A difficulty I have is a conflict between my distaste for AI artistic output of any kind, and the argument that it is wrong that it is trained on art, music whatever.
That's what humans do. No one complains that another musician has listened to someone else's music. Or even that they are influenced by it. It's how things happen.
The problem is that AI has nothing to add. Somehow that needs to be brought into a cogent argument.
The reason we can't tell the difference is commercial music is already ridiculously formulaic and derivative and focus-grouped.
I wonder if this will unfortunately just become the new norm.
I don't want it to be because I believe music means much more than what a computer can generate on its own. I appreciate that over my time music has been more and more computer aided, where we're moving away from new bands having incredible drummers, guitarists and vocalists.
Music is popular because it has meaning, its words have been shaped by the bands and their vocalists based on real thoughts and creativity. AI music takes it to an extreme commodity, more so than it is today.
For example, its trending on social media "Killing in the name of" by Rage against the machine for its lyrics against Government overstep and policy brutality. Those lyrics meant something during that time, would it feel the same if a computer made those lyrics?
Or is it a case where new generations will grow up with AI making its own music that it becomes the new norm with a lack of appreciation to creating music yourself