Here’s the full text of the disclaimer on the channel’s “About” tab as of present:
“Disclaimer:
Popsie Funk is a fictitious creation. The tracks are A.I. generated from lyrics and musical compositions that I have created. The A.I. samples are then mixed and edited by me.
I am adding this disclaimer due to repeated questions about the genuine authenticity of Popsie Funk and his music.
While being asked the same question dozens of times can be taxing, I take confusion as a huge compliment!
After all, if you can’t tell by ear that my music is A.I. generated, then I’m doing my job right!”
The channel owner directly states that it is their intention to mislead. I did see the disclaimer on the channel after looking up the “artist” and before making this post, but that disclaimer is not visible on the thumbnail preview and the video description omits any reference to it. The inclusion of the year in the video title as well as the hashtags all attempt to work their way into the feeds of those not in the know to convince them that it is legitimate.
The channels that are not upfront are even worse.
When I am using my phone as opposed to a desktop, I watch YouTube videos in the phone’s built-in browser so I can refresh the page to skip any ads before the video. I typically don’t have the patience after watching the video to open the YouTube app and wait for an ad to load and then wait to swipe the ad out of the way just to “Like” or “Dislike” the video. I may glimpse through the recommended page on the chance there is anything that I may have missed, or that may have been a surprise upload, or that may be adjacent to videos/channels that I’ve already watched and which may be of interest to me.
The channel owner directly states that it is their intention to mislead. I did see the disclaimer on the channel after looking up the “artist” and before making this post, but that disclaimer is not visible on the thumbnail preview and the video description omits any reference to it. The inclusion of the year in the video title as well as the hashtags all attempt to work their way into the feeds of those not in the know to convince them that it is legitimate.
The tracks are A.I. generated from lyrics and musical compositions that I have created. The A.I. samples are then mixed and edited by me.
Generated from human compositions, human-mixed, human-edited, there’s plenty of songs which have less human input. Even I can steal beats from a frying steak.
This isn’t the “automated AI slop” that you’re looking to complain about.
As to “intention to mislead”: That has nothing to do with AI. Passing off a new composition as a 1974 track on first sight is peak retro.
When popular “real artists” release songs, they usually won’t have written the lyrics or the music, leaving just the vocals, which they will auto tune and possibly even mime in future performances.
A producer will then use powerful software to mix and refine everything.
So really the question to me is not about “is there anything impure in this art?” It’s “where is the line?”.
Here’s the full text of the disclaimer on the channel’s “About” tab as of present:
“Disclaimer:
Popsie Funk is a fictitious creation. The tracks are A.I. generated from lyrics and musical compositions that I have created. The A.I. samples are then mixed and edited by me.
I am adding this disclaimer due to repeated questions about the genuine authenticity of Popsie Funk and his music.
While being asked the same question dozens of times can be taxing, I take confusion as a huge compliment!
After all, if you can’t tell by ear that my music is A.I. generated, then I’m doing my job right!”
The channel owner directly states that it is their intention to mislead. I did see the disclaimer on the channel after looking up the “artist” and before making this post, but that disclaimer is not visible on the thumbnail preview and the video description omits any reference to it. The inclusion of the year in the video title as well as the hashtags all attempt to work their way into the feeds of those not in the know to convince them that it is legitimate.
The channels that are not upfront are even worse.
When I am using my phone as opposed to a desktop, I watch YouTube videos in the phone’s built-in browser so I can refresh the page to skip any ads before the video. I typically don’t have the patience after watching the video to open the YouTube app and wait for an ad to load and then wait to swipe the ad out of the way just to “Like” or “Dislike” the video. I may glimpse through the recommended page on the chance there is anything that I may have missed, or that may have been a surprise upload, or that may be adjacent to videos/channels that I’ve already watched and which may be of interest to me.
I agree in that regard.
Generated from human compositions, human-mixed, human-edited, there’s plenty of songs which have less human input. Even I can steal beats from a frying steak.
This isn’t the “automated AI slop” that you’re looking to complain about.
As to “intention to mislead”: That has nothing to do with AI. Passing off a new composition as a 1974 track on first sight is peak retro.
Indeed.
When popular “real artists” release songs, they usually won’t have written the lyrics or the music, leaving just the vocals, which they will auto tune and possibly even mime in future performances.
A producer will then use powerful software to mix and refine everything.
So really the question to me is not about “is there anything impure in this art?” It’s “where is the line?”.