At what point does the line get crossed with AI? Who/what judges where that line should be?

If an artist uses AI in BiaB to create the main vocal melody and a real singer sings it on the record, is that crossing "the line"?

If an artist uses a program to automix their song, but all the tracks were recorded without AI assistance, does that cross the line? What if it's mastered with AI?

If an artist uses Google to come up with a rhyme or three and they take its (Gemini) recommendation, does that cross the line?

 

Before anyone calls AI music "slop", have a listen to this. If you can do better than this, then you have every right to call it "slop":

 

If I were some top 3 AI owner I'd sit down the other guys and try to make a deal that music is off limits for AI, delete all trained DBs and never try to make them again. Not because AI can't make good music, just because creating stuff is a large chunk of what makes us human. I mean leave something to humans only, just for fucking fun. It's not that someone will starve if we don't automate the shit out of it. It's like selling all jigsaw puzzles pre-assembled, what fun is in that.

 

Even if it turns out true, like some comments here say, that it will be very difficult for Bandcamp to police this, I still think it's really GREAT that Bandcamp is going out of their way to make a very public statement they don't want this slop on their website! Saying "We don't want you" is a good start.

 

Good

 

It's called slop because it's low effort product from human side, not low quality AI output.

 

The problem I "predict" will happen is a only low amount of "offending" tracks will get reported. The only times I end up on Bandcamp website is because someone has linked me their page for its content.

Do people actually just "surf" Bandcamp and listen to stuff randomly?

 

based

 

In this case Bandcamp, wholly or substantially AI generated music, which isn't either of the things you are mentioning, thing that is posted bellow your response is pretty much what they don't want on there.

AFAIC, use AI to oblivion, but at least put some effort in recreating those ideas, instead of just posting output straight from Suno and calling it a day. It's easy to make hundreds of tracks like that, but it's not that easy to recreate any of those tracks, rework those ideas,change instruments, pick different sounds, mix everything to sound great together and etc. That takes actual time and effort and limits sheer volume of your output and quality of the same, so yeah, at least do something more then prompting.

 

good news. =)

 

That... explains a LOT.

 

No, of course not. That is still human created. The line is crossed when its more AI than it is human.

as @Melodic Reality pointed out, its slop because its low effort garbage. Regardless, I could absolutely do better than that, so yes, its slop.

Good news, nobody is taking away your right to make music. You can still make music for fun, you are not being forced to use suno. Its also impossible to draw the line at just music. What about every other field that will get or is getting replaced? Programmers, writers, graphic artist, videographers, drivers, surgeons, etc etc etc.

I do every so often. Some obscure underground music gets released through bandcamp. You can find some cool stuff.

 

I question the level of accuracy of this move. If the criteria is the human reports all my jazzist friends will be reporting any shitty pop song made post 2024 claiming it's AI.

 

Banning AI generated content is a great idea and I wish Facebook andi YouTube would follow that path.
All this Ai generated BS is a real plague that should be eradicated. The sooner the better.

 

On first sight: respectable thought. But not more than that. Who is to define what is "with the help or partly AI generated"? Who judges? What about the use of AI driven generative MIDI-tools? Or AI driven mixing tools?

Summary: I think that is not thought through and is complete bullsh1t. Some people feeling themselves morally superior but without NI (Natural Intelligence) have thought of something to set them apart and please the stupid masses ...

 

I don't trust big music biz companies who say they, 'Want to Help Atists' as all it ever means is they want to help themselves to some of your cash. Gives them an excellent new marketing campaign that will no doubt contribute vastly to fill their coffers eh.

AI can't do what i can do and never will without human intervention. Period.

When the dust settles and folk realise AI is just another poxy tool and couldn't possibly replace them even if it wanted to, because all dat same rigid digital info cannot match my flitting, individualy programmed analogue brain. Period.

But most importantly, i'll create my Art anyway i want and without others intervention or permission, as long as no animals or children are hurt in the process. Period.

 

btw if anyone wants opposite of that, there's AI music platform StockTune with sorted tracks https://stocktune.com/

 

Be aware to not use any plugins from sonible, iZotope, Rayzoon, EZ(anything), uJam, and so on and on ... The more I think I think of that move the more idiotic, spontaneous stupid I think it is. Is serial music also banned, because I use to have some series generated by smart (AI-)tools.

This is what happens when AI excels NI (Natural Intelligence). This whole idea produced by Bandcamp reminds me a lot of the Ted Kaczinski manifest. In many aspects absolutely correct, in it's conclusion catastrophically wrong. Anyway, I will ad to all of my files a written oath that they are made completely AI-free. Let's hope that Bandcamp profits profits from the eventually return of NI.

 

This is stupid as it can be. The opposite of pure AI is not banning all and everything AI.