links and math jargon avoids the ethical / market reality here.

	▲	astrange 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> "Training isn’t copying" is the cynical AI shill statement that doesn’t address the fact that systems trained on artists are then packaged and monetized to outsell them. No, that's the whole problem. The systems are capable of outselling the artist whether or not they're trained on the artist. So you can't prevent it by complaining about the training data.