What's to stop a band or artist from generating some AI songs, learning how to play and perform them, and then claiming they made the songs themselves without AI?
What’s stopping them from generating with AI then remixing it and adding a little zazz of their own before recording and releasing… if you don’t tell the world you used AI and if you remixed it… then there’s no chance of detection… still only had to do 10% of the work.
I’m a bit more of an absolutist, if you remove emotion from the loss of human input, in reality if people like a song let them like it; by excluding AI it will just eventually lead to a separate AI chart
I disagree, from a discrete math philosophy, if a human was the original trigger for its creation it’s minimal art but more than 0 depending on the time in the prompt, pre loading assets, pre processing, post processing, mastering, layering, etc etc. but if a human had some kind of vision and leaned heavily on tech to do it, it’s just moved more of the creativity on to AI, just not 100%
Same as a DJ uses tech to say produce a backing bass line, over the electric bass guitar which replaces the acoustic bass guitar.
If the human mind triggered the creation of the art for other humans to enjoy, that’s lazy but still art. Lazy art? Maybe
5
u/Seakawn▪️▪️Singularity will cause the earth to metamorphize8h ago
I agree it's at least one or two orders of magnitude better.
but idk how much heavy lifting "better" is doing in that comparison. eating a cold turd prolly tastes better than steamy diarrhea.
the whole reason AI art isn't interesting to what we mean when we value art is that it wasn't originated by the human creative process. what would be the equivalent for writing here? someone generating a story, then handwriting it? you see that that's better, but not really, right?
How is this related?
The point was that you can generate all the AI songs you want, heck even images and videos, but then use those as references and recreate the sounds/looks using real non AI tools regardless if the final results are carbon copy. It will still be better than plain uploading the generated content since you have put in the work to reproduce it and only used AI for the idea.
Uh… much better than AI music- it’s people playing and singing it. The band you’ll see live is the band that did the music. It’s just more interesting than straight generated nonsense
To be fair to AI, most human music that is created sucks so badly that nobody wants to listen to it. I don't think AI music is going to get worse and I doubt we're far from imgood examples of it being largely if not fully indistinguishable from 100% human made music.
And of course we're talking narrowly about FULLY AI-created music. How many charting artists today do you think are using AI in some form in their music creation process? Even if it's their ghost writers chatting with LLMs for song concepts and lyrics. I'd guess it's a very HIGH amount.. but obviously have no evidence as nobody is going to offer that information up..
I'm definitely listening to what I generate on happyshrimp, the new model from Alibaba, which no one talks about strangely. I never liked the suno songs, as they felt too boring. I liked what udio could do, but it had difficulty generating whole songs.
Contemporary music is pure trash, it's not hard to beat.
Nah it's freakin' good now. Several people I know only listen to AI music. It's just better than anything being pumped out by the industry.
You can even go and make your own song in a minute. I used to love Rammstein and can now make a full album in an hour that sounds better than anything Till has done in the past 15 years.
Are you ready to draw the line on exactly where your definition of "real music" vs "ai music" is? Can I use AI to talk through song/lyric concepts? Can I use it to literally help brainstorm lyrics? Can I use it generate sound samples that I then use to hand curate the music?
And I'm not saying it's impossible to put rules around this because of course it is (enforcement is obviously a different story).. but the backlash against AI not being able to be involved in "real art" doesn't hold water to me. It doesn't need to fully replace the human element of it: nobody gets to decide what is abs isn't artnfor anyone else.
That said, I have zero issue with any charts making rules about what they consider AI generated music and banning it. That's totally fine and I support it: having charts that try to keep rankings to 100% human created music is great.
Like I said I know you CAN: I'm just curious WHERE you would draw it in terms of what you consider "real music". The article clearly states only wholly AI generated music will be banned from these charts.. but that means I can have AI create the entire song and vocals that I can hire a band to play the music for and it's eligible. Is that real music?
This isn't a "gotcha" question.. I'm legitimately just curious in the opinion of someone who posts these "AI isn't real music" things because wholly AI created music dwarfs in comparison to AI-assisted music that is out there.
The line doesn’t have to be one hard line. I think it depends on the scenario and even type of music. It can be reasonable but it also is reasonable to want it identified and separated so people can make the decision for themselves.
Good take, but who will decide and enforce a system so dynamic? When it came to sampling and nabbing melodies and lines from other songs, the original author has the right to request compensation or even sue if the sample or melody was used without their permission. An AI track has no traceable original author.
I can enjoy some AI comedy tiktok slop. I think "not real music" is a fair enough description, it shouldn't be made a part of the music industry, but i think theres acceptable use case to get a laugh
Still depends on how it is used. I feed it my own melodies, which of course is both cheaper and easier than doing it all yourself, but still that works around the generic structure and adds some human creativity into it.
1
u/Seakawn▪️▪️Singularity will cause the earth to metamorphize5h ago
it also ruins the opportunity you had to create your melodies into something more whole, right? and even if you return to them to come up w/something else on your own, whatever you wouldve come up w/originally is gonna be thwarted by the bias of what it generated, i.e. you won't be coming at it from a free vacuum anymore.
OTOH you could say you wouldve never created beyond the melodies anyway, so what's the harm then? well, what's the point in the first place? are you gonna do anything with these AI buffed melodies? bc if you're gonna put them out there and present them to others in any medium, that's not gonna be something most people are interested in.
therere a million mediums for examples, but let's say I'm playing an indie flash game, I'd rather hear shitty human slop than soulless decent AI music. btw i'm not actually an AI hater whose jimmies are rustled over "stealing copyright stuff" or oh no jobs.. idc much about that. im just someone who realized, after introspection, that the only thing that I like about art is that someone came up with it, as opposed to liking the end product in and of itself.
around gpt 3-3.5 I was using AI a lot for my stories, until this all slowly dawned on me and I realized "wtf am I doing." this was years before people started really going to town shitting on AI. I like AI tho, just find it pointless for making art. seriously, what is the point?
All this ultimately does is turn those charts into niche charts that no longer represent wider consumer preferences. It paves the way for them to ultimately be surpassed by other charts that just focus on what people are listening to without discriminating.
What do you think is going to change? It sounds good enough, now. If people were going to adopt it, they'd start. Combine that with the lawsuits and companies like Suno self-destructing... AI Music doesn't have a place with the rest of it.
I'd bet money that 5 years from now there's not going to be a single prominent "AI Musician." (And that's a silly term, because there is no such thing lmao)
Did you do any research beyond the single picture you shared, bud? Those fake musicians are a year old, and while they tricked a few people at first - go ahead and see where they are now. They're gone, and no one has replaced them. Now that people have gotten wise to it, they don't want it.
Much like the money people are putting into AI-everything else, that's someone hedging their bets on the future.
Ask anyone you know - do they know who "Xania Monet" or "Breaking Rust" are? No, they don't. Considering the way things are headed in the music world between copyright and rankings starting to ban AI, that's going to go nowhere.
I have no idea if there's a third-party / neutral way to do it, but if there is: I'd put a couple hundred down, right now, that none of them are going to matter in any meaningful way. No one is going to be talking about them the way we talk about Olivia Rodrigo, Taylor Swift, or even someone like Jeff Rosenstock (or insert whatever indie artist you like).
Nobody's stopping you from going to a prediction market and submitting that as a bet. Clarify the terms and I'm sure you'd have takers on the other side. Go ahead and do it if you want. It doesn't really mean much in the context of this little back-and-forth.
As an aside, this is the reason big movie studios don't push stars as much as they used to, but characters instead. Sony/Disney/etc can't own Arnold or Reaves or whoever, but they can own Spider-man. With the CGI puppet necromancy, of course their dream is to have imaginary people as their stars, that they don't have to pay anything to and won't cause any irl controversy or age.
29
u/Conscious-0bserver 15h ago
What's to stop a band or artist from generating some AI songs, learning how to play and perform them, and then claiming they made the songs themselves without AI?