“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

  • ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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
      2
      ·
      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.