Wow, I somehow missed all that. That's horrendous. I've always felt that a code of conduct is a tool for bureaucrats to hide behind, and episode doesn't alter my view. Thanks for sharing.
> As per the US Copyright Office, AI output cannot be copyrighted
I'm glad you mentioned this. It's true. But AI output as part of a larger pipeline of work to generate something is copyrightable. So I'm not sure how this is going to play out in a practical sense. I don't think we've tested this legally yet.
I play a lot of solo RPGs (4AD, Riftbreakers, Ker Nethalas, Kal-Arath, Al-Rathak, and just picked up Ironsworn: Starforged last night!) and I find AI to be amazing at filling in scenario and campaign details. I might roll and find out I'm investigating a burial ground, and I'd just left the shore where my boat ran aground. My local GPT-OSS 120B is fantastic at generating the scene, descriptors for the environment, and small details I can cue on and ask my oracle questions about. It's like an automated GM-lite that can embellish a scene.
It's also really good at suggesting complications to situations in games like The Sprawl (based on WoD), where, as a GM, I want to ratchet up the tension.
AI is super-cool, and has the potential to transform a lot of areas. I get that people are threatened by it, but letting that overshadow its utility seems...short sighted? Not to be procative, but, how do folks think this will play out over the next 20 years? Doesn't it seem like AI could be used to make the gaming experience better, not just cheaper?
To be clear, I think the quality angle is secondary, and thirst for the approval of artists is primary.
Personally, I haven't used AI to generate prose like you, but I do appreciate delegating "remembering dusty corners of the rules" to Claude, especially in a narrative campaign where you really just want an answer vs settling a dispute.
Just naming things in a world consistent way would be an amazing tool. Naming things is one of the most difficult parts of programming and writing and world creation I guess.
There was no "demonization" about these things even remotely comparable to what we are witnessing now w.r.t. AI generated music (and I'm old enough to remember most of these things). Of course there was intense dislike from certain groups representing the "old-school" around new styles of music and new techniques. However, at the same time, you also had the "new-wave" which loved it and made it successful. For instance, a ton of people hated Disco music, at the same time, you had a ton of people who genuinely loved it. Same with practically any kind of electronic music. This simply does not exist with GenAI music. People listen to GenAI music because they either don't care, or don't know, not because they genuinely prefer it. There's absolutely nothing new about GenAI music that would make it exciting.
> The program, according to Pelly’s reporting in Harper’s Magazine, is designed to embed low-cost, royalty-free tracks into Spotify’s most popular mood- and activity-based playlists. Produced by a network of “ghost artists” operating under pseudonyms, the tracks are commissioned with the intent to reduce the company’s royalty payouts to artists, per Pelly.
> operating under pseudonyms, the tracks are commissioned with the intent to reduce the company’s royalty payouts to artists, per Pelly.
As I already wrote elsewhere, no one, including the article's own authors, understood a single thing from the article.
Spotify doesn't produce its own music. It licenses 100% of its music from external distributors. Apart from a few scammy companies there are dozens of companies whose entire repertoire and catalog is ambient/background/noise/elevator/shopping mall music etc. that they commission from ghost composers.
Epidemic’s selling point is that the music is royalty-free for its own subscribers, but it does collect royalties from streaming services; these it splits with artists fifty-fifty.
--- end quote ---
Wait, what about "no royalties" crap? Oh, all of that is just "per Pelly". Though I'll admit that there are probably companies that license music for a flat fee (though I assume those would be rare).
Also note: Spotify doesn't pay artists. Spotify doesn't have direct contracts with artists. Spotify pays distributors and rights holders. And then those, in turn, pay royalties based on their contracts with artists. (According to one of the ghost artists interviewed, he is paid significantly more than he would be if he was trying to release music himself, BTW).
Erm... things are a bit more complicated than you make them out to be and I'm afraid you do not really know a lot about how all of this works (me neither, btw, this is all very, very messy). It is correct that Spotify pays artists through distributors (and they partly own one, Distrokid, but that's another story) or labels. But there are usually also royalties that need to be paid for songwriting, lyrics and performance, which can (and often do) go to different people. This is extremely complicated and different from country to country, but completely separate from the distributor. The artist/lyricist/performer will receive these royalties (if they registered for it) from entirely different institutions. This is the prime advantage of "royalty-free" music - you need to pay only the artist (or their representation like distributor/label), either flat or per stream/performance/whatever... So in summary: yes, Spotify most definitely saves a ton of money with steering people towards this kind of stuff. I also wouldn't be surprised at all if they actually just pay flat fees for that junk.
Similarly, I picked up Linux in 1997 and have used it as my primary since 1999. I've distro hopped through probably a dozen or so distros, but ultimately landed on PopOS for most of my machines, similarly to you. These threads are always somewhat disheartening, hearing everybody say they tried to switch but couldn't because of one issue or another. I guess I've just learned to work through it.
I think what you're running into is that you have a different attitude than some of us do about technology. I've been using computers for a very long time as well, but I don't feel a sense of entitlement to the latest and greatest features because it often comes with other compromises regarding freedom and control. Because Linux is several years behind Windows and Mac in terms of adopting those technologies, there is an evergreen argument in every thread about Linux which boils down to "Why can't it do this thing from the last four years?"
This is uniformly tiring and uninteresting. I've been using 1920x1080 displays for 25 years and they're just fine. A retina display is not necessary to do anything that I need. Similarly with these requirements about particular thermals and particular battery lifetime. I can buy a battery and I can find a wall outlet.
You're comparing not having those features to having your husband assassinated during a play. But I don't think a lack of those features ruins the computing experience the way having your husband assassinated would ruin the play. The thing that ruins the play for me is when they chain me to my seat and tell me I have to watch the whole thing while they pin my eyelids open. And that's how I feel about using Windows or Mac OS.
So to turn your original comment around, Windows and Mac OS can call me when they allow me to configure my system as I see fit, and not shove ads for their auxiliary services in my face every time I try to start a program or modify a setting.
Yeah, it's weird. I don't like the law in Italy, Cloudflare, or the current US administration, but I'm fairly anti-censorship, so I feel compelled to side with Cloudflare unless more info comes to light.
You keep saying this, but 'global' has never meant 'in my jurisdiction' in any conversation or document I've ever read. What additional information can you provide the confirms your interpretation is correct?
reply