I look, yet I still do not see any need to make my buttocks more attractive through BBL surgery instead of simply squeezing my glutes under load. Thankfully, nobody is forcing me to see that need, let alone conclude that I must act on that realization immediately. The person (DanielJTrujillo(GANTASMO)) simply offered someone a tool that might be useful. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether that tool, or similar ones, will prove useful to no one or to someone in some way is unlikely to be affected in the slightest by someone else's whining, protesting, or strong disapproval.

 

 

Last edited: Jul 6, 2026 at 4:41 PM

oh, not only because of that.

it was mainly the GUI which tells people what this is about, and then the reaction of the developer eventually gave some of us the comfirmation we needed.

i personally was already finished off when i noticed the highly pretentions name of this software.

plus you should not take anyone here too serious.

 

that is a really weird statement. are you making up things like that using chatbots or where is this kind of ideas coming from?

not even basic things like SRC are just taken from the OS - even though it would be possible on macOS.
some 24 out of 25 audio program developers use a custom SRC algorithm.

if a computerprogram did most of the work (and the computerprogram used other people´s works for that), it is not even a creation.


§ 2 Geschützte Werke
(2) Werke im Sinne dieses Gesetzes sind nur persönliche geistige Schöpfungen.


AG München 142 C 9786/25 zu vibe coded Software

https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2026-N-1513


.

 

then how did it evolve over time?

who wrote MROS before Charlie Steinberg? Who wrote "natural order" before Stuart Cheshire?

Why was there no Excel in 1979?

it is exactly the other way round: everything what humans use has once been invented and build by someone.

 

Naturally, if someone hasn't learned much and has become rather lazy and complacent—and let's face it, thinking isn't exactly everyone's strong suit—AI can be a real temptation; after all, a computer with an internet connection makes it all possible. Clever criminals use AI to foist perfect forgeries on you and get their hands on your hard-earned money.

 

there was VisiCalc on Mac, and it took Microsoft about 5 years to catch up and design Excel. Someone could call that evolution, but another might suggest that nothing has really changed on that front.

 

haha, i am afraid that is true for a lot of inventions by microsoft.

 

Usually people learning to code learn best practises, then start to play around with stuff, take inspiration from good code, learn to avoid certain things etc. Write a lot of programs that do not work. Then they maybe write code that does work and then maybe move on to a more complex language. Rinse and repeat. But that is a process over many years, usually involving many different people sharing stuff, learning and helping each other, driven by curiosity, by the drive to build something. Also driven by other things, maybe commercial interest, maybe not. Maybe it´s driven by a dream. Those things are part of the reason why we pay money for stuff. Someone dedicated a good part of their life to something, they will support it in the future, fix problems/faults and hopefully build more. We can connect to that everytime we use what they built.

With generative AI and LLMs we basically give up at least part of that process and with it the possibilty to grow and learn.

When we use a good software, a good synth or module or whatever it is, we can connect to the human part behind.
Or why do you think we recognized that this software was build with LLMs just by looking at the GUI? Why do we immediately recognize AI texts?

And what conclusion do you draw from that?

 

I am not 100% opposed to AI-created music in principle - one day there might be wholly AI-created music which I personally consider very enjoyable and "well-made" and compositionally excellent. But 1) I think the credits for the song always need to at least say "made by [model]" or "co-made by [model]" and 2) I'd actually rather be more interested in the AI's "perspective" than the human's, so in some sense I think I prefer either 100% human or 100% AI. The issue is when it's 1% human and 99% AI and the human claims all the credit.

There are some (eccentric) AI philosophers on Twitter who lately have been asking AIs to come up with their own ideas for musical expression and composition. I'm not a big fan of the output, but it's definitely still more interesting (and arguably "artful") than Sunoslop. One example from the recently released Claude Fable 5 model explaining how to perform a song it composed: https://x.com/tessera_antra/status/2074039867542225360

 

In the long run and even the short run, this is a fool's errand. Nearly every new thing you see will be made mostly or entirely by AI. Including VSTs. You'll just use the stuff where the human has proper taste and knows how to properly interact with the AI to tell it how to make things look and feel good and non-slopful.

It's totally valid to take one glance at some software and think "this is emanating slop vibes" and distrust it. But soon enough you'll be seeing a lot of wholly AI-coded things directed by a single human without any sign of it being AI or low-quality.

 

Yes, this statement was made on the basis of humanistic thoughts.
I can not see that humanism in this form is future proof. But that's something else.

 

Spoiler: in german

Leitsätze:

1. Ob durch Künstliche Intelligenz generierte Erzeugnisse Werkcharakter i.S.d. § 2 Abs. 2 UrhG haben, hängt davon ab, inwieweit trotz des softwaregesteuerten Prozessablaufs noch menschlicher schöpferischer Einfluss ausgeübt wird.
2. Ein urheberrechtlicher Schutz ist daher denkbar infolge menschlichen Eingriffs in KI-Ergebnisse, der auch nachträglich bzw. sukzessive während des Promptings stattfinden kann und der dazu führt, dass sich im Output auch gerade die Persönlichkeit des Promptenden widerspiegelt.
3. Der menschliche Einfluss muss den resultierenden Output jedoch hinreichend objektiv und eindeutig identifizierbar prägen. Dies ist jedenfalls, aber auch erst dann der Fall, wenn die im Prompting eingeflossenen kreativen Elemente den Output derart dominieren, dass der Gegenstand insgesamt als eigene originelle Schöpfung seines Urhebers angesehen werden kann.

Spoiler: in english

Headnotes:

1. Whether products generated by Artificial Intelligence possess the character of a work within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the German Copyright Act (UrhG) depends on the extent to which human creative influence is still exercised despite the software-controlled process.
2. Copyright protection is therefore conceivable as a result of human intervention in AI results, which can also occur subsequently or successively during prompting, and which leads to the output specifically reflecting the personality of the prompter.
3. However, the human influence must shape the resulting output in a sufficiently objective and clearly identifiable manner. This is certainly the case, but also only the case, when the creative elements incorporated into the prompting dominate the output to such an extent that the subject matter as a whole can be regarded as the author's own original creation.

This means that whether the generated output is eligible for protection depends on the individual human contribution. Furthermore, in software programming, many components can not be protected as intellectual property anyway, since mathematical equations, generic code patterns, and naming conventions are not eligible for protection. Only specific derivations or architectural structures do fall under copyright law. Everything else is public domain.

 

Last edited: Jul 6, 2026 at 7:36 PM

All the greater and lesser created music (or any artistic expressionion, exchange a piano for a paintbrush, etc) of the last 500 years was and is composed by musicians who played/play one or more instruments. They are and were skilled, working hard to better themselves and to be the best composer/musician/singer that they could possibly be. That changes when one offloads creativity to AI, it's no longer art, it's been transformed to maybe in a stretch what I might consider the newfound craft of the prompt. Creative thinking isn't drudgery and is not a waste of time. It is a natural outpouring of the the human condition, and what in my mind and what has been promised is AI to be like a steam locomotive during the industrial revolution...get you there faster and reliably, not to take the ride for you, to create the experience of the world going by your window or telling you what you should feel concerning the experience. Any other thing that it does amounts to dumbing down a person...use it or lose it, I say.

 

Last edited: Jul 6, 2026 at 7:12 PM

There are studies on how letting the AI do the work alters how our brains process and retain information.

“LLM [large language model] users showed severe deficits in memory and essay ownership, with 83% being unable to quote from the essays they had just written …”

Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12723506/

Here is another one
Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task
Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

Normalizing the use of AI and not at least trying to limit its application in the future just seems like a very bad idea.


Edit, I saw that the impact of AI on society was being compared with electricity (I think that was Sam Altman). The people here defending the use and further development and implementation of AI, can you tell me why we need AI? Í´m sure we could all write essays about why we need electricity and why we wouldn´t want to live without it. How about AI? I´m genuinely curious btw..not just trying to gotcha.

 

Last edited: Jul 6, 2026 at 7:05 PM

I'm sorry, but AI-skeptical people are very funny to me. In like 20 years someone will quote things like this in some 100K-likes nu-Twitter thread and everyone will laugh.

Obviously accountants became way worse at mental math once they started offloading more tasks to calculators and spreadsheets. But it would not make much sense to pass regulations on accountants using calculators and spreadsheets or to try to discourage them from doing so.

 

More like missphotoer? So you just randomly picked that photo from one guy's IG as your avatar. Ok, I stand corrected. Happens a lot. It's all Google Images AI's fault.

If anything it almost made me to turn from anti to pro. All good anyways

 

Last edited: Jul 6, 2026 at 7:14 PM

Pretty sure they became better at doing other things, though. Average IQ scores grew throughout the 20th century and peaked a few decades ago.

Tons of people were already fed up with how the internet has changed prior to widespread AI use and feel it´s only getting worse and you think in the future no one will look back at pre-AI times wishing we never got AI in the first place...Yeah, sure thing. We´ll all be happily letting our AI agents like posts in some 100K-likes nu-Twitter thread.

 

AI is going to put click farms out of work, and then we will have to bail them out. We should think about the farmers, they just want to work.