sdw2001

Great outcome. I’m a little confused about the medical issue, though. A ruptured aorta is not a widow maker heart attack. In fact, that is not a heart attack at all. A widow maker heart attack involves a blockage in the LAD artery which runs TO the aorta.  

LOL.  The only thing I trust less than Facebook is the FTC.  

DAalseth said:

Good!
My nephew writes music for movies and TV. He’s very good at what he does and is paid well for it. But I can see a day when the studios tell him, “Yes your music is fantastic, but we can get good enough music from the AI composer for a few pennies.” At that point his career will be over and him, his wife, and their two kids will be out on the street.
This is the real cost of AI moving into the arts.

Well, that's not necessarily true.  First, it won't happen overnight.  Secondly, technological change always destroys some jobs and creates others.  And while AI may change the way he does his job (perhaps very significantly) it's unlikely top replace him completely.  AI cannot make artistic choices.  It can assist with them, but it can't make them.  I do a lot of video editing with audio.  AI could help me sync clips to the audio, time transitions, suggest themes, etc.  But it can't pick which royalty-free music fits the voice of the video beyond generic "emotional piano music" or "country two step".   Creating an emotional reaction and communicating feelings requires....feelings.  

"You could say: compose a song that has the lyrics to be like Taylor Swift, but the vocals to be in the style of Bruno Mars, but I want the theme to be more Harry Styles," continued the source. "The output you get is due to the fact the AI has been trained on those artists' intellectual property." 

Once again, the music business is a generation behind in technology and its effect on their business model.  They are like a dinosaur in quicksand.  A generation ago, file-sharing nearly destroyed the business, all because these companies didn't have the foresight to create a usable, simple and economical way of purchasing digital music.  So, their response was to go Defcon One on not just companies but individuals (as to make an example of them).  This paved the way for Apple's iTunes Music Store, which they were also slow on embracing.  Now we're in the streaming age, and the shortsighted hubris continues.

So an AI model analyzes songs on various services.  But before that occurs, the AI model has to be allowed access to that material.  That means a human has to allow the AI model to do that, presumably through a subscription.   So, there's really no legal or moral basis to say that AI isn't allowed to listen.  Moreover, it hasn't apparently occurred to the Music Dinosaurs that if someone gives AI a prompt like the one above, it means the they are interested in Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars, and Harry Styles.  Repeat this, and it only increases the chances of more awareness of the artists.  It's something that content creators and even publishers have figured out with YouTube.  Why would AI be any different?  

DAalseth said:

This is very good news. Sounds like they are doing it the right way too, with renewable energy sources, not by buying offsets. 

There's no evidence that either is better for the environment.  Renewables have their own massive problems.  From wind turbines to solar panels, they are arguably worse for the environment than burning fossil fuels.  

But those adherents to the modern religion of so-called "climate change" don't care about the environment.  They care about global wealth redistribution and political power.  That is, in fact, what the entire movement is about, whether or not average people know it.  

Some may ask if climate change is a hoax. The answer is yes.  The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a hoax (though it is unproven), but climate change as a term is absolutely a hoax.  The notion that burning fossil fuels and cattle farts will cause catastrophic warming is entirely unsupported.  Warming from human activities is a moderate problem at worst, and is not well-understood.  There are simply too many known (and unknown) variables at play.  The problem should be carefully studied before we settle on any course of action.  

Those screaming about the "climate crisis" are proof positive that the entire thing is a political slogan.  It's used by politicians to push "solutions" that magically involve more taxes and control.  Apple is smart in knowing where ball is going right now.  It is on-brand for them to do this.  They are going to make damn sure they are in the Most Favored Players club on this one.