Raw LLM Responses

Thanks for making this video. As someone who has spent a lifetime composing and producting music, I can relate to the interest in the creative process. We do it because it is who we are, it is part of what defines us as humans. However, it is curious that you refer to the music industry as doing the right thing, as if the music industry actually supports artists. Not even looking at AI in music yet (since it has yet to produce anything useful), the number of musicians who can make a living at it is a tiny fraction of those who pursue it. Really, it is the exception more than the rule. Ever since DJs, the market for live music has basically bifurcated into a tiny number of stars vs the vast majority of amateurs. In terms of streaming, everyone is now used to rights holders making 0.000000000002 cents per stream, and there is literally no money from radio, such that people have basically accepted that recorded music is essentially a free commodity. The laws for copyright in music are basically meaningless, since you are legally allowed to copy every aspect of a song except some amount of melody and lyrics. You are allowed to freely copy the entirety of form, tempo, time signatures, instrumentation, rhythm, key signatures, and even harmony. You are also able to use any melodic fragment that exists in the public domain, which given that there are only 12 distinct pitches, after hundreds of years of pratice, most useful melodic patterns are already fair game. Same thing with lyrics, most ideas sung about are common enough to not be copyrightable. You can reasonably expect any 2 pop songs to share more than 50% of the same musical content. So, even if ventures in building music AI do honor the rights as exists today, that will not create new revenue streams, and won't leave most musicians with anything to live off of, since the existing revenue models do not support us. Also, given the amount of free music out there, AI model builders will have no trouble finding musical data that does opt in, such that the right to opt out will not have a material impact on the development of the technology. It may feel like a moral victory, but will not really address the underlying problem. So, I don't think the music industry is a good example that artists should attempt to follow. I am not suggesting that "nothing can be done" or that we should accept the worst practices going on in AI development. However, I think that in order to make the best case, we will need to do more work in being clearer about what to expect. We will also need to wrangle philosophically about what is the value in art. If an AI model can produce something indistinguishable from a human artist, does it matter that one of them has self-awareness and experiences feelings? If anything, that argument points towards why artists will still produce work even if a machince can do a similar (or better) job, and why the pursuit of art will never die.