> Electronic music made it so you didn’t have to learn to play an instrument.

This is cliche. Most celebrated artists in the electronic music world can play several instruments, if not expertly, than at least with enough familiarity to understand the nuances of musical performance.

Electronic musicians are more akin to composers and probably have more in common with mathematicians and programmers in the way that they practice their craft, whereas musical performers probably have more in common with athletes in the way that they practice their craft.

>And you create music without ever having heard music before? Or are you also extracting other artist’s work and using it as inspiration for what you do?

Personally, I don't buy this "AI models are learning just like we do." It's an appeal to ignorance. Just because we don't fully understand how a human brain learns, one can't claim it's the same as a statistical model of ordered tokens.

But even if it were true, I'm alright with drawing a line between AI learning and human learning. The law and social conventions are for humans. I want the ability to learn from others and produce original works that show influences. If this right is allowed to all humans, there is a chance one learn from and outperform me. That would suck for me, but I can accept it because it came from a universal human right I also enjoy. But an AI model doesn't have human rights. For models, the law and social conventions should still favor humans. The impact on the creative community and future creative endeavors should be balanced against the people who create and use the models.

I don't know how to do that with LLMs in a way that doesn't prevent the development of these amazing models. Maybe the government should distribute a portion of the revenue generated by the models amongst all citizens, to reflect how each model's value came from the written works of those citizens.

> Electronic music made it so you didn’t have to learn to play an instrument. Auto tune made it so you didn’t have to learn how to sing on key.

Neither of those things are really true, though. They made it possible to make poor music without learning those things, I suppose, but not make good music.

> Banning the new types of art

Nobody is seriously talking about banning AI generated music. What you're seeing is a platform deciding that AI generated music isn't something that platform is into. There are a lot of different platforms out there.

> Or are you also extracting other artist’s work and using it as inspiration for what you do?

Yes, when I make music, I am taking inspiration from all of the other artists I've listened to and using that in my music. If someone listens to my music, they are getting some value from my contribution, but also indirectly from the musicians that inspired me.

The difference between that and AI is that I am a human being who deserves to live a life of dignity and artistic expression in a world that supports that while AI-generated music is the product of a mindless automaton that enriches billionaires who are actively building a world that makes it harder to live a life of stability, comfort, and dignity.

These are not the same thing any more than fucking a fleshlight is the same as being in a romantic relationship. The physical act may appear roughly the same, but the human experience, meaning behind it, and societal externalities are certainly not.

> It won’t work to put the genie back in the bottle

It's not about putting the genie back in the bottle, it's about helping folks realize that the vague smell of farts in the air IS the genie--and this particular genie only grants costly monkey paw wishes that ultimately do more harm to the world than good.

> AI music is the same as AI code. It’s derived from real code, but it’s not just regurgitated wholesale. You still as a person with taste have to guide it and provide inputs.

I guess the difference is proprietary code is mostly not used for training. It's going to be trained on code in the public. It's the inverse for music, where it's being trained on commercial work, not work that has been licensed freely.

> AI music is the same as AI code. It’s derived from real code, but it’s not just regurgitated wholesale. You still as a person with taste have to guide it and provide inputs.

Not necessarily apples-to-apples here. Full songs generated from AI prompts don't crash like a computer program would. You could simply upload the garbage to Spotify and reap the rewards until it got removed (if it even does).

Humans are humans, computer programs aren't. A computer program learning doesn't matter, and it's not comparable to human learning. I have no empathy, sympathy or any sort of allegiance to computer programs.

I would imagine the vast majority of other humans agree with me. I'm not just gonna betray humankind because some 1s and 0s "learned" how to write music. Who cares, it's silicon.

> And you create music without ever having heard music before? Or are you also extracting other artist’s work and using it as inspiration for what you do?

For me, one key difference is that I can cite my stylistic influences and things I tried, while (to my knowledge) commercial musical generation models specifically avoid doing that, and most don't provide chord/lead sheets either -- I would find it genuinely sad to talk to a musician about their arrangement/composition choices, only to find they couldn't

> And you create music without ever having heard music before? Or are you also extracting other artist’s work and using it as inspiration for what you do?

But the parent poster is, presumably, human! Humans have the right to take inspiration like that from other humans (or machines)! Why do we seem so keen on granting machines the right to take from us? Are we not supposed to be their masters?

>We are just moving from making music as a rote activity similar to code

From this statement, I doubt you've written any music worth listening to, or any code that's not trivial.

Don't confuse music with muzak. What you get from an "AI" is muzak. It will never, ever have the same depth, warmth, or meaning as a human translating human emotions and experience into music and lyrics.

> less gatekeepy to make music

Is "gatekeepy" how we're referring to skill now? "Man I'd like to make a top-quality cabinet for my kitchen, lame how those skilled carpenters are gatekeeping that shit smh"

[dead]

I'm starting to think more and more in my older age that being 'great' isn't a good thing. I might actually prefer being good. We'll see how that thought plays out though; give me a couple more years

> then out-compete them on volume by flooding the marketplace

Spotify has a history of intentionally boosting internally produced, royalty-free and/or AI music over actual artists.

https://harpers.org/archive/2025/01/the-ghosts-in-the-machin...

Curation is a real concern. 'Flooding the market' is bad for everyone, being seen is difficult as is. It's even harder in a slopstorm.

> You're just mad that people actually like AI music.

Yes, I am! I'm also mad that people like shitty over-produced pop, though (including me sometimes), so what can you do. Life is shit.

In order to find the stuff to listen to you have to... find it. If you had to wade through, say, 1 million AI generated books to find one that isn't, then ALL of your reading would be AI generated.

This is actually the definition of competition. You are just being drowned by AI music so no one can discover your music. Steam had the same issue years ago with asset flips drowning out the discoverability of actual titles and they implemented many curating tools to help resolve the issue. Acting like AI music isn't having a similar effort on genuine musicians is just playing dumb.

A sufficient proportion of junk can cause a market to fail, taking down "legitimate" or "quality" purveyors.

Yet your argument is deeply flawed too. Flooding the market with slop makes it much more difficult to discover genuine, quality, art from smaller creators.

ad hominem has no place on HN.

I didn't even think about the analogy to sampling (and the prior controversy) but that is an even better analogy. Ultimately, the different between what's creative re-use and what's a ripoff is a matter of how skillfully it's done and there's a lot of controversy in the middle!

Your point echoes the "death of the author" concept in literature, where the work is independent of the creator, full stop. It's a useful concept up to a point, but if you really have no idea what it means to have a deep connection to music that is wrapped up in some idea of the creator as a human being, you should trust others when they say they do and it's important to them. For those of us with that value, AI slop is offensive, and to be clear, it has precedents in history with Muzak, early schlager music etc -- what they all share is a desire to use the power of music for non-artistic ends, which sucks from any number of viewpoints. If music has non-artistic utility, that doesn't justify a concerted effort to take away artist-made music from those who may not be paying attention.

> Bachs 5th symphony (or whatever) might be extremely annoying to someone because they had to listen to it every day at work.

Or Beethoven's 9th. For different reasons...

except that what you’re describing is the CONSUMER SIDE of meaning, not the SOURCE of it.

yes, listeners project their own memories onto music, no one’s disputing that. but that doesn’t make the creator, context, intent, or labor irrelevant. treating music as interchangeable stimulus is how you end up defending systems that strip human work of attribution, risk, and livelihood while still feeding on the cultural residue artists created in the first place.

and here you thought you said something.

Musicians who are being threatened by AI impersonating them, flooding the market with music like theirs, and otherwise actually harmed by this would disagree with you. Benn Jordan speaks at length about it in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVXfcIb3OKo

They will be successful in drowning out the artists. Not individually so, but collectively.

They are though by sheer volume. Finding anything half good will be a needle in a planet sized haystack of slop.

The copyright office agreed with you about the non-copyrightability of AI generated media so in that sense you can safely ignore copyright claims on anything AI-generated.

This doesn't make sense to me. I mean, the term "remix" literally comes from the music scene.

Artists are constantly getting inspiration from one another, referencing one another, performing together or having their works exhibited together...

While there are some big name artists who are famously protective of the concept of IP, those artists have made headlines exactly because when they litigate they seem so unreasonable compared to the bedroom musicians and pub bands and church choirs and school teachers and wedding DJs and millions of other artists and performers whose way of participating in "the culture" is much less tied to ownership.

AI music from suno sounds indistinguishable to non-ai generated music to me.

In terms of how well it works, the quality of AI music is far better than art or code. In art there are noticeble glitches like multiple fingers. For code, it can call non existent functions, not do what it is supposed to do, or have security issues or memory leaks. From what I can tell, there is no such deal breaker for AI music.

Sure, I am one of the people who will say that. But where are the people calling for it to be banned? Where are the stores and websites that are banning AI generated software?

Positing that AI generated code is always bad and buggy is delusional.

I have dozens of little programs and websites that are AI generated and do their job perfectly.

Imagine being a Marxist and not respecting the craft and labor required for art production. Couldn't be me.

That's normal for any kind of creative work. Some days it just happens quickly, other days you keep trying and trying and nothing works.

Usually this means I have forgotten to eat, or that I need to take a step back and consider whatever I’m doing at a deeper level. Once I recognized that the “keep trying and trying and nothing works” days vanished for good.

> The reality is that most hand-made art is an unconscious mash-up of learned signifiers mediated by some kind of technique

Yeah, no. Competent artists are not generalizable as "unconscious", solely "mashing up" influences or input, or even working with "signifiers": many are exquisitely aware of their sources; many employ diverse and articulated methodologies for creation and elaboration; many enjoy working with the concrete elements of their medium with no concern for signification. Even "technique" does not have a uniform meaning across different fields and modes.

> That's normal for any kind of creative work. Some days it just happens quickly, other days you keep trying and trying and nothing works.

For me, the artist, sure. I've not yet had a day where Affinity Photo just doesn't have the juice, and I don't see the appeal. Photoshop, for all it's faults, doesn't have bad days.

That's the difference between the artist and the artists' tool. A difference so obvious I feel somewhat condescending pointing it out.

> I spent some of the 90s and 00s making digital art. There was a lot of hostility to Photoshop then, and a lot of "That's not really art." ... But I found that if I allowed myself to experiment, the output still had a unique personality and flavour which wasn't defined by the tool.

"People were wrong about a completely different thing" isn't the slam dunk counterpoint you think it is.

Also as someone else in that space at that time, I genuinely haven't the slightest idea what you mean about photoshop not being real art. I knew (and was an) artists at that time, we used Photoshop (of questionable legality but still) and I never heard this at all.

> The requirement for interesting art is producing something that's unique. AI makes that harder,

Understatement of the year.

> The reality is that most hand-made art is an unconscious mash-up of learned signifiers mediated by some kind of technique. AI-made art mechanises the mash-up, but it's still up to the creator to steer the process to somewhere interesting.

The difference is the lack of intent. A "person" mashes up what resonates with them (positively or negatively) and from those influences, and from the broader cultures they exist in, creates new and interesting things.

AI is fundamentally different. It is a mash up of an average mean of every influence in the entire world, which is why producing unique things is difficult. You're asking for exceptional things from an average machine (mathematical sense not quality sense.).

> you sound like someone from the 1800's shouting about how photography should be banned and not allowed to crowd out hard working painters.

I'm saying that you shouldn't call photographs paintings because they aren't paintings. I don't particularly care if people make AI "music" or "art" and I don't particularly care if they consume it (people have been consuming awful media for the entire history of humanity, they aren't going to stop because I say so), but if you give me a ham sandwich and call it a hamburger I am going to be annoyed and tell you that it isn't a hamburger and to stop calling it that because you're misleading people who actually appreciate hamburgers.

AI "art" isn't art. I don't care whether you like it. It's like fractals or rock formations or birdsong - it may be aesthetically appealing to some people, but that isn't the definition of art.

> if you cant create something that competes with AI slop

Nothing can compete with AI slop when the ratio is 100000:1 AI slop vs real music.

Look at Google search results... they're not all AI slop yet, but they're 100000:1 content mills vs useful results.

Can artists compete with algorithms that push AI slop because it costs less to license?

This argument won't get you anywhere because "imitating artists" and "outselling artists" aren't actually the same thing.

i.e. complaining about training on copyrighted material and getting it banned is not sufficient to prevent creating a model that can create music that outsells you. Because training isn't about copying the training material, it's just a way to find the Platonic latent space of music, and you can get there other ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

https://phillipi.github.io/prh/

There was no "demonization" about these things even remotely comparable to what we are witnessing now w.r.t. AI generated music (and I'm old enough to remember most of these things). Of course there was intense dislike from certain groups representing the "old-school" around new styles of music and new techniques. However, at the same time, you also had the "new-wave" which loved it and made it successful. For instance, a ton of people hated Disco music, at the same time, you had a ton of people who genuinely loved it. Same with practically any kind of electronic music. This simply does not exist with GenAI music. People listen to GenAI music because they either don't care, or don't know, not because they genuinely prefer it. There's absolutely nothing new about GenAI music that would make it exciting.