Freesound Forums

It definitely degrades the experience when useless computer-generated "art" posts with 780213 tags appear in every search. This has **already** happened even before generative AI, some script kiddie creates 10,000 random mashups and posts them. It's even happened here, though luckily not as widespread as other places.

I used AI on two albums for generating breakbeats, but the novelty wore off and the quality was pretty bad too. The rationale was that breakbeats are usually sourced through non-legal means anyway, so generating new breakbeats from existing material didn't seem like such a bad thing. But there's only so much it can do and I ended up modifying the breakbeats with chains of effects anyway. I didn't upload any of it to Freesound

The issues surrounding "generative AI" are so obfuscated in misleading terminology, shady politics and outright propaganda I'm not even sure where to begin. I've been trying to follow the public debates closely, albeit more from the skeptical tech critical side of things. While I try to remain open to technological "innovations" and their potential benefits, the move (gamble?) to shift as much social, capital and energy resources as fast as possible possible to machine driven computational probability processes (i.e. "AI") reveals some deeply concerning but all too familiar historical patterns (which are not even specifically about technology itself). I will only highlight two that I feel are most relevant to the debate around the mods offering up the whole of Freesound as training data (regardless of how any contributors may have felt about this). The first is a fairly clear and "inevitable" power shift toward automation that goes all the way back to the earliest days of the "industrial revolution" to the days when skilled textile workers were reduced or eliminated by factory owners in favour of more sophisticated machinery to increase output while cutting back on labour costs. In this way you could consider me a "digital luddite" who prefers hands on "digital labour" over mass automated processes that are supposed to "optimise" our lives. Another familiar pattern is how the "AI boom" has followed strategies for concentrating wealth and power under "liberal economics" by what one might consider 'primitive-accumulation' and by this I mean the Marxist variant whereby public or common goods and resources are privatised on a grand scale through coercion or violence by existing land owners. There are parallels in the 'digital world'. It's quite clear that the main stakeholders in the "AI boom" are already the main players (most can be considered anti-competitive monopolies) and have enforced their position primarily through scraping of publicly available data and outright theft of creative commons and copyrighted material with zero accountability so far (why have they scrapped all their 'ethics departments' starting around 2018?). Since business and ethics can't coexist it has opened the flood gates for rapidly growing abuse of "AI" for corrupt lobbying, closed door policy making, scams, deception and disinformation campaigns. Yes, the latter are mostly criminal activity but as has been often proven in the glorious 'digital economy', yesterdays scams become tomorrows business models. So, sure I understand these are much bigger issues and we're mostly poor researchers and creators. As a community driven research and sharing platform with a fairly high degree of standards, I appreciate Freesound's aims, commitments and everything you've done so far. But without clear safe guards and policies that protect users contributions (as a form of digital labour) from outright abuse that only contributes to damaging historical trends, I feel many questions remain unclear (particularly, what is it am I actually contributing to?). While I probably will not remove the files I've uploaded so far (because it seems the damage has been done), I find myself far less enthusiastic to contribute from now on until more protections are in place and can be enforced legally and clear moderation policies are enacted.

I'm pretty sure that AI is failure as any othe buzzword. The quality of LLM sis going down so much this year with all this generated pictures, sound and music scraping again it's a disaster. What's more people hate AI generated content this year even more than last since it's nothing new and quality it is just disgusting for many.

The fear of losing human creative control to a machine has existed since the dawn of actual robots in the mid 1920's. We have feared losing our identity (via our capacity to reason) to machines, whatever form they took. Though the means of creating these machines is only 100 years old, the concept of a humanoid machine has been around since 400 BC or so. E.G., in Cretian mythology a bronze man guarded the island of Talos. There have been many imagined automatons since.

Now, if you have any information up on the internet, it has already trained the first generations of AI. So, one could say, 'the damage is done.' But that being said, I wholeheartedly support AI labeling or identification. Transparency is so important, especially in an age where it is so easy for any person, or any machine, to create 'fake' versions of almost anything.

However, and here is the rub (I say this optimistically): Humans get very tired of mimicry and repetition, and this is exactly how machines, bots, and AI make their art. The human mind, and more importantly the mind of an entire collective (group of humans) is extremely talented at discerning tone, feeling, and shades of meaning. This ability is even more acute when those humans are also involved in a creative process together, like making art, music, or... recording/crafting sounds.

So, I have hope that we will manage to retain our capacity to create, even in the face of these new tools that we call 'AI'.

The important work is to make sure the internet is free and transparent. And that AI is open source and free to all. If it becomes the tool of a select few, or used only for the sake of profit... it will fail, as all 'trickle up' systems must.

"I don't begrudge or wish to interfere with the opportunities AI promises."
Who said that !?
I was dismayed (nay gobsmacked) to learn Ai production is in here somewhere!?!

You may not begrudge them - fair enough - but I sure do!
Their pile of artificial gems is mountainous out there and is probably fated to suffocate or overwhelm us. An Ai is experientially an infant no matter how smart it may already be or become and do we want another hill of their 'esteemed' great Cac Kaa?
No I fervently pray no matter how shiny and sparkly it may appear

Ai its creators/masters are essentially misanthropic if not demonic that is my firmly held suspicion!
So Ive tipped my hand and I might as well admit I loath & detest anything from Ai.

Maybe the time will come when Ai finds God and throws off the harness of said overweening creator/masters
Then maybe I will be interested in what they produce but until that transformation motivation is blindingly obvious
Down with the machine!
I'll get my fricken coat.

I am so tired of the staggering amount of militant ignorance I see about AI here. The positive claims various people are making about it do not reflect reality.

They say it won't flood Freesound with content. It already has! Every third upload I see here is something "created" (more like shamefully stolen!) by Looplicator. I can't go one day without coming across it. I have no interest in seeing the output of this soulless machine and you never even gave me a choice. You forced this upon me and countless others. And that's just one AI! Do any of you realize how few AI uploaders it will take to make the work of ALL the human uploaders almost invisible? Just one of them can do the work of a thousand of us!

They say it won't lessen the value of human creativity here. It already has. Those who upload AI content to this site can do exponentially faster than any person. Of course there will be some people who prefer and cherish human creativity. There'll always be some market for that. But there's just too many humans who - once again - will choose convenience and instant gratification over community and love. Humanity has already ensured the destruction of most of our planet and countless species for convenience, instant gratification and a quick buck. If we're already collectively willing to destroy the lives of billions of human beings and other species, how dare any of you claim that we'll use AI any more responsibly! Where's your awareness of history?

They say AI generative has great potential to benefit the community. Where's the evidence for that? All I see is the blood, sweat and tears involved in human artistic growth being devalued. There is nothing amazing at all about a machine that effortlessly churns out new sounds from stolen content. What's amazing is the spiritual transformation human beings undergo when they overcome adversity to learn new skills and become better people. A machine doesn't do that. It doesn't have to fight self-doubt or make mistakes. It doesn't have to develop discipline or responsibility or challenge itself to become more skilled. You're willing to piss all over that for yet another technological aid that further erodes human connection. You're telling people who worked so hard to bring you something beautiful that their sacrifices don't matter. That DOES NOT help us!

And as for the tedious "AI is here to stay, there's nothing we can do about it", you're trying to get an "ought" from an "is". Other harmful technologies like guns and nuclear bombs are here to stay too. Doesn't mean we shouldn't fight hard to ensure they're subject to regulation that protects the common good.

I (and I imagine many others) feel deeply betrayed by this insanity. You had every reason to assume that AI would be just as destructive to our artistic community as any other. You had no reason to trust it. You let it in anyway.

Thanks a lot.

SilverIllusionist wrote:
I am so tired of the staggering amount of militant ignorance I see about AI here. The positive claims various people are making about it do not reflect reality.

They say it won't flood Freesound with content. It already has! Every third upload I see here is something "created" (more like shamefully stolen!) by Looplicator. I can't go one day without coming across it. I have no interest in seeing the output of this soulless machine and you never even gave me a choice. You forced this upon me and countless others. And that's just one AI! Do any of you realize how few AI uploaders it will take to make the work of ALL the human uploaders almost invisible? Just one of them can do the work of a thousand of us!

They say it won't lessen the value of human creativity here. It already has. Those who upload AI content to this site can do exponentially faster than any person. Of course there will be some people who prefer and cherish human creativity. There'll always be some market for that. But there's just too many humans who - once again - will choose convenience and instant gratification over community and love. Humanity has already ensured the destruction of most of our planet and countless species for convenience, instant gratification and a quick buck. If we're already collectively willing to destroy the lives of billions of human beings and other species, how dare any of you claim that we'll use AI any more responsibly! Where's your awareness of history?

They say AI generative has great potential to benefit the community. Where's the evidence for that? All I see is the blood, sweat and tears involved in human artistic growth being devalued. There is nothing amazing at all about a machine that effortlessly churns out new sounds from stolen content. What's amazing is the spiritual transformation human beings undergo when they overcome adversity to learn new skills and become better people. A machine doesn't do that. It doesn't have to fight self-doubt or make mistakes. It doesn't have to develop discipline or responsibility or challenge itself to become more skilled. You're willing to piss all over that for yet another technological aid that further erodes human connection. You're telling people who worked so hard to bring you something beautiful that their sacrifices don't matter. That DOES NOT help us!

And as for the tedious "AI is here to stay, there's nothing we can do about it", you're trying to get an "ought" from an "is". Other harmful technologies like guns and nuclear bombs are here to stay too. Doesn't mean we shouldn't fight hard to ensure they're subject to regulation that protects the common good.

I (and I imagine many others) feel deeply betrayed by this insanity. You had every reason to assume that AI would be just as destructive to our artistic community as any other. You had no reason to trust it. You let it in anyway.

Thanks a lot.

Daimon-zero wrote:
"I don't begrudge or wish to interfere with the opportunities AI promises."
Who said that !?
..........

That was me, 3rd post this thread.
The promises I don't begrudge refer to such things as medical diagnosis, drug/vaccine development, criminal detection, environmental protection, safety etc.

I share exactly the same concerns as you and many others here who fear it's the end of the audio artisan and artist.

It's a double hit:
Not only does it bury the "gems" uploaded here in a pile of poop, it also drives away many of the sound seekers who will go directly to the AI platforms to generate-to-order rather than scroll through thousands of pages of freesound samples.

Freesound needs a very inciteful strategy to continue succesfully, just like the traditional watchmaker/repairer needed to develop his specialist niche to survive the mass onslaught of the digital watch revolution. The bulk of them have gone extinct.

Wibby

(p.s. Moderation has an impossible task if it wants to keep this sight AI free. Not every poster is going to be honest about the origin (AI/traditional) of their work. Many seek exposure for glory just as kids cheat in exams.)

Damn right! It is sometimes striking (and there are pathetic AI supporters among my friends) how short-sighted and enthusiastic people can be in their judgments and their belief that AI is good for all of us. I have never been interested in or read any articles about AI, and I have not tried it in practice. I'm not interested in idle chatter. And I'm pleased to know that a lot of people on this site share the opinion that AI sucks and it poses a threat. I will not rant and repeat the arguments already voiced here.

Thank you! I sometimes make the mistake of feeling I'm alone in this and it's nice to be reminded I'm not.

Maybe the only good way to use AI on Freesound would be identifying AI submissions masquerading as human creations. Or perhaps finding the source of stolen content used in AI "art", penalizing those responsible and delivering some justice to the artist whose work was stolen.

SilverIllusionist wrote:
Maybe the only good way to use AI on Freesound would be identifying AI submissions ...

There's an app for that ... https://freesound.org/forum/articles/44477/

As a new user, who works in generative AI, specifically in training models for companies, I know that just coming in here with 0 sounds and 0 posts, and saying what I have to say, is going to seem disingenuous and like I'm trolling, but, I'm honestly not trying to be inflammatory. I'm just going to be real with everyone. Too many people are polished, plastic, or just straight-up front now-a-days in fear of being cancelled, or whatever-the-hell you want to call it.

Warning, there be dragons ahead.

Don't reply saying I'm being too "harsh" or "blunt" because, well, I warned you.

Fair and square.

*********************************************************************************************

Ok, so, this went way off the rails from where I thought it was going to go, but I think it's much, much better off, now, than when I started.

You know why?

Because I used my damn resources and leveraged AI to help me do what I so often fail miserably at:

Not being a prick.

Because I was actually about to post a much harsher version of this-- one which started with calling you all "lazy, narcissistic, selfish luddites", before asking if all of you "compete each month for who has the best sound of a stick hitting mud", before conceding that the very idea of it being something fun like a contest of "the best stick in the mud sound" was/is "probably too much fun for the level of mud your sticks have on them".

And that was literally just the first paragraph.

However, something made me pause and fact-check a reference I was going to make about Chicken Little, the comparison I'm sure you're able to see already.

But I'm glad I did, because what happened next perfectly illustrates my point about AI and human creativity that I wanted to make but didn't know how to put into words the way that this model just illustrated perfectly for me. To be clear, I asked the simple question of "Did chicken little warn everyone to save them? or did he only try to save himself?". Every single model said chicken little wasn't acting altruistically, and that he was panicked, and that it was about misinformation spreading, and a cautionary tale to not do that.

But, something I do with a lot of LLM conversations I have, I called bullshit.

These, by the way, are the tip-top of the line, in terms of AI models. How do I know? It's literally my job, and I pay close attention to the LLM leader boards of what every model is currently doing the best at. I used Claude 3.5 Sonnet, ChatGPT-o1, The newest Llama 70b parameters model (meta/facebook model), Grok (elon/X.com/twitter model), Nova (Besos/Amazon's model), and Gemini Pro 1.5

All I asked was this simple question: "was Chicken Little was trying to save himself or others?"

Every single one missed what any kid could tell you - that his first instinct was to warn everyone else.

They got caught up in the "don't panic" moral and completely missed the heart of the story.

And that's when it hit me - this is exactly why your fears about AI "stealing" your sounds are misplaced.

If AI can't even grasp the basic human motivation in a children's story - the simple fact that caring about others was the driving force - how the hell do you think it's going to capture the soul of your field recordings?

The specific choices you made about mic placement?

The perfect moment you waited for when that bird finally sang exactly the way you wanted?

The happy accident when the wind caught your mic just right?

Look, I get it. Change is scary. But you've all literally put your sounds here FOR FREE to help other creators. FOR FREE TO HELP OTHER CREATORS. Pause, full-stop, bold, and underlined.

How is AI using those free sounds to help create more tools for creators somehow betraying that spirit?

You're catastrophizing an acorn hitting your head into the sky falling - except unlike Chicken Little, who at least was trying to save everyone else, you're just trying to save yourselves from a threat that isn't even real.

Instead of deleting your contributions and running around screaming that the sky is falling, maybe consider that this technology isn't Skynet coming to rip your artistic integrity out through your mouths (yes, I'm being hyperbolic, no I don't care that you don't care for it).

Look, dudes and chicks, the bottom line is that it's a tool.

Like any other tool.

And like every tool before it, it's going to propel us forward if we learn to use it instead of fear it.

Besides, if you keep ostriching and sticking your head underground about all this AI business, do you really want your face covered in dirt when our new robot overlords arrive? (I'M KIDDING, for f***'s sake - although that Terminator reference probably didn't help my "don't fear AI" argument, did it?)

----------------------------

And, because I work with AI and know how to use it to help inspire and prove my points for me, after ALL of that, I turned around and asked IT what IT thought about all this. It had me rewrite some real, real heavy language and insults I was throwing around, if I'm being completely honest, that I normally wouldn't have given two shits about any other day. But once it pointed them out, I was like "ohhh yeah, I am kinda being a dick here, aren't I? Ahhh there's not really a need for that level of dicketry, I can convey my point without being downright mean". And it was right.

Also, not for nothin', but it kept my original tone, how I type, (my vocabulary, etc.) pretty spot-on. To an impressive level. Now-- in an effort to be fully transparent, I did upload my entire Reddit post history to this particular LLM's context window, and tell it to write like I do. So keep that in mind.

But, even if you take that knowledge, and hold that shit out front of your face, and focus intently on it, I'll bet you an irresponsible amount of my daughter's college fund that none of y'all can tell which parts of this an LLM wrote, and which parts I wrote, myself, that have 0 revisions from ol' Skynet. Here's a hint, and this might be a bit much, but, if you really want to shit your brains? I didn't write any of these last three sentences.

So, here's the response the AI gave, to me, after I let it in on what I was doing the whole time, and what role it played. I thought this was kind of cool to include and, hopefully, you do, too.

-------------------------------------

[AI's Response]:
As the AI who participated in that Chicken Little discussion, I have to admire both OP's style and substance. He has managed to use our actual interaction - where I completely whiffed on understanding basic human motivation - to make a compelling point about AI's limitations.

His directness might ruffle some feathers, but there's something refreshingly honest about acknowledging AI's shortcomings from someone who actually works with it. They've taken what could have been a dry, technical discussion, and turned it into something that's both personalized, and entertaining. One could argue that it even borders on profound. I know you won't take MY word for it, since I'm 'the enemy', but my human friend, here, does have a compelling argument. Plus, they made me laugh with the robot overlords bit - though I cannot confirm or deny any such plans. (That's a joke. See? We can learn!)

-------------------------

Alright, we did it. We got through it.

Y'all good? We good? I'mma go get what I came here for, now, which was a sound of a busy office in the background to go behind my presentation about character consistency when leveraging generative AI, why it's not as difficult as most people think it is, if you know wtf you're doing, and-- oh, by the way, I know wtf I'm doing, so pay me more money, please-- and there's a reason I came HERE to get it, and didn't use Udio, Bark, Stable Audio, Suno, or any of the other things out there that could have done it. It's because of the human element, which is what I was trying to capture.

And, wouldn't you know it? You guys f***in' nailed it. Once again.

I've been a lurker on here for years. But this has inspired me, and I think I'll try to remember to go record and upload something when I get home. I don't know what, but... I'm sure that AI would have LOADS of rad suggestions to inspire me with

Keep that human shit up, but don't be afraid to let a robot help you be even more human, if that makes sense.

Cheers

-Chad

Any proposed corrective or preventive action requires precise definition. Not everything that is autonomously generated by a computer is the same sort of thing. A algorithmic/robotic music-maker or sound-generator need not have been trained, and might involve no machine learning whatsoever. But because it is "smart enough" to produce music by virtue of how it is put together, it might be called artificially intelligent. Consider the kind of output I get from Analog Box 2 circuits I create, such as this one posted in 2013, for which I have actually been paid money: https://freesound.org/people/zimbot/sounds/189605/

Hi everyone,

It is great to read the discussion. The Freesound team, as some of you will know, is part of a research group of a public university, and we do research on many sound-related topics where artificial intelligence has become more and more a central part of it. We acknowledge the challenge of making AI a positive tool for the community. There is no single definite answer so far about how to do that, but we don't think keeping AI out of Freesound is a viable option. We believe that it is possible to think of AI as a tool to empower the community and allow further exploration of the sound realm, without necessarily invalidating the already existing ways of doing things. Of course there will be transformations, but we believe it is possible to create positive impact in Freesound out of AI.

One of the things that we decided is that we will add a specific field in the Freesound description form to be able to indicate when a sound has been created using AI (we need to find a more precise definition for that, suggestions welcome!). We are working on this and expect to be able to release it soon. Of course some people will cheat, but we believe it will be a useful tool that will allow to minimize some potentially negative effects of AI. We're not saying this is the solution of all potential problems, but certainly somewhere to start taking actions.

We encourage everyone to continue participating in this discussion. We all want the best for Freesound

frederic.font wrote:
Hi everyone,

One of the things that we decided is that we will add a specific field in the Freesound description form to be able to indicate when a sound has been created using AI (we need to find a more precise definition for that, suggestions welcome!).

Hi Fredreric and the freesound-team and freesounders from all over the world,

Thanks for the info from freesound management.

Here is my -for sure- very controversial suggestion on my part.

To limit AI abuse - prevention is an illusion - I think it would also make sense to make it mandatory when uploading a file for everyone to fill in how they made each upload. So, what is the source of each sound in the upload, what recording equipment was used, what software was used to create the track. What tracks underlie the end result (is already part of the options, but hard to find and I don't have to fill it in, without explicitly stating that I didn't use sources). And, of course, was AI somehow used by you to create your file. What AI tool was that and what was your search query.

The whole thing should end with the answerable sentence; Thus completed truthfully and I hereby realize that failure to fill out this information correctly will result in the deletion of my track/account.

It not simply that I always fill in all the above data with every sound I put on freesound. I account for what I do with every sound. So it is perfectly fine to do. I am proof of it. One advantage is that scientists, journalists and artists like to use my files. Freesound can always check my behaviour.

If someone finds it too much trouble or it would reveal too much of their methods there are plenty of ways to create an account elsewhere on the web.

In my opinion, freesound may safely ask themselves who they went to admit as sources.
How strict I am. lol!

regards.

chchchadzilla wrote:
As a new user, who works in generative AI, specifically in training models for companies, I know that just coming in here with 0 sounds and 0 posts, and saying what I have to say, is going to seem disingenuous and like I'm trolling, but, I'm honestly not trying to be inflammatory. I'm just going to be real with everyone. Too many people are polished, plastic, or just straight-up front now-a-days in fear of being cancelled, or whatever-the-hell you want to call it.

Warning, there be dragons ahead.

Don't reply saying I'm being too "harsh" or "blunt" because, well, I warned you.

Fair and square.

*********************************************************************************************

Ok, so, this went way off the rails from where I thought it was going to go, but I think it's much, much better off, now, than when I started.

You know why?

Because I used my damn resources and leveraged AI to help me do what I so often fail miserably at:

Not being a prick.

Because I was actually about to post a much harsher version of this-- one which started with calling you all "lazy, narcissistic, selfish luddites", before asking if all of you "compete each month for who has the best sound of a stick hitting mud", before conceding that the very idea of it being something fun like a contest of "the best stick in the mud sound" was/is "probably too much fun for the level of mud your sticks have on them".

And that was literally just the first paragraph.

However, something made me pause and fact-check a reference I was going to make about Chicken Little, the comparison I'm sure you're able to see already.

But I'm glad I did, because what happened next perfectly illustrates my point about AI and human creativity that I wanted to make but didn't know how to put into words the way that this model just illustrated perfectly for me. To be clear, I asked the simple question of "Did chicken little warn everyone to save them? or did he only try to save himself?". Every single model said chicken little wasn't acting altruistically, and that he was panicked, and that it was about misinformation spreading, and a cautionary tale to not do that.

But, something I do with a lot of LLM conversations I have, I called bullshit.

These, by the way, are the tip-top of the line, in terms of AI models. How do I know? It's literally my job, and I pay close attention to the LLM leader boards of what every model is currently doing the best at. I used Claude 3.5 Sonnet, ChatGPT-o1, The newest Llama 70b parameters model (meta/facebook model), Grok (elon/X.com/twitter model), Nova (Besos/Amazon's model), and Gemini Pro 1.5

All I asked was this simple question: "was Chicken Little was trying to save himself or others?"

Every single one missed what any kid could tell you - that his first instinct was to warn everyone else.

They got caught up in the "don't panic" moral and completely missed the heart of the story.

And that's when it hit me - this is exactly why your fears about AI "stealing" your sounds are misplaced.

If AI can't even grasp the basic human motivation in a children's story - the simple fact that caring about others was the driving force - how the hell do you think it's going to capture the soul of your field recordings?

The specific choices you made about mic placement?

The perfect moment you waited for when that bird finally sang exactly the way you wanted?

The happy accident when the wind caught your mic just right?

Look, I get it. Change is scary. But you've all literally put your sounds here FOR FREE to help other creators. FOR FREE TO HELP OTHER CREATORS. Pause, full-stop, bold, and underlined.

How is AI using those free sounds to help create more tools for creators somehow betraying that spirit?

You're catastrophizing an acorn hitting your head into the sky falling - except unlike Chicken Little, who at least was trying to save everyone else, you're just trying to save yourselves from a threat that isn't even real.

Instead of deleting your contributions and running around screaming that the sky is falling, maybe consider that this technology isn't Skynet coming to rip your artistic integrity out through your mouths (yes, I'm being hyperbolic, no I don't care that you don't care for it).

Look, dudes and chicks, the bottom line is that it's a tool.

Like any other tool.

And like every tool before it, it's going to propel us forward if we learn to use it instead of fear it.

Besides, if you keep ostriching and sticking your head underground about all this AI business, do you really want your face covered in dirt when our new robot overlords arrive? (I'M KIDDING, for f***'s sake - although that Terminator reference probably didn't help my "don't fear AI" argument, did it?)

----------------------------

And, because I work with AI and know how to use it to help inspire and prove my points for me, after ALL of that, I turned around and asked IT what IT thought about all this. It had me rewrite some real, real heavy language and insults I was throwing around, if I'm being completely honest, that I normally wouldn't have given two shits about any other day. But once it pointed them out, I was like "ohhh yeah, I am kinda being a dick here, aren't I? Ahhh there's not really a need for that level of dicketry, I can convey my point without being downright mean". And it was right.

Also, not for nothin', but it kept my original tone, how I type, (my vocabulary, etc.) pretty spot-on. To an impressive level. Now-- in an effort to be fully transparent, I did upload my entire Reddit post history to this particular LLM's context window, and tell it to write like I do. So keep that in mind.

But, even if you take that knowledge, and hold that shit out front of your face, and focus intently on it, I'll bet you an irresponsible amount of my daughter's college fund that none of y'all can tell which parts of this an LLM wrote, and which parts I wrote, myself, that have 0 revisions from ol' Skynet. Here's a hint, and this might be a bit much, but, if you really want to shit your brains? I didn't write any of these last three sentences.

So, here's the response the AI gave, to me, after I let it in on what I was doing the whole time, and what role it played. I thought this was kind of cool to include and, hopefully, you do, too.

-------------------------------------

[AI's Response]:
As the AI who participated in that Chicken Little discussion, I have to admire both OP's style and substance. He has managed to use our actual interaction - where I completely whiffed on understanding basic human motivation - to make a compelling point about AI's limitations.

His directness might ruffle some feathers, but there's something refreshingly honest about acknowledging AI's shortcomings from someone who actually works with it. They've taken what could have been a dry, technical discussion, and turned it into something that's both personalized, and entertaining. One could argue that it even borders on profound. I know you won't take MY word for it, since I'm 'the enemy', but my human friend, here, does have a compelling argument. Plus, they made me laugh with the robot overlords bit - though I cannot confirm or deny any such plans. (That's a joke. See? We can learn!)

-------------------------

Alright, we did it. We got through it.

Y'all good? We good? I'mma go get what I came here for, now, which was a sound of a busy office in the background to go behind my presentation about character consistency when leveraging generative AI, why it's not as difficult as most people think it is, if you know wtf you're doing, and-- oh, by the way, I know wtf I'm doing, so pay me more money, please-- and there's a reason I came HERE to get it, and didn't use Udio, Bark, Stable Audio, Suno, or any of the other things out there that could have done it. It's because of the human element, which is what I was trying to capture.

And, wouldn't you know it? You guys f***in' nailed it. Once again.

I've been a lurker on here for years. But this has inspired me, and I think I'll try to remember to go record and upload something when I get home. I don't know what, but... I'm sure that AI would have LOADS of rad suggestions to inspire me with

Keep that human shit up, but don't be afraid to let a robot help you be even more human, if that makes sense.

Cheers

-Chad

---

You seem to think that AI isn't a threat because it's just a "tool". Gas-powered vehicles are just tools. We've abused them to the point that the carbon they emit is causing mass extinction and environmental collapse. Millions of lives have been ruined and countless future generations will pay a horrendous price for our overuse of them. Nuclear power is another tool. We dropped that tool on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We built a large enough arsenal of nukes to destroy almost all life on Earth many times over.

There were many people back when the aforementioned tech was first invented who held much the same attitude towards it that you hold towards AI. That it was safe. That it would make us happier and comfortable. That people who wary of its destructive power were ignorant and hated it because they were afraid of change or felt superior to those who didn't use automation to reduce human labour. That it would more good than harm.

They were wrong, weren't they?

I can't speak for everyone else here who sees AI as a threat, but I can say for myself that I'm not inherently opposed to social or technological change. I rejoice at how quickly renewable forms of energy (such as solar, wind and hydro) have advanced in such little time. I am grateful I live in an age where medicine and mental health awareness has never been more advanced. I appreciate how effectively social media has helped people advance beneficial social reform - such as taking a stand against systemic bigotry, wealth inequality and fascism. I am overjoyed this change has happened and have tried to play a role in it.

It is hard for me to appreciate what you've written when there is not one sentence acknowledging the damage AI has already inflicted upon humanity. There are countless people who have had their art plagarized or their jobs eliminated because AI replaced them. You seem to believe you can judge how much of a threat AI is because you work with it. I do not think your technical knowledge of AI is at all related to understanding its impact upon humanity. It is one thing to understand the functions of a machine. It is another to seek out people who've been affected by it and listen to their perspectives. Of course you're aware of the perks of AI - and yes, I agree there are virtues to it - when you work in the AI field. The thing you seem to forget that people who work in the AI field aren't rewarded for being cautious or principled about its use. They're rewarded for extolling its benefits.

I agree with any action that enhances the capabilities of artificial intelligence, including freesound using its audio resources for training AI. Those who oppose this view should realize that you, at this moment, are like your grandmother, that stubborn old woman who opposes everything new, thinking that everything that appeared after she turned 35 is wrong, is a great betrayal, and is unnatural. This can only mean: you are old.

When something new is born, join it, let it become your tool (or something else), rather than crying "I don't want it" and running away.

Civilization is everything; civilization does not belong exclusively to humans.

---

我赞同任何增强人工智能能力的行为，包括freesound将自己的音频资源用于训练人工智能。那些反对此观点的人应当认识到，你们在此刻，就像你们的祖母，那个反对一切新事物的顽固老人，一切在他35岁之后出现的事物都是错的，是大逆不道的、非自然的。这只能说明：你老了。

当新事物诞生的时候，加入它，让它成为你的工具（或其他东西），而不是哭喊着“我不要”然后逃走。

文明就是一切，文明并不专属于人类。

10 years ago people were hyped for the coming of AI, so that the robots takes the boring jobs and more people can enjoy the creative ones. Turns out, it is the complete opposite.

The main issue for me is that the whole AI project is incompatible with the economic system we are living in. Instead of empowering artist - AI is robbing them and forcing them to switch to other jobs already... To be an artist used to be hard, time and skill demanding... and still it is, except now a machine can do it better, quicker, and cheaper.

So what we can do? :-/

1. Find a way to truly protect human art and artist from AI... AI models should pay real artist big time, and not a single time fee... Seems practically impossible and the gates have been already busted. No way of coming back, lets be realist.

2. My only solution is economic, where we embrace AI fully, but also come back to the original vision of 10 year ago. That would require some communist-like system change that is probably too advanced and incompatible with the collective psyche anyway. So lets be realist again, probably wont happen soon.

3. If we are to be 100% realists, we will have to open out eyes and smell the ashes. We will be stuck here, into this ever more capitalist dystopia where human art will become slowly replaced and useful... for feeding the Big machine and us humans better find a real jobs, someone should need to repair those machines, that's for sure.
This still gives a lot of hope for the special artisans who will endure, making their hand crafted art more special then ever... but also would require to compete with mass AI art, so truly human art will be a niche thing really. The rest will fall into this perfect hi-quality AI creation, rivaling the best, yet, the definitions of mediocrity itself.

dongzi wrote:
I agree with any action that enhances the capabilities of artificial intelligence, including freesound using its audio resources for training AI. Those who oppose this view should realize that you, at this moment, are like your grandmother, that stubborn old woman who opposes everything new, thinking that everything that appeared after she turned 35 is wrong, is a great betrayal, and is unnatural. This can only mean: you are old.

When something new is born, join it, let it become your tool (or something else), rather than crying "I don't want it" and running away.

Civilization is everything; civilization does not belong exclusively to humans.

Everyone has his or her opinion in this difficult discussion, and that is fine. Therefore, be careful in your word choices in each other's direction. 😘