9 ms·
Benn Jordan's AI poison pill and the weird world of adversarial noise
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- constantcrying 1y agoIP is such a stupid concept. How does it make any sense of that an artist could own the right to let people learn from his music. The idea of an artist getting to choose who can and can't learn from their song is so patently absurd. I hope that the adversarial attacks can be easily detected and circumvented, just like other IP protection measures have been subverted successfully.
- whimsicalism 1y agoit’s interesting to see the cultural realignment of this in real time - being skeptical of IP becomes the right wing position
- constantcrying 1y agoWhat are you on about? How is it "right wing" to believe that artists do not have the right to tell someone that he isn't allowed to train on his song?
- nice_byte 1y agosimple, political stances do not exist in a vacuum. the same position taken in different contexts can be both "right wing" and "left wing". it depends on who's interests are being served. in this particular case, the being anti-IP serves the ruling billionaire class and is therefore a right wing position.
- KennyBlanken 1y agoWell, there is the small matter of a number of right-wing politicians in the US using musician's works without permission, not to mention those musicians not agreeing with said politician's extremist views. What's particularly funny is when that extremist politician is too stupid to understand the meaning of the song they're playing. I think the most famous example would be a certain somebody who kept playing Fortunate Son at his rallies, both him and the crowd oblivious to the fact that nearly every verse's criticism directly applies to him. A rich kid who got out of serving in Vietnam, cheated on his taxes at every opportunity, and is screaming about how great the country is while vilifying a demographic that has always been one of the strengths of our society. I'd say that "respecting the property rights of the creative class" is very much indeed a 'left wing' perspective, too. Not just on a moral issue of "stealing their work is wrong" but also because artists very often mock or satirize right-wing personalities and platforms - punching up. Right wing artists tend to just punch down at society's weakest.
- daeken 1y agoAs someone both extremely left and extremely anti-IP, it's been ... Interesting for sure. But a lot of the "pro-IP" positions I've seen are more about the ability for artists to continue earning living wages, or about the sheer level of control we're giving to tech companies, than about IP itself. In other words, they're pro-IP positions only because it aligns with the other things they actually care about. (This obviously doesn't cover every single person -- some are just legitimately pro-IP.)
- jmkr 1y agoYes this is pretty much it and it's obvious to me. There's a big corollary to FOSS and gpl, but a lot of people seem to miss it. This future isn't for our culture, it's for business. And since our culture requires making money to make things adjacent to art, less culture will be made. A lot of generated music is good enough to wind up in playlists. Lots of live bands already fake it, and lots of music venues have already replaced live music. That doesn't mean music will die, it just means it's harder to discover new music and go see a show. I think there's some European countries that have some kind of basic income/stipend for artists. If this is the direction of the future we need to ensure something like this exists.
- garfield_light 1y agoSure, a Marxist might think IP is absurd on ideological grounds, but a Social Democrat? Maybe? A socially conscious neoliberal? They love IP. Someone may also hate Mickey Mouse's copyright extension and at the same time hate GenAI! This type of vague posting is very popular in HN. > X thing was originally universally leftist (it wasn't), now it's right wing only (it isn't), something something the real counterculture or grey tribe.
- nemomarx 1y agoI mean this poisoning doesn't stop people from learning from the music at all, does it?
- constantcrying 1y agoIt is designed to stop AI from learning from it. It is intended to work as another form of copy protection.
- nemomarx 1y agoMaybe, but AI isn't people and doesn't do learning, it does "training" which we can roughly anthropomorphize as learning. It doesn't really seem like an IP thing to me - it's like making music that's intentionally hard to classify in a particular genre on purpose or something. Maybe that defeats Spotifys recommendation algorithm but that's totally unrelated to any rights to stream it or so on.
- constantcrying 1y agoI am against IP in general. It doesn't matter what the exact mechanism being used it. You should be able to use all data you can however you want.
- pixl97 1y agoYou cannot both have an algorithm that stops AI and allows humans to listen in the long run. Eventually encoders/classifiers will get an 'anthropomorphic' loop of human ear capabilities to use as a prefilter and identify when sounds differ from the expected human hearing and identify the noise. I mean this is what adversarial reinforcement learning is, humans cannot beat AI on this in the end.
- spacecadet 1y agoI had a client train an AI on images I created without extended usage and so added adversarial noise to the images next time around. The models I tested with misclassified the images and image generation seemed broken, so Im curious how it impacted their attempts, if they even attempted it again, I don't know. I don't expect them to come to me and ask why their model is so interested in ducks...
- constantcrying 1y agoCompanies put measures into place to make sure that their software only functions correctly with a paying customer. Some Video Games include intentional problem when the game believes IP laws are violated.
- pixl97 1y agoIf the client is sophisticated enough to realize that I don't believe it's difficult to prefilter to remove said noise.
- spacecadet 1y agoFor sure. It was a test to see what would happen. I heard nothing, but also didn't see my work appear again- who knows...
- ForHackernews 1y agoNot people, bots. He is not against people learning from his music.
- constantcrying 1y agoObviously. But it still a pretty strict form of IP protection.
- Retric 1y agoCurrent AI is stuck imitating what it’s exposed to. If they actually learned the material they would understand to reject incorrect information in their training data. LLM’s etc can’t do that under current methodology, simply sucking up more training data and tossing more processing power at the algorithm doesn’t solve that issue. Leaning from music doesn’t mean imitating that music. People can for example learn from mistakes without imitating those mistakes.
- constantcrying 1y agoI am against all IP. I do not care what algorithms are used or in what way it differs from human learning, it makes absolutely no difference to me.
- Retric 1y agoIf you actually rejected all forms of IP protection you’d insist AI companies freely share their source code, patroon can’t hide works behind a paywall, etc. Is that your stance? Or do you have some more limited rejection of IP in mind.
- pixl97 1y ago>you’d insist AI companies freely share their source code Myself I don't see those as being related at all. Keeping something secret is allowed. What is not allowed is something being 'not-secret' yet special. Once you share the source code to the world there would be no closing the barn door.
- delusional 1y agoThis is such a radical take on IP rights and AI "learning" that I can only assume you're consciously choosing to misunderstand both. On the off chance that you are not: IP-rights does not cover "learning from" a source. What ML does is not in any way akin to human learning in methodology. When we call it learning that's an analogy. You can not argue a legal case from analogy alone.
- constantcrying 1y agoI believe that a creator has no right to dictate what other people do with his creations. I thought this was the most common anti-IP sentiment.
- delusional 1y agoI'm glad I elaborated. A complete dismissal of all IP-rights is a very fringe very radical position. Most people have a more nuanced IP-rights view about which IP-rights ought to be protected and for how long. You'll find many more people of the opinion that authors life+70 years is too long, than you will dismissing it entirely.
- 6P58r3MXJSLi 1y agoIsn't it the opposite: the author is the only one who has the right to dictate what other people do with his creation? An extreme example: I do not want my code to be used in weapons guidance systems. Am I not expressing my rights as an author?
- constantcrying 1y agoI am against IP, so you should not have that right.
- 6P58r3MXJSLi 1y agoI am against corporations profiting from others people works, for free. If that was not allowed, if people could only use my work for no profit purposes, I agree. That's what CC (creative commons) is for, though. I am also in favour of people "remixing" and even making money out of it, but the intent it's paramount to me. As a long time copyleft activist, I do not understand what limiting authors rights brings to the table, in your opinion. More than once I contacted the author of some work I liked and they gave me free license to use it, no questions asked (after explaining what I would use it for). IMO basic cooperation between good willing people goes a long way, without stripping authors of their rights. Edit: typos
- nkrisc 1y agoThis is about AI, not people.
- constantcrying 1y agoObviously. How does that make IP legitimate. If you are against IP, you obviously are against artists policing which model is trained on their data and which isn't. As this very obviously assigns ownership to the creation of the artist, aka IP.
- nkrisc 1y agoAre we talking about training AI models or about people learning? You are conflating those two as if they are the same.
- constantcrying 1y agoI am against all IP. There is zero difference to me. Any use is acceptable to me.
- charonn0 1y agoExclusive rights over their published work encourages artists and inventors to publish their work, which is a clear benefit to society at large. The period of time it should remain exclusive and the specific rights that are made exclusive can be debated, but the utility of IP rights in general is obvious. And generative AI is not a person in the first place, so I don't think the appeal to learning makes much sense here.
- emsign 1y agoThis! Benn Jordan hasn't published anything in months because of scrapers for AI modeling.
- idle_zealot 1y ago> Exclusive rights over their published work encourages artists and inventors to publish their work Do they? Please cite your studies.
- connicpu 1y agoIt was obvious enough to the founders of the USA to bake it into our constitution. US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: > [the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
- EvanAnderson 1y agoWe don't have that. We have functionally unlimited times now. Publishing something new today puts you at risk of litigation from existing rights-holders. I don't believe it's morally right to license music but, if I did, I'd look at the climate of lawsuits in the the last 10-15 years and conclude that the risks might outweigh the potential rewards.
- connicpu 1y agoI'm all in favor of reverting copyright terms to what they were before the Walt Disney Corporation was founded, but I think the idea of having a limited time to profit off of your creative works in order to incentivize their creation is still a sound concept.
- SkyBelow 1y agoEven if we completely toss out IP, isn't an artist free to release whatever version of their content they want? I find that AI poisoning seems to be a speed bump at best, but I don't see an issue with artists using it if they wish. If anything, it gives a fun challenge for machine learning developers to try.
- constantcrying 1y agoOf course. Just like a company is allowed to release software which whatever copyright measures in place. I also never said that artists should not be allowed to do this, just that I hoped their methods were defeated. The same way I hope copyright protections are defeated.
- SCdF 1y agoUse your ears to learn.
- jeremyjh 1y agoSo you are against paying artists and musicians for their work? You are just entitled to it since it exists?
- constantcrying 1y agoYes. I also pirate every single book I read. Sometimes I buy them though. I also pirate every single show I watch. I never buy them. Music is a bit difficult, but I pay for Spotify, but I wouldn't mind paying for the service if Spotify had no rights to the songs and wasn't compensating the artists.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- yoyohello13 1y agoThis has to be bait. How can you possibly justify this? Do you propose professional artists/authors/musicians just shouldn't exist?
- EvanAnderson 1y agoThey wouldn't exist in the way they do now. It would be different. They existed before intellectual property. There are other models. You've been conditioned to believe the current model is the only one that works. I'd argue that this is, in large part, because a bunch of interests who aren't "creators" profit from this current regime.
- voidhorse 1y agoI fully agree, but the vision is not practical unless you want to change the entire economy around the shift. Yes, artists existed before IP but they also existed before the internet and digital works. Prior to the internet, creative works met real material limits and real scarcity due to the limitations of physical media. In the digital age, these limits are obliterated. You then have two options: 1. You instate something like IP to make digital markets roughly (and admittedly arbitrarily) like real material markets. 2. You establish no such system. No property rights exist in digital space. I am a major fan of (2) myself, but history gave us (1). At this stage, too many people make a living off digital markets for us to just impose a radical shift—you're taking about reworking the entire global economy here. Without concomitant shifts toward socialism globally this would probably just result in digital space becoming sparse and people adopting "analog only" release models to try and sustain incomes off of creative work. If you want to abolish IP, go the full mile and abolish the principle of property period. The distinction between IP and physical goods is just an accidental feature of digital technology. If you are against the idea of IP you are against property. Period. And I'm in full agreement, but I also don't think it's easy to achieve this at this historical juncture. Go read Proudhon.
- visarga 1y ago> IP is such a stupid concept It's been struggling since the internet became a thing. People got more content than they can consume. For any topic there are 1000 alternative sites, most of them free. Any new work competes against decades of backlog. Under this attention scarcity mode, artists devolve into enshittification because they hunt ad money, while royalties are a joke. On the other hand, people stopped being passive consumers, we like to interact now. Online games, social networks, open source, wikipedia and scientific publication - they all run in a permissive mode. How could we do anything together if we all insisted on copyright protection? We like to make most of our content ourselves, we don't need the old top-down model of content creation. We attach "reddit" to our searches because we value comments more than official sources. It's an interactive world where LLMs fit right in, being interactive and contextually adaptive.
- kmeisthax 1y agoBenn Jordan is a musician who is probably one of the most critical of the current copyright regime in his space. For context, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJSTFzhs1O4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJSTFzhs1O4 Copyright exists to enrich the interests of the publishers of a work, not the artists they funded. A long time ago, copyright was a sufficient legal tool to bring publishers to artists' heels, but no longer. Long copyright terms and the imbalance of power between different wealthy interests allowed publishers to usurp and alienate artists' ownership over their work. And the outsized amount of commercial interest in current generative AI tools comes down to the fact that publishers believe they can use them to strip what little ownership interest authors have left. What Benn is doing is looking for new tools to bring publishers to heel. IP is fundamentally a social contract, subject to perpetual renegotiation through action and counter-action. If you told any game publisher in the early 2000s, during the height of the Napster Wars, that they'd be proudly allowing randos on the Internet to stream video of their games being played, they'd laugh in your face. But people did it anyway, and everyone in the games biz realized it's not worth fighting people who are adding to your game. Even Nintendo, notorious IP tightwads as they are, tried scraping micropennies off the top of streamers and realized it's a fool's errand. The statement Benn is making is pretty clear. You can either... - Negotiate royalties for, and purchase training data from, actual artists, who will then in exchange give you high-quality training data, or, - Spend increasing amounts of time fighting to filter an increasingly polluted information ecosystem to have a model that only sorta kinda replicates the musical landscape of the late 2010s. A lot of us are reflexively inclined to hate on anything "copyright-shaped" because of our experiences over the past few decades. Publishers wanted to go back to the days of copyright being a legal tool of arbitrary and capricious punishment. But that doesn't mean that everything that might fall afoul of copyright law is automatically good or that generative AI companies are trying to liberate creativity. They're trying to monopolize it, just like Web 2.0 "disintermediation" was turned into "here's five websites with screenshots of the other four". That's why so much money is being poured into these companies and why a surprisingly nonzero amount of copyright reformists also have deeply negative opinions of AI.
- constantcrying 1y agoI am not against IP because it does or doesn't benefit artists. I am against the idea because it does not make sense. It gives ownership and control over imaginary things to people, a song you create and public isn't "yours". You do not get to decide what others do with it and how they use it. I believe that artists see the current IP laws critically, of course they do as it directly impacts how they finance themselves and how they bargain. But I do not care how good/bad the bargain for the artist is. IP laws should be abolished regardless of what artists want.
- aezart 1y agoHow do you propose that artists make a living?
- constantcrying 1y agoThey can work for their living like I do or get a following/sponsors which pays for their creative output. The later works quite well in the case of YouTube. YouTubers generally have proven that it is absolutely possible to commercialize an artistic output that is given out for free, removing IP laws would have essentially zero effect on them. Nobody owes artists the ability to make a living just for being artists.
- aezart 1y agoArt is labor. Just because the end result is an "idea" with no scarcity doesn't mean that time, energy, blood, sweat, and tears didn't go into making it. I consider profiting off someone else's art without compensating them for that work to basically be wage theft.
- constantcrying 1y agoAlmost all art is created without any compensation. Some failed rock band should not be given money because they "tried hard". Nobody owes artists commercial success for the act of making art. The idea that it is work theft not to compensate failed artist is ridiculous. Who is to pay, the state? Of course many of the most successful creators in the world give their creations away for free. They do not charge a single cent from their watchers and still can make enormous amounts of money. YouTube proved that you do not need IP protection to become wealthy from your creations. YouTubers make money in other ways, totally independent from policing their IP.
- aezart 1y agoI don't know what you're arguing against but it's certainly not the point I was making. I didn't say "artists should be given money because they tried hard." I said that if you're profiting off someone's work, you should pay them.
- const_cast 1y ago> artist could own the right to let people learn from his music. They don't, what's happening here is their music is being fed to a computer program in a for-profit venture. This anthropomorphism of LLMs is concerning. What you're actually implying here is that you believe some computer programs should be awarded the same rights as humans. You can't just skip that like it's some kind of foregone conclusion. You have to defend it. And, it's not easy.
- constantcrying 1y ago>They don't, what's happening here is their music is being fed to a computer program in a for-profit venture. I believe that no artist has the right to tell anyone what to do with the art they have published. It does not matter what happens inside the algorithm with that art. Whether NNs (LLMs, by definition are about language) learn like humans or not is totally irrelevant to my point.
- const_cast 1y agoIt may be irrelevant to your point, but most people are not as radical as you. Most people support copyrighting to some extent, and this argument against anthropomorphism does work on them.
- whimsicalism 1y agoadversarial noise is very popular in the media but imo is a complete dead end for the desired goals - representations do not transfer between different models this easily
- dijksterhuis 1y agoadversarial noise [transferability] for image classification used to be very easy (no idea now, not been in the space for half a decade). the [transferability] rates just drop off significantly for audio (always felt it was a similar vibe to RNN ‘vanishing gradients’) edit — specifically mention transferability
- rcarmo 1y agoBenn is one of my fave subscriptions on YouTube--both for the (now more occasional) music gear stuff and for the in-depth music industry education. The fact that he has been hacking away at IP and AI stuff for ages is just icing on the cake.
- KennyBlanken 1y agoWhy did you link to blogspam and not the original video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMYm2d9bmEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMYm2d9bmEA
- throw_m239339 1y agoOP probably is Peter Kirn himself.
- emsign 1y agoMaybe because it would be the fourth dupe of my submission by then. ;D
- janalsncm 1y agoI like Benn Jordan because he’s clearly got a grasp on a functional understanding of machine learning, but that’s not his primary background. He comes from a music production background, so his focus is more practical and results-oriented. It will be really interesting as this knowledge percolates into more and more fields, what domain experts do with it. I see ML as more of a bag of tricks that can be applied to many fields.
- dingnuts 1y ago>He comes from a music production background, so his focus is more practical and results-oriented It's his art and his livelihood too, so it's also personal. These people want to steal his art and create a world full of soulless cheap muzak, while simultaneously putting him out of work. Get 'em, Benn! I should go buy one of his albums.
- kjkjadksj 1y agoThey’ve been doing that since the recording studio process developed the model in the 1920s or so. They would hire songwriters to make generic pop music with generic lyrics, and keep it in the vault until you have some attractive young singer you want to use for marketing then you give them an album of these songs to sing. And they are sure to sell because you’ve been priming the american ear for these chord progressions for a long time, and you fill all the air in the room with your marketing for this singer leaving people little option but to hear the latest carefully crafted earworm. Still happens today maybe even more perfected with psychological studies intersecting with music and marketing. The best musicians have never and will never be a product of that machine. Seek out live music.
- visarga 1y agoAre you sure you mean "stealing"? As in deprive him of his own recordings? I am curious if anyone read Harry Potter in bootleg form from a LLM. I mean, LLMs are the worst tools for infringing - they are approximate, expensive and slow, while copying is instant, perfect and free. You can apply the same logic for other modalities. Moreover, who's got the time to see someone else's AI shit when they can generate their own, perfectly customized to their liking? I personally generated a song about my cat and kid. It had zero commercial value but was fun for 2-3 people to listen.
- Imnimo 1y agoAny new "defense" that claims to use adversarial perturbations to undermine GenAI training should have to explain why this paper does not apply to their technique: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.12027 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.12027 The answer is, almost unfailingly, "this paper applies perfectly to our technique because we are just rehashing the same ideas on new modalities". If you believe it's unethical for GenAI models to train on people's music, isn't is also unethical to trick those people into posting their music online with a fake "defense" that won't actually protect them?
- nemomarx 1y agoI'm sure everyone involved wants the defense to work, so it seems a logical leap to say they know it doesn't and are doing this as a scheme?
- pixl97 1y ago>o it seems a logical leap to say they know it doesn't and are doing this as a scheme? In some of the earlier image protection articles the people involved seemed rather shady about the capabilities. Would have to do some HN searching for those articles. But everything at the end of the day will be a scheme if the end result is for humans to listen to it. You cannot make a subset of music that can be heard by humans (and actually sounds good) that cannot be prefiltered to be learned by AI. I've said the same thing about images, the same thing will be true about audio, movies, actions in real leave, et al. These schemes will likely work for a few of the existing models, then fall apart quickly the moment a new model arrives. What is worse for defense is audio quality for humans is remaining the same while GPU speeds and algorithms increase in speeds over time meaning the time until a model beats the new defense will trend to unity.
- nemomarx 1y agoRight, but that just makes it a failed defense, not a scheme to dupe artists into false confidence. Maybe the result will be similar but I don't think the intent here is a con, it sounds pretty genuine.
- propter_hoc 1y agoBenn has been one of my favorite electronic composers for almost 20 years. Probably my favorite track of his: The Flashbulb - Parkways: https://youtu.be/C6pzg7I61FI https://youtu.be/C6pzg7I61FI
- dale_glass 1y agoAll this stuff is snake oil, either already, or eventually. There's new models showing up regularly. Civitai recognizes 33 image models at this point, and audio will also see multiple developments. Any successful attack on a model isn't guaranteed to apply to another one, not even yet invented. There's also a multitude of possible pre-processing methods and their combinations for any piece of media. There's also the difficulty of attacking a system that's not well documented. Not every model out there is open source and available for deep analysis. And it's hard to attack something that doesn't yet exist, which means countermeasures will come up only after a model was already successfully created. This is I'm sure of some academic interest, but the practical benefits seem approximately none. Since information is trivially stored, anyone having any trouble could just download the file today and sit on it for a year or two not doing anything at all, just waiting for a new model to show up.
- ben_w 1y agoTo the extent that the people making the models feel unburdened by the data being explicitly watermarked "don't use me", you are correct. Seems like an awful risk to deliberately strip such markings. It's a kind of DRM, and breaking DRM is illegal in many countries.
- dale_glass 1y agoBut it's not intended as a watermark, it's an attempt at disruption. And with some models it simply doesn't work. For instance, I've seen somebody experiment with Glaze (the image AI version of this). Glaze at high levels produces visible artifacts (see middle image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrbJ9ZTacAAWQQn.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrbJ9ZTacAAWQQn.jpg:large ). It seems some models ignore it and produce mostly clean images on the output (looking like the last image), while others just interpret is as a texture, the character is just wearing a funny patterned shirt. This is while the intended result is fooling the model to generate something other than the intended character.
- alpaca128 1y ago> It seems some models ignore it and produce mostly clean images on the output (looking like the last image), while others just interpret is as a texture This sounds like you’re talking about img2img generation based on a glazed image instead of training, which isn’t the intended purpose.
- thomastjeffery 1y agoThe problem is that copyright is the law of the land, and it demands our participation. Because of that reality, every artist who wants to make money must either participate in it, or completely isolate themselves from it. These models have become an incredible opportunity for giant corporations to circumvent the law. By training a model on a copyrighted work, you can launder that work into your own new work, and make money from it without sharing that money with the original artists. Obviously, this is an incredibly immoral end to copyright as we know it. So what are we going to do about this situation? Are we really going to keep pretending that copyright can work? It wasn't even working before all the AI hype! Ever heard the words "starving artist"? Of course you have! We need a better system than copyright. I'm convinced that no system at all (anarchy) would be a superior option at this point. If not now, then when?
- discardedrefuse 1y agoBenn has a video about that too! His channel is pretty great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJSTFzhs1O4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJSTFzhs1O4
- thomastjeffery 1y agoIndeed! I've definitely been a fan of his for a while, and I laud him for trying to make things work in a space where all the cards are stacked against him. I do wish, though, that he would have introduced that perspective of the situation in this particular video. Leaving it out feels like making a video about learning to swim, set in the middle of the ocean.
- visarga 1y ago> By training a model on a copyrighted work, you can launder that work into your own new work, and make money from it without sharing that money with the original artists. Not sure if "you" refers to model developers, hosting company or end users. But let's see each one of them in turn - model development is a cost center, there is no profit yet - model deployment brings little profit, they make cents per million tokens - applying the model to your own needs - that is where the benefit goes. So my theory is that benefits follow the problem, it is in the application layer. Have a need, you can benefit from AI, don't need it, no benefit. Like Linux. You got to use it for something. And that usage, that problem - is personal. You can't sell your problems, they remain yours. It is hard to quantify how people benefit from AI, it could be for fun, for learning, professional use, or for therapy. Most gen-AI usage is seen by one person exactly once. Think about that. It's not commercial, it's more like augmented imagination. Who's gonna pay for AI generated stuff when it is so easy to make your own.