Can you link me an article ? I can't find anything beside "ai and human right Can coexist" things (which they don't speak about moderation), I'm very intrested on how they wish to do this.

For the moderation problem, is it possible to fight fire with fire ? Like using machine learning to make the différence between ai creation and human creation ?

I know there is a tool online which give the probability that a text was generated. This tool wasn't that great, but it was few years back. So maybe if we create a tool who check the file as a text/binary files, it could be helping the mods.

I know you might not have the time to do that but I'm sure there is plenty of talented dev here who would be happy to help!

PS: thank you for change of this update! I'm not the using the most the audio portal, but some of those change impact m'y utilisation for the better!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer

This is a possibility, although automate tools do miss stuff / get false positives. There's also the implementation and expense of using a third party service, plus we'd want to be sure it's not training on the material we pass to it.

Thank you for the link. And it's true that on the part where they wish "harmfull content to be removed before released on the site", don't leave much of a choice beside AI moderation, when you have too much content published like in ng.

This is a possibility, although automate tools do miss stuff / get false positives.

We could imagine a system were it deleted a post only on a certain amount of confidence. Like the programms says it's AI at 70% sure and you choose at which percentage it take action. As for false positive and miss stuff, surely this system would not suppress mods job but it could act as a first filter.

plus we'd want to be sure it's not training on the material we pass to it.

The more I think about it, the more I think about a system like "I'm not a robot" Cap-Chat where it check for mouse movement to see it's human or not. Something that would like into non-human precision.

But that all just an idea yet, I'll tried to learn more about MP3 encoding, to see if it's doable.

I don't see anything about AI being mentioned here.

I've found this about UK's AI regulatory principles:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/implementing-the-uks-ai-regulatory-principles-initial-guidance-for-regulators/102aa401-60f6-46e8-95dc-b48150eba7dd

and here a summary:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulators-strategic-approaches-to-ai/regulators-strategic-approaches-to-ai

and maybe this?

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/safety-technology/online-content-moderation/

In the article ? It's implicit.

Like they said that all content you be check before any upload. Imagine for example YouTube, every second you have a thousand of video uploaded. If It's only human check, there will be a queue for review and a video would wait years before being upload.

And that where AI comes as the only option.

This is a really good idea, and I 100% support this. Direct their asses to the Support NG! page every time they try to upload audio. Keeping the portal clean from AI/stolen content is clearly a sisyphean task for the AP mods. Geometry Dash turns 10 this month, which means they've had to deal with the influx of DMCA-actionable uploads for almost a DECADE. And how many active AP mods are there right now? 8, maybe? I worry that we're still in a very precarious position despite the tremendous improvements that been made with automated assistance.

I'm glad to hear that things are manageable right now. Over the years, it's felt like the AP was a legal liability at times with how the community was almost completely responsible for removing stolen content. Automation has removed a lot of that burden, but I think we need a proper barrier to entry. If you raise the bar by way of a paywall, you're incentivizing a lot of the right people and disincentivizing a lot of the wrong ones.

i understand why the changes would be made, AI has been a thorn on the side of the art community for awhile.

im dont know jack shit about running a website and businesses and money and what not,

and really really REALLY wish i could think of a proper solution to the AI problem, but i cant.

nevertheless, having to pay money JUST to post on the audio portal just doesnt seem like a good solution to me. it just isnt. new users already feel discourage about posting in newgrounds due to the bad stigma the website has, they are gonna feel less motivated when you tell them you gotta pay to post their music in the audio portal.

i will continue to be supporter, cuz i know newgrounds needs it, but im 100% against the previous mentioned idea

i hope we can find a solution that everybody agrees on

I know this is just something you're thinking about at this stage, but while you're having a think:

Have you thought about how what requiring paid accounts means for the scouting system in general? Right now "Supporter" is just that: a way to support the site that happens to have some fun bonuses. If the site becomes "pay to play" I really don't see people taking kindly to there being tiers of paid accounts as decided by grandfathered super users who in the majority themselves don't pay. In fact, it strikes me that a lot of the cultural norms of NG become kind of awkward once cash is involved (bans become more serious etc). Even grandfathering accounts strikes me as awkward.

He did say “at some point been a Supporter.” Gifting Supporter works as well since that’s how I got mine. But besides that point, I’m fully with you on that, especially with how the site has always just allowed you to post your stuff, with its guidelines enforced of course. I said this before… all of it feels frustrating. I just think it feels unfair to those who can’t really give anything. Let’s say it does happen and uploading audio is blocked behind a paywall… should everything else follow suit? It feels like it’s either free for everything or pay for everything.

Are users currently rate limited for how much content they can upload to NG in a given timespan? I can't find info on it besides supporter letting you post more art in a single post.

I know this wouldn't really stop anyone from having multiple accounts or whatever but I really think there should be hard requirements for posting stuff specially for new, unsupporter, unscouted accounts. GenAI could and probably does flood the Portal with just one single user.

In terms of paying to use, there should always be an alternative. It just sucks that if you had to pay to upload you'd never be able to hear their stuff first before offering the alternative.

There are limits on total uploads for un-scouted artists but they are pretty generous. There are also daily limits but they are also pretty generous. We probably should dig up those numbers and properly document them somewhere.

This would be an unfortunate side effect of a paywall, but it is still preferable to have that as opposed to allowing AI content on the platform. I can absolutely sympathize with younger artists who feel so discouraged and overwhelmed at the beginning of their musical journey. Every artist has felt like that at some point. But the fact of the matter is that making an omelet requires cracking a few eggs.

If this is what it takes to slam the door on DMCA or AI content, it should be done. Respectfully, I have yet to a persuasive argument for an alternative solution.

The scouting system is a quality filter. If the AP loses a large majority of its upload traffic, which I suspect it would if a paywall was implemented, then you may not even need a scouting system! We can go back to what it was like in the 2000s.

This is an excellent question that will be very important for a later time when AI becomes even more sophisticated than it is right now. Right now, the issue is most pertinent for audio and art uploads. I don’t know how locked in the art mods are over there. As I understand it, there are certain “tells” in AI art uploads, and I would even say they are more easily discernible than audio uploads at this point in time.

Movies and Games are simply not a big issue right now, so there’s not much of a need to address it, especially when you have the Under Judgment system. Ask yourself this question: between Movies, Games, and Audio, which AI submission would have the highest chance of slipping through the cracks and ending up on the front page? In my opinion, the AP is incredibly vulnerable to this happening soon, and that is a nightmare scenario for the site.

Indeed. :) The club could use some new management IMO; maybe new incentives for new reviewers to join, it's a good idea...

Just a crew where you swap reviews with others would be good too, no need for rankings if there's nobody with the time to maintain 'em.

It's a good thing we have reviewer role models like FutureCopLGF out there for sure! Hopefully others join in on the less travelled path of giving actual feedback/constructive critique.

Well everybody can't be an expert on all content forms, but everybody appreciates a review regardless. :) Whether it be actual in-depth critique on how something was built, or less technical opinions on how it's percieved, it matters just as much, the audience is the main audience after all. That's cool to hear!

The idea of Spotify definitely did come out of piracy, Spotify's founder said some interesting things about the service back in the day, and before MegaUpload's founder had his empire shut down (unjustly, at that) he was onto a similar thing, they had some big artists signed up for a potentially equally world-altering service. So it seems like Spotify were lucky, somebody was bound to do it, they just managed to be around the right people at the right time; do it the right way then.

If the streaming innovation's an entirely good or bad thing I don't know, probably both, and maybe it was inevitable... the competition for artists would've probably amped up regardless with our increasing ease of access, both with how much easier it is to make music, and how much easier it is to partake in it; innovation seems inevitable. It's harder to get big as an artist now, but easier to truly compete with the bigger artists too, and IMO it definitely is a good thing you don't need a label to get somewhere in the world, they built themselves a real monopoly on the industry back in the day. Interesting how much the landscape's changed in just a decade or so.

As for business models, that's really the only way you can compete in a world that's at least somewhat democratic. If someone offers a much better service (as piracy did), you need to incentivize the alternative better, and it seems we reached a pretty good balance between availability and pricing that pretty much made piracy for the average Joe obsolete. For a while it really seemed like everyone was pirating. And now it seems everyone's using AI...

Crypto is regulated a bit differently in different countries though, in some Bitcoin's illegal, I wonder if the balance of commodity/reward will change the regulation there too in time...

Well consider regular websites, like this. It used to be you could use any music you wanted in your submissions. Copyright infringement wasn't a factor you considered at all, regular sites weren't regulated, and P2P services let users share content without a thought as to the potential repercussions or moral wrongs in it. Nobody monitored them.

Yet overtime - with the advent of automated takedown requests/companies crawling for copyright-infringing material I assume - it definitely started to be. Submissions were taken down en masse here. You really can't use music you don't have the right to use in a submission here any longer - or on any other site really, short of on YT maybe, with the deals they've made with labels.

So media companies definitely did change the way they market and sell their products to combat intentional piracy/lure in potential customers who more and more distanced themselves from the legitimate market, but less intentional piracy has pretty much disappeared. For the majority of websites out there the use of copyright-infringing material is not a thing now, copyright's better regulated, there's still some gray area with Fair Use, and licensed material that's probably not used only on the sites it's licensed for, but it seems that - for legitimate websites - copyright management is fundamentally under control.

With AI, we haven't even started legislating ownership yet. How does copyright apply to AI? Who has the rights to their content? If you make content with an AI that's been trained on other content, is that content then yours? Maybe we'll get a similar wave of copyright-related takedowns for media that was based off of media said author didn't actually own in time, when there's both regulation and a system of control for the same. I'd be surprised if we don't get that. It's not as easy to distinguish original work with AI as it is without, but I think we'll get there. It ought be of commercial interest too. If AI generated work is good enough to compete with traditional media, then some major corporations ought be threatened by this too, and seek ways to limit it's use, or come to compromises in regard to what's allowed and what's not...

If so, the use of AI for generative purposes as such will probably plummet too, just like the use of potentially copyright-infringing material in custom work... it's not exactly the same case, but seems similar enough...

So maybe the NG issue becomes a self-regulating problem; no real problem at all. Maybe since there's such vast potential for profits with the help AI nobody actually wants to start regulating AI itself, but for generative content specifically it seems to me just a matter of time. Maybe we've a long way left before we get there though. Curious to see how this all evolves...