GPT-6 News, Suno And Udio Get SUED, Sora Get Worse, Claude Launches GPTS and More AI Breakthroughs..
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 27. 06. 2024
- Learn A.I With me - www.skool.com/postagiprepardness
đ€ Follow Me on Twitter / theaigrid
đ Checkout My website - theaigrid.com/
Links From Todays Video:
Welcome to my channel where i bring you the latest breakthroughs in AI. From deep learning to robotics, i cover it all. My videos offer valuable insights and perspectives that will expand your knowledge and understanding of this rapidly evolving field. Be sure to subscribe and stay updated on my latest videos.
Was there anything i missed?
(For Business Enquiries) contact@theaigrid.com
#LLM #Largelanguagemodel #chatgpt
#AI
#ArtificialIntelligence
#MachineLearning
#DeepLearning
#NeuralNetworks
#Robotics
#DataScience - VÄda a technologie
Timestamps!
00:32 Music Records Sued?
08:00 Toys Are Us
12:10 Claude GPTS
13:28 GPT-6
17:36 Scaling Laws
19:32 Chatbot Arena
19:49 Autonomous SWE
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gg thx†read about someone not believing you'd do this and had tođ
Chapters so much easier
i'm assuming this is ai generated bc "Are" lmao [it's "Toys R Us" not "Toys Are Us"]
@@hiddendriftslol trueđ But still glad we haveâm :-)
Petition For AIGRID to add timestamps to his videos
He wonât do it, I will bet
Ill start adding them sometimes I genuinely forget
@@TheAiGrid Thanks Bruh! I will finally start watching your vidoes because of timestamps
â@@TheAiGridI don't believe this bro.. you can always add it in the comment
Please add time stamps đą
Every human musician learns from preexisting music. That's just how learning works. But we dont force artists to pay royalties to every band that inspired them. It would be nuts if we forced Cold Play to pay U2 royalties, because they are clearly biting their sound. We didn't make Pearl Jam pay Nirvana, even though it's a fact that Pearl Jam wouldn't exist if Nirvana hadn't invented that sound.
Same with art. Picasso basically invented abstract art, and then other artists saw it and started doing it. That's just how art works.
Musicians are humans. GenAi are machines.
The argument machines and humans should be valued the same, has a background in pro slavery arguments. Why can there be billions spent on compute to Nvidia but artists should give everything for free?
I totally agree! Almost no human in the entire history of humanity has come up with a genuine totally new idea that wasn't inspired from other humans, nature or animals. Each and every artist learned from the work of others. The arguments presented in the video and from the music industry are nuts!
100% true. "All art is derivative" is a common saying for a reason.
It's not a fact actually. Pearl Jam has their own sound and definitely doesn't exist because of Nirvana. This is coming from a fan.
@@soulextinguishereveryone is inspired by someone else, is the point.
The recording industry does not own the domain of "music". No way.
And if they think China, India, Korea or Japan are going to stop because the US recording industry said so...they are wrong. The rest of the world is going to sell it back to them.
@@awfulgoodmovies 100%
They definitely do, they essentially control music from all your major artists, especially upcoming ones
on the one hand, copyright is a thing and artists have the right to determine how their works are used [mind you, i'm not defending the music industry. the only reason they act so hostile is to maintain their bottom line]. but on the other, yes, the music industry is going to have a hard time imposing their policies on foreign nations, esp hostile nations
GenAI is made from data and Compute. Strange, that its seen as completely normal, that billion is spent on compute but artists should give everything for free.
I wonder if those rappers paid any royalties to authors of catchy tunes they incorporated into their music. I guess, corporations only protect their assets, rather than composers.
heh people complaining about Sora, but lets face it if OpenAI released a Sora 2.0 that can generate feature length movies based on your prompt description, you'd all want that tool!
If Suno and Udio canât make music after listening to record label works, neither can any other composer.
Its sad, that the ai community seems so Brainwashed, that it should be normal for the techindustry while spending billions on compute it should be normal get extract value from artists for free..
In a parallel universe ai users would argue that both compute and data should be fairly compensated..
@@bilderzucht Can you please pay the inventors of the English language and the alphabet/writing, since your obviously using their work for free. Proof is your comment that you have WRITTEN based on the work of the people that invented language and writing!!!
@@bilderzucht I see one brainswashed person in this thread, and it's not OP. If you can as a intelligent being can make music after listening to every single artist (now thanks to CZcams and Spotify, for free 99% of times) then any other form of intelligent, even primitive one like current AI can as well. Sorry, you don't have the monopoly of creativity.
âIf cars canât compete in the track olympics, then humans shouldnât be allowed eitherâ
âIf thieves canât keep what they steal then the original owners shouldnât eitherâ
@@bilderzucht
I don't think people are brainwashed, they just don't agree with the premise that training an AI on anothers content is equal to theft.
And it is debatable.
As of now there is no legal precedent for it, so it is not considered theft yet.
And existing laws already protect artists if an AI work creates something overly similar just like it would protect them if a human produces something overly similar to an existing work.
Some people are just concerned about what it will mean if IP owners have even more control over their work than they already do.
That is something many people demanding new laws fail to realize, is that the way those laws are written could have far more consequences for everybody, not just those training AI.
I think people making the argument that training generative AI is theft don't realize that such power has the potential to be abused by big entertainment industry, which it can be argued they don't have a good track record as it stands.
I don't think anybody on the side of AI is arguing "screw that starving artist trying to make a modest living off of their work" and it is more like "hey big entertainment already has too much power over too much IP and they abuse it too often so why should we give them more legal power to seek new ways to abuse that power"
I believe that using AI to replace child actors can actually be really beneficial. It lowers the amount of abuse & pressure on the these children and allowing them to be kids.
Absolutely! Great insight on that Problemđđ»
A great comment - here in denmark there are currently a lot of disscussion about child actors, like the exposure of the horrible conditions they have worked under up units now and how to present it in the future
@@zimsuk with all the predators, parents swooned by cash & power, the inability to actually develop properly... It doesn't make sense that children are even allowed in the acting space. This could really combat it. Those fighting it so hard make me wonder what their motive is. Safety for the child first always.
Americans are so obsessed with suing one another, it is actually ridiculous at this point.
Record Labels may have to concede at some point as music gets generated by the masses.
ThereÂŽs nothing they can do really, what like suing?? because an AI can do it better.
As if artists do not steal from anyone else?.
The lawsuit is bogus. It has no merit. I am a musician, I was inspired by musicians. So I owe them royalties because I listened to them and learned from them? No way.
=D I think the actual artists don't say anything against it, it is the companies they work for. And those who complain are probably those who REALLY stole what another artist did and pretend it was theirs. Happened many times before unfortunately. And I just recently learned that there are music companies who have whole "song archives" and the writers don't get anything payed and even the smaller singers don't get much... I really have a huge respect for componists. My speciality is more in writing, if I want to, I can copy the style of any writer (not in English, as it isn't my mother tongue, but in my own language I am able to), not always easy, but doable. And I have my favorite writers which style I adore, but I don't copy it, I was strongly influenced... but if someone told me now, I have to pay for that... I'd be really mad...
There was a study that 91% of artists think training should be compensated. You are just Part of the minority.
In my opinion Music distribution should be for free. Like money to the artist's and no money to spotify or data collectors. Will the World be more fair Overall, with your Modell of companies being allowed using machines to extract value from humans because individuals are aswell inspired by other individuals?
Its in the art circles because they dont want to be replaced most people dont care
I thought the Toys r Us commercial was really cool.
It was cool as a tech demo. But people resist change they want to hang on to traditional things, and traditional skills do have their value, probably Toys R Us is where you should stay traditional.
I saw the commercial through a streaming platform including everyone's reaction, and let's just say their opinions were not good. They were basically trashing talking Toys R Us for using AI. It's disheartening to see, but that's just the reality of things. It'll take some time for people to accept the change.
@@gidmichigan1765 imagine a toy in which a child can describe a story or idea and then watch it come to life on a screen in video. Now if i had such a toy when i was a kid, it would be the best toy ever.
If the advert would have envisioned such a toy and they used sora video tech along with CGI to envision it and kept the rest of the advert authentic, then they might have been better received.
-big record lables don't care about their artists. they're suing because they're making ai music generators on their own. look it up. i think in the future the artists who have excelent live skills will still sell out shows, everyone will have great songs but few will be able to perform them well live. the best way to support is to buy tickets and merch. and it would be great to make any mostly ai generated thing not copyrightable in the first place. i think both sides would be ok with that
-about sora commercial, that's not avg public opinion, that's twitter
Avg public opinion was much harsher when it was released
ok, i mean anyway it will be interesting to see how that changes as people become more informed about things. cause right now most people haven't even tried out gen ai tools. like just yesturday i saw a funny video of people getting fooled on facebook, and the imaes were totally unrealistic and obviously ai generated
"The student surpassed the teacher" - was (and still is) the desirable goal for humans, and now AI surpasses the humanity. This is life and it is a natural outcome. We as a species should be proud for those who bring this technology into our reality. And, yes, I am a creator too, but I've already accepted, that soon we will learn from AI which will summarize the key principles of whatever sphere it masters.
Don't be too worried, the AI has huge trouble once it gets past about journeyman level (a lot more material in the apprentice-journeyman level always exists by definition) and always needs to be guided by the craftsmen and masters, for whom AI can be a great timesaver when pushing back the frontier of ignorance. I say this as a mathematician, former programmer, and former DevOps admin, where AI has certainly intruded but needs someone to guide it unless you want some REAL problems running it (but is great for writing first draft API interface functions).
It is like suing instrument makers for how people play the instruments...
udio tweet. about 250 comments, and 850 likes. the comments underneath are horrible, but thats because the smallest number like to scream the loudest. the likes are showing the silent majority valuing this, but not wanting to deal with the rabid folks and their witchhunt towards all things electronic.
someone is big mad lol screw the corrupt record labels and their greedy lawyers looking to rip of this new genre of art. get tf out of here.
worrrd to the motha
The AI should pay the musicians they learned music from if and only if ALL musicians pay the musicians they learned music from. What's fair is fair.
Do the musicians pay for those they learned or gained inspiration from? Everybody/thing finds a foundation built for them. Music has been around for thousands of years.
@@la1130 That was kind of the point I think. Getting inspired is free
You and the author of the video confuse "musicians" with record companies. Those companies are actually enemies of the music, they are not trying to protect musicians, only their model of business.
Human singers do the same thing, training on the works of previous artists.
Who is waiting for sora ai
Yep
Runway ml and kling will probably take it. I don't think Sora was efficient enough to make a big public release, they may catch up with an optimized v2.
Sora was great but other models are in the space
That commercial melted my mind
This is no different than someone listen to radio stations overtime and developing their own work from listening, and today there are many different artists that are sampling other peoples work from the 60s 70s and 80s, thereâs no difference, itâs creativity. It may not be human creativity but creativity in general.
As a programmer I spend a lot of time and effort doing my job. Now AI was trained on my programs and obviously can do it now faster and better than me so they have to pay me royalties
Yeah, if I am understanding this properly, the implications of saying that it is illegal for an entity to use copyrighted music to learn (even when it is only a fraction of the music that the entity used) and then make money based on its ability to generate music seem absurd on the surface. Especially when you consider humans as such an entity. But hey, it is America, so might as well try to sue. Just know, though some money may be given out and that may be the primary goal, there is no way the lawsuits will stop this from occurring world wide.
I love all the tweets declaring things from people ive never heard of. Its literally the bathroom wall of the internet, why are we giving it attention?
The problem here is that intellectual property is not property.
Do music teachers get royalties from their students? Do musicians pay out royalties to other artists who inspired them?
I think we're still in that "it's trendy to hate ai" phase.
Negative comments are likely mostly from people who want to protect someone's profits from competition.
You will be able to train an AI song generator on completely synthetic data within the next few years. What will the argument be then. That the echo of the echo of the data came from hard working songwriters and that therefore they deserve money? People will need to come to grips with the fact that music is ultimately a learned pattern of nature (with distinct mathematical rules) and that a program that understands this representation will eventually be able to do it better than a human can.
It's just not the case that artists have to pay every artist that ever listened to their music and learned something.
Learning from others is what culture is.
Artists can be protected for works that actually infringe on their art. The standard should be the same for engineers producing music through algorithms and musicians producing music through their muse.
Nobody in the history of humanity has paid royalties to LEARN music
Well, get ready to say good bye to new music. No one will ever be able to create music without getting sued because humans get inspired by other music as well. Them asking to be paid for being inspired by their music is delusional. They are in the wrong and that is the end of the story. Anyone backing them up simply don't understand how AI works.
In the case of art it is the same thing. Art Styles ARE NOT trademarked, you can not simply do it by simple logic or by law. Only the specific artwork done can.
9:40
Sending the message that you have no budget is not a 'bad' message. Only an American can think that money = good, spend money to show you have money = good company
We should start preparing for a near term future that no one works. Might sound bad but when the economic system changes such that there is no payment system and everyone is free to live their life, musicians wonât complain when they can play and make their music and no one needs to buy their stuff to do well in life. Perhaps musicians should pay AI at that point?
This will all be for nothing. Itâs trying to prevent the inevitable. Best thing to do is embrace the technology and find a way to use it to further the uniqueness of oneâs music. Just my opinion.
I would love to see what would people say if they didnt know it was AI generated
I would love to see a vegetarian eating something called "Tofu" while not knowing its chicken in reality.
In general it would be so funny, if no one would care about origins or ethics of things and just consuming everything without thinking..
One day we will make our own music. And we wont need artists.
Goes the same for shows, movies. Even sports. We will be doing other things. Entertainment is getting shaken up.. money is going everywhere.
Its coming for everyone's job.
similar is not the same as equal.
And it is not a copy, it is influence and "inspiration".
Yeap, we're going to hear a lot of that from 2024 to 2026 in the fight for the right to use voices, faces, painting and music styles hahaha. Let's the battle begins đŁđ„đ„đ„
2 Things about the suit. With regards to learning from something and creating new works based on learning, would that not apply to genres of music? Should Nirvana have been given royalties for any grunge songs? Lincoln park for emo? That's preposterous, and I think the example fits for AI training as well. Second, music's becoming a lot more formulaic, with a few song writers writing most top songs, mixed with catchy sample tracks. You could argue the only thing copyrightable is the voice of the singer.
The disadvantage of old coins is that they can't have so much exponential movement. Flokong is fresh and young and lovely đž
Paying all artists on the world royaltys of work that is not from the artists are a extreme capitalism view, same way artists may pay royaltys for the instruments they used, words and everything else where it is possible to tax.
Argument 1) I think the main problem is scale, no human can listen to all music. While these machines can consume all possible music and then copy the models many times to generate unlimited number of songs.
Argument2) The other argument is these machines will generate output similar to input. Too similar songs are problematic and because these AI tools can do it at scale this becomes a very concerning issue.
When the machines replaced the workers in blue coats that posed no problem to anyone, now that the machines are attacking the white coats everyone is crying foul.
These are things people are going to have to get over, regardless of how people feel about AI it's not going away anytime soon.
GPT-6: When âexpertsâ make these sorts of predictive claims about volatile, versatile topics, history more often than not shows them to be wrong.
The problem is if the music industry should get royalties then every industry used to train any AI model should get royalties. And if that's the case then you got to get permission to even train off of them in the first place.
Thank you for all your great work.
AI scaling law: Whoever has the most compute wins the AI race.
The vision with Flokong means it is more than a joke, they have a strong idea with it and that's gonna help many humans
This was a really good video. I love how you covered a lot of topics and kept your voices to a minimum so we can have more time to think about what we think of the news. But you did include your point of view enough to keep it interesting. Great work. You're screen grabs seem to zoom in nicely as well.
The problem, if you accept that the royalites are due, is how to distribute them. Current royalties are based on specific works and are paid to specific artists. That would seem to be difficult given that AI works are derivitive of all their training and experience. A system of royalites paid to all artists would be unworkable at scale and would benefit no one.
Train them on Beethoven, Mozart and Bach - 1. copy-free and 2. the AI will get the music much-much better. Damn stupid rap will be finally gone.
Right!
you can just not listen to rap and let other people have it
The argument in favor of musicians rights could be extrapolated to include everyone for all the data we have put online that the models are trained on. Maybe everyone should own a fraction of the productivity of every A.I. model
I think that with this video you are doing a disservice to the whole development and promotion of artificial intelligence.I believe that musicians have also received and continue to receive their "inspiration" from other musicians, and no one asks them for money for it. As for the Toys R us commercial I'm sure that many of those criticisms are made by people who work doing those commercials and are afraid of losing their jobs.
With Flokong once getting $1 it will simply end up doing the things Shib,Dog,Floki failed at.
First, I think copyright needs to be shortened to 25 yrs, with a allowance to increase to 50 years with a renewal anytime prior to the 25 year deadline. This idea that works are copyrighted for practically eternity is going to destroy creativity.
Secondly, AI should be prohibited from training on copyright material without copyright holder permission. Secondly any art work is considered automatically copyright starting from the first day of public release unless copyrighted earlier officially. Anything in public domain, or open source, would have to abide by the terms of service, but typically would be "allowed" for training, unless there were terms for Not to be used for AI Training. This law would NOT effect training for "personal" use, nor for non-public facing commercial use.
I also recognized some brazilian voices when generating songs in portuguese. In a particular case it would blend between two famouse voices that sounds alike, but are both well known and unique.
Thanks for the update. Anyone having Flokong will not be too concerned with markets moving as they just keep the greens
I don't thnk AI will completely commoditize creative output - in the same way that handmade products are considered more valuable mass produced ones. It's all down to the value we put on things.
Thank you for your research. I find your videos are well done. When Flokong hits it hits hard
Excited that Flokong is showing the kids how it's really done haha
With Flokong you don't lose because they have a way to always bring new hodlers
10:50 waaa. The ad looks good to me.
So the us courts will finally answer the age old question of how much of a boat needs to be replace prior to the boat being called a new boat.
How much of the music needs to be similar in order to claim that it is their work? More than just a single note, less than the entire song...
Yeah, it's almost as if you didn't even read the article by Udio. The architecture of their model as such, that training data is only utilized to extract the core fundamentals of creating music... That does not include copying of any kind. As a machine learning and AI engineer who has studied such models, I see no technical prohibition against what they're stating being exactly correct.
Which means no existing artist has a right to sue them for anything they generate. Get more creative. That's the only answer
Sympathy is NOT LAW. They have no standing. Just cause you have a similar style isnt law. Copyright law is gonna change eventually but it won't help artists. Your definitive works you can Copyright not your sound or style. Imagine the world had a trillion people you'd have a lot of similar styles n sounds. Music industry is wasting their time just like actors, writers, painters, etc.
If they win and the companies Open Source their code, then the Music Industry will be in even more F'd and they will deserve it.
Clearly Flokong was a right choice. Hope to learn more from you this is pure knowledge
I respect your work mate so you say Flokong good one to use?
Cringe to hear these Sora comments.
They're mad bc it's taking your place, just say that and stop making up other reasons
Lucky for those who had Flokong since yesterday, but more green days to come
My only thing with the paying the ones it trained on will mean eventuality there will be a monopoly and all new artists won't have the luxury of making them first because they were born later.
But i hope the lawsuits dont go through personally, same with the new york times one, etc.
Wish we could change from an economicly driven society aswell and could be more family orientated but its hard when you gotta work so hard to get by for the average person. Hope ai can fix this problem for everyone
the most fair approach and yet the ultimate king of meme is Flokong
Here is something nobody is talking about, the humans who made the AI to create this work, AI just don't do something without a human making it, unless you know exactly how they trained these models you're just speculating because it is also possible to train models by teaching them how to read and write actual notes from sheet music combine that with all the free music loops used in DAWs and paid ones will train a model to sound like any music and never use any copyrighted music, so unless you absolutely know how they trained it's just speculation.
If you put something online, or make it publicly available, expect AI models to be trained on it, and expect that the use of those models may disrupt industries. Teaching an AI model the basic principles of art or music or cinematography is fair use, just as it's fair use for human beings to learn those basic principles from materials they find online or that are otherwise publicly available. I'm sorry if people are struggling financially, but that doesn't give them legitimacy as far as lawsuits are concerned. Tools are being created that everyone will be able to use, and those who already have experience creating music, art, and video, will probably be in one of the best positions to take advantage of them. There has always been technological change. We have to learn to live with it, and not be Luddites about it. It's not important "who moved your cheese." What's important is where your cheese has been moved to. Run the maze again, find the cheese.
All guys stacking Flokong before next bull are smart apes for sure
Flokong is not the memetrap as others, they have a way to make sure it goes for a longer time, possibly some months?
After all the bad years Flokong is our savior
AI music generators won't put musicians out of business. They will put people that make stock music out of business. Live performers won't go away for a long, long time imo.
Flokong to $1 is a killer man đ„đ„
The way of Flokong is the way of the people! Changes are about to happen!
The average human does not ask about the human or AI process behind graphics employed for advertisement. Artists are not average humans, and they will quickly populate the comments sections with disparaging comments.
Flokong is going to be huge in the next few months I believe that
Artists would be paid infinitesimal fractions of cents in royalties if they were paid in proportion to how much of their work is used for the whole thing if these models are in similar scales to things like LLMs and and image generators. You are worried about current artists struggling to make a living, but by prioritizing already established artists you're throwing new artists that would have harder time entering the industry under the bus.
Flokong is my choice for presale, thanks!
Flokong is so cute, I wish I knew it earlier but it is still very good to buy
Don't wait if you have Flokong you will be mad on every day you waited, not needed at all
Flokong has AI helping them makes it better than other memes
Flokong time! This thing is lifting up in ways nobody did before
GPT-7 news are it will be the next version of GPT-6
And I heard that it is also going to be an AI model. Crazy news these days.
Flokong is the future and more than just another Floki, it has all of it
Flokong made it, finally it is there and they have one main difference to common memes
record labels have no grounds for suing, just pettiness. being exposed to audio is the same as humans do, it's only replication that is copyright protected. because judges aren't always intelligent there is great jeopardy if he rules in favor of the greedy scum labels because it will have devastating effects on AI. It means you can't train on anything.
If music industry can sue based on the fact that AI was trained on it, then any other industry will sue as well. Programmers will sue because AI learned from their programs, scientists obviously will sue cause AI canât be smart without science and everyone else will sue.
SLAPP lawsuits. The big music corporations are scared of the potential competition to their fundamental business.
Whatâs different between this and Coca Cola one that also uses ai and photoshopping ? That they were honest about it?
I'm giving all stacks to Flokong. The returns work and will be better more and more
Nah, they donât owe those overpaid artists shit. Thatâs like saying if I listen to a bunch of artists and iâm influenced by them and my album makes money I owe them a part of it. Letâs hope the record labels lose completely and that music is created by people with passion not people only looking for a paycheck.
Flokong is saving our planet AND is the best coin, both at a cheap price
As for that replication of style without paying ask Black Americans how that went