• D&D and ChatGPT

    From hollowone@21:2/150 to All on Tue Apr 25 12:54:32 2023
    So to continue another tabletop thread.

    I gave ChatGPT a challenge to ensure me it understand D&D rules and can give me some narrative hints about potential (N)PC and adventure plots/synopsis

    It delivered great job in just 30 mins of chatting that I could expand into a multi year campaign. Really helpful campaign/storyteller aide!

    Quite insightful on the setting orientated content that is not always easy to drill from the websites. I wonder if the model got a chance to access real TSR/WOTC books on the way to learn all that.

    If that could be proven, then I smell serious lawsuit soon.

    -h1

    ... Xerox Alto was the thing. Anything after we use is just a mere copy.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: 2o for beeRS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
  • From Ben Collver@21:2/101 to hollowone on Tue Apr 25 16:42:56 2023
    Re: D&D and ChatGPT
    By: hollowone to All on Tue Apr 25 2023 05:54:32

    If that could be proven, then I smell serious lawsuit soon.

    I saw some cool ChatGPT transcripts around generating interactive fiction.
    I think that could be a lot of fun, especially if it were being
    generated on the fly.

    Regarding lawsuits, here is an interesting post on AI vs copyright:

    AI Drake just set an impossible legal trap for Google
    By Nilay Patel / @reckless
    Apr 19, 2023, 11:11 AM PDT|

    YouTube copyright takedown

    The AI Drake track that mysteriously went viral over the weekend is
    the start of a problem that will upend Google in one way or
    another--and it's really not clear which way it will go.

    Here's the basics: there's a new track called "Heart on My Sleeve" by
    a TikTok user called @ghostwriter877 with AI-generated vocals that
    sound like Drake and The Weeknd. The song mysteriously blew up out of
    nowhere over the weekend, which, well, is fishy for various reasons.

    After the song went viral on TikTok, a full version was released on
    music streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify, and on
    YouTube. This prompted Drake and The Weeknd's label Universal Music
    Group to issue a sternly-worded statement about the dangers of AI,
    which specifically says that using generative AI infringes its
    copyrights. Here's that statement, from UMG senior vice president of communications James Murtagh-Hopkins:

    UMG's success has been, in part, due to embracing new technology
    and putting it to work for our artists–as we have been doing with
    our own innovation around AI for some time already. With that said,
    however, the training of generative AI using our artists' music
    (which represents both a breach of our agreements and a violation
    of copyright law) as well as the availability of infringing content
    created with generative AI on DSPs, begs the question as to which
    side of history all stakeholders in the music ecosystem want to be
    on: the side of artists, fans and human creative expression, or on
    the side of deep fakes, fraud and denying artists their due
    compensation.

    These instances demonstrate why platforms have a fundamental legal
    and ethical responsibility to prevent the use of their services in
    ways that harm artists. We're encouraged by the engagement of our
    platform partners on these issues–as they recognize they need to be
    part of the solution.

    What happened next is a bit mysterious. The track came down from
    streamers like Apple Music and Spotify which are in tight control of
    their libraries and can pull tracks for any reason, but it remained
    available on YouTube and TikTok, which are user-generated content
    platforms with established DMCA takedown processes. I am told by a
    single source familiar with the situation that UMG didn't actually
    issue takedowns to the music streamers, and the streaming services so
    far haven't said anything to the industry trade publications. Neither
    has Drake or The Weeknd. It's weird – it does seem like
    Ghostwriter977 pulled the track themselves to create hype, especially
    while the song remained on YouTube and TikTok.

    But then TikTok and YouTube also pulled the track. And YouTube, in
    particular, pulled it with a statement that it was removed due to a
    copyright notice from UMG. And this is where it gets fascinatingly
    weedsy and probably existentially difficult for Google: to issue a
    copyright takedown to YouTube, you need to have... a copyright on
    something. Since "Heart on my Sleeve" is an original song, UMG
    doesn't own it--it's not a copy of any song in the label's catalog.

    So what did UMG claim? I have been told that the label considers the
    Metro Boomin producer tag at the start of the song to be an
    unauthorized sample, and that the DMCA takedown notice was issued
    specifically about that sample and that sample alone. It is not clear
    if that tag is actually a sample or itself AI-generated, but YouTube,
    for its part, doesn't seem to want to push the discussion much
    further.

    "We removed the video after receiving a valid copyright notification
    for a sample included in the video," is what YouTube spokesperson
    Jack Malon says about the situation. "Whether or not the video was
    generated using artificial intelligence does not impact our legal responsibility to provide a pathway for rightsholders to remove
    content that allegedly infringes their copyrighted expression."

    UMG has followed up by issuing individual URL-by-URL takedowns to
    YouTube as copies of the song pop up, all based on the Metro Boomin
    tag--I am told by another music industry source that the company
    can't really use YouTube's automated ContentID system because, again,
    it doesn't own the song and can't claim it for that system to begin
    matching it. (Oddly, Ghostwriter977 reuploaded the track to their
    YouTube page after the first takedown, and it's... still there.
    Again, there's a lot of fishy stuff going on here.)

    If Ghostwriter977 uploads "Heart on my Sleeve" without that Metro
    Boomin tag, they will kick off a copyright war that pits the future
    of Google against the future of YouTube

    Got all that? Okay, now here's the problem: if Ghostwriter977 simply
    uploads "Heart on my Sleeve" without that Metro Boomin tag, they will
    kick off a copyright war that pits the future of Google against the
    future of YouTube in a potentially zero-sum way. Google will either
    have to kneecap all of its generative AI projects, including Bard and
    the future of search, or piss off major YouTube partners like
    Universal Music, Drake, and The Weeknd. Let's walk through it.

    The first legal problem with using AI to make a song with vocals that
    sound like they're from Drake is that the final product isn't a copy
    of anything. Copyright law is very much based on the idea of making
    copies--a sample is a copy, as is an interpolation of a melody. Music
    copyright in particular has been getting aggressively expansive in
    the streaming age, but it's still all based on copies of actual
    songs. Fake Drake isn't a copy of any song in the Drake catalog, so
    there's just no dead-ahead copyright claim to make. There's no copy.

    Instead, UMG and Getty Images and publishers around the world are
    claiming that collecting all the training data for the AI is
    copyright infringement: that ingesting Drake's entire catalog, or
    every Getty photo, or the contents of every Wall Street Journal
    article (or whatever) to train an AI to make more photos or Drake
    songs or news articles is unauthorized copying. That would make the
    fake Drake songs created by that AI unauthorized "derivative works,"
    and, phew, we're still squarely in the realm of copyright law that
    everyone understands. (Or, well, pretends to understand.)

    The problem is that Google, Microsoft, StabilityAI, and every other
    AI company are all claiming that those training copies are fair
    use--and by "fair" they do not mean "fair as determined by an
    argument in an internet comments section," but "fair" as in "fair as
    determined by a court on a case-by-case application of 17 United
    States Code §107 which lays out a four-factor test for fair use that
    is as contentious and unpredictable as anything in American political
    life."

    I asked Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella about this when I talked to him
    about the new ChatGPT-powered Bing, and he wasn't shy about it.
    "Look, at the end of the day, search is about fair use," he said. "In
    other places, again, it'll have to be really thought through as to
    what is the fair use. And then sometimes, I think there'll be some
    legal cases that will also have to create precedent. "

    That's because there is no actual precedent for saying that scraping
    data to train an AI is fair use; all of these companies are relying
    on ancient internet law cases that allowed search engines and social
    media platforms to exist in the first place. It's messy, and it feels
    like all of those decisions are up for grabs in what promises to be a
    decade of litigation.

    So now imagine that you are Google, which on the one hand operates
    YouTube, and on the other hand is racing to build generative AI
    products like Bard, which is... trained by scraping tons of data from
    the internet under a permissive interpretation of fair use that will
    definitely get challenged in a wave of lawsuits. AI Drake comes
    along, and Universal Music Group, one of the largest labels in the
    world, releases a strongly worded statement about generative AI and
    how its streaming partners need to respect its copyrights and
    artists. What do you do?

    * If Google agrees with Universal that AI-generated music is an
    impermissible derivative work based on the unauthorized copying of
    training data, and that YouTube should pull down songs that labels
    flag for sounding like their artists, it undercuts its own fair use
    argument for Bard and every other generative AI product it
    makes--it undercuts the future of the company itself.
    * If Google disagrees with Universal and says AI-generated music
    should stay up because merely training an AI with existing works is
    fair use, it protects its own AI efforts and the future of the
    company, but probably triggers a bunch of future lawsuits from
    Universal and potentially other labels, and certainly risks losing
    access to Universal's music on YouTube, which puts YouTube at risk.

    I asked Google's Malon about this dilemma, and he said "it's not up
    to YouTube to determine who 'owns the rights' to content. This is
    between the parties involved, and is why we give copyright holders
    tools to make copyright claims and uploaders tools to dispute claims
    they believe are made incorrectly. Matters that cannot be resolved
    through our dispute process may ultimately need to be decided by a
    court."

    YouTube only continues to exist because of a delicate dance that
    keeps rightsholders happy, but the future of Google is a bet on an
    expansive interpretation of copyright law

    That's the idea, but copyright claims on YouTube were messy and
    contentious before the AI explosion, and now there's basically no way
    for Google to avoid some major litigation here.

    YouTube only continues to exist because of a delicate dance that
    keeps rightsholders happy and the music industry paid, but the future
    of Google itself is a bet on an expansive interpretation of copyright
    law that every creative industry from music to movies to news hates
    and will fight to the death. Because it is death: generative AI tools
    promise to completely upend the market for almost all commodity
    creative work, and these companies are not required to sit back and
    let it happen.

    The difference here is that the last time this sort of thing
    happened, Google and YouTube were disruptive upstarts with killer
    products and little to lose, and they accepted the litigation from
    Viacom and everyone else as the cost of winning. Now, they're...
    well, YouTube is literally a cable company. And navigating the thorny
    world of content partnerships while chasing after AI startups who are
    much freer to break things will force Google to make almost
    impossible choices at every turn.

    From: <https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/19/23689879/ ai-drake-song-google-youtube-fair-use>
    --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
    * Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (21:2/101)
  • From hollowone@21:2/150 to Ben Collver on Tue Apr 25 20:02:53 2023
    I saw some cool ChatGPT transcripts around generating interactive
    fiction. I think that could be a lot of fun, especially if it were being generated on the fly.

    I haven't tried that yet, but it's absolutely brilliant idea! I must give it a test!

    Regarding lawsuits, here is an interesting post on AI vs copyright:

    Lots of interesting views there and I agree that YT and Google exists only because they still successfully balance in this legal dance. To my surprise, quite often.

    Thanks for the reference.

    -h1

    ... Xerox Alto was the thing. Anything after we use is just a mere copy.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: 2o for beeRS>>20ForBeers.com:1337 (21:2/150)
  • From jimmylogan@21:1/137 to hollowone on Sat Jan 20 11:28:00 2024
    hollowone wrote to All <=-

    So to continue another tabletop thread.

    I gave ChatGPT a challenge to ensure me it understand D&D rules and can give me some narrative hints about potential (N)PC and adventure plots/synopsis

    I've played around with it too, tossing ideas back and forth for
    Spirit of 77 RPG. :-)




    ... There are many Internet scams. Send me $20 to learn how!
    --- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
    * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)