For a global feed? No, as far as I know nobody has one yet
For individual feeds? Yes, “web of trust”
You add a “verified human” tag to any users you’ve met face-to-face
Then you can filter by
Your tagged humans
Tagged human by you or those you follow
Tagged human by you, those you follow, or those they follow
Etc.
And the focus should be on filtering bots and ensuring accountability, not trying to stop people from posting “AI”
You can still post incorrect shit generated by chatGPT, but if you want to show up in filtered feeds, you have to be an actual human saying chatGPT’s incorrect shit with your own face’s reputation on the line
This is much better than pretending it’s possible to prove what is or isn’t “AI” as an excuse to later pretend some AI posts aren’t and some non-AI posts are
Your reasoning here appears to be “this solution isn’t thorough enough” with a later-added mix-in of “therefore it is all a lie to trick you.” Which immediately breaks down, as perfect is not the enemy of good, and even if it was a lie (which is a non-sequitur, by the way) then banning some AI is still better than banning none.
I’m not gonna debate it, though. I’ve rewritten this comment three times now because I need to say my piece in a civil manner and that’s hard to do when I’ve just watched someone shit on one of the few pieces of good news I’ve seen in weeks. I’ve done that now, so I’m out.
Incorrect, the problem isn’t that it’s not thorough, the problem is it’s an abusive gaslighting lie designed to support other lies, abuses, and gaslighting.
And if you want to talk to me without being civil, I suggest nostr, there are no bans there.
This is literally how all of law, terms, regulations, and moderation work. The collective or defining party defines a set of rules.
The rules obviously don’t prevent lying or ignoring the rules, but they set the baseline to moderate and act with. Without the rule, Bandcamp would not remove such content, and people could not reclaim their money, and nobody could sue the publishers.
They’re lying about the rule itself to justify more lies
They know they can’t reliably distinguish AI from non-AI by the individual piece of content, and they’re pretending otherwise so they can silence actual humans and let chat bots propagate while labeling them as human or AI
I’m honest about use of chat bots, it’s not actual AI or a brag.
But not everyone is so honest. The point is to be able to filter people like me, filter some other random people, and let through the preferred chat bots of the authorities while pretending they’re humans.
You do realize that people can still tell when slop is passed as music. And the only reason it’s so prevalent on spotify and whatever other corpo platforms is because it’s used to pay artists who upload there less, right?
Still somewhat easy, but it might take a couple of seconds. In the future it might get hard, but since generative models are already poisoning all training data sources, I hope it will take a while.
what does it have to do with what I said?
That this will ‘work’ to reduce slop visibility just because that it won’t be actively pushed by the company, despite how hard it is to track and remove the garbage itself.
Maybe you’ve only heard the least realistic sounding algorithmic music or something
Might be that tbh, I listen to music mostly in Polish. And the english music I listen to leans on the niche side, so might not have enough training data scraped to make it not weird sounding
Meaning all music the creator admits was made with AI
Wonder when people will learn this is a dumb approach
They are stating the values of their platform. Sure some will sneak in but I support them putting a line in the sand.
So if you state the values of your platform that makes it OK to lie?
I ask again when people will learn this is a dumb approach
What are they lying about?
They’re saying people will still put AI generated content on the site, but not disclose that it was AI generated.
Do you have an alternative?
For a global feed? No, as far as I know nobody has one yet
For individual feeds? Yes, “web of trust”
You add a “verified human” tag to any users you’ve met face-to-face
Then you can filter by
Etc.
And the focus should be on filtering bots and ensuring accountability, not trying to stop people from posting “AI”
You can still post incorrect shit generated by chatGPT, but if you want to show up in filtered feeds, you have to be an actual human saying chatGPT’s incorrect shit with your own face’s reputation on the line
This is much better than pretending it’s possible to prove what is or isn’t “AI” as an excuse to later pretend some AI posts aren’t and some non-AI posts are
This literally has the same effect as simply banning AI content you are complaining about while also being obtuse and not as user friendly.
You’re definitely trolling
The only people who are lying are people who upload stuff which is against their terms of service lmao
Your reasoning here appears to be “this solution isn’t thorough enough” with a later-added mix-in of “therefore it is all a lie to trick you.” Which immediately breaks down, as perfect is not the enemy of good, and even if it was a lie (which is a non-sequitur, by the way) then banning some AI is still better than banning none.
I’m not gonna debate it, though. I’ve rewritten this comment three times now because I need to say my piece in a civil manner and that’s hard to do when I’ve just watched someone shit on one of the few pieces of good news I’ve seen in weeks. I’ve done that now, so I’m out.
Incorrect, the problem isn’t that it’s not thorough, the problem is it’s an abusive gaslighting lie designed to support other lies, abuses, and gaslighting.
And if you want to talk to me without being civil, I suggest nostr, there are no bans there.
This is literally how all of law, terms, regulations, and moderation work. The collective or defining party defines a set of rules.
The rules obviously don’t prevent lying or ignoring the rules, but they set the baseline to moderate and act with. Without the rule, Bandcamp would not remove such content, and people could not reclaim their money, and nobody could sue the publishers.
They’re lying about the rule itself to justify more lies
They know they can’t reliably distinguish AI from non-AI by the individual piece of content, and they’re pretending otherwise so they can silence actual humans and let chat bots propagate while labeling them as human or AI
Removed by mod
It’s actually surprising, lots of AI bros love to brag when their stuff is made with AI. it self-selects.
I’m honest about use of chat bots, it’s not actual AI or a brag.
But not everyone is so honest. The point is to be able to filter people like me, filter some other random people, and let through the preferred chat bots of the authorities while pretending they’re humans.
You do realize that people can still tell when slop is passed as music. And the only reason it’s so prevalent on spotify and whatever other corpo platforms is because it’s used to pay artists who upload there less, right?
In the past, but what about the future? Or even the present?
Sounds right, yeah, but what does it have to do with what I said?
Still somewhat easy, but it might take a couple of seconds. In the future it might get hard, but since generative models are already poisoning all training data sources, I hope it will take a while.
That this will ‘work’ to reduce slop visibility just because that it won’t be actively pushed by the company, despite how hard it is to track and remove the garbage itself.
Poisoning what? Intentional poisoning doesn’t work, and self-consumption only works when it’s the exact same model feeding its own next version.
Either lying or deluded. Maybe you’ve only heard the least realistic sounding algorithmic music or something
Might be that tbh, I listen to music mostly in Polish. And the english music I listen to leans on the niche side, so might not have enough training data scraped to make it not weird sounding
Sorry for my hostile tone
don’t worry about that, I’ve been worse about pettier things ╮(˘､˘)╭