That feels legit to me. We have been using software to isolate individual instruments from a recording for a while.

kazinator 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We've been using software to fix grammar for a long time, and AI does it also. The question is valid: if I get an LLM to fix a few grammar errors in my own writing, am I ripping anyone off? We can't just dismiss the question just because grammar fixing is something we did without machine-learning AI trained on vast numbers of other people's texts.

The output does depend on training works, even if you are just fixing grammar errors. But the document is obviously a derivative of your own writing and almost nothing else. A grammatic concept learned from vast numbers of worsk is probably not a copyright infringment.

Similarly, a part extraction concept learned from training sets such as pairs of mixed and unmixed music, and then applied to someone's own music to do accurate part extraction, does not seem like an infringing use. All features of the result are identifiable as coming from the original mixed audio; you cannot identify infringing passages in it added by the AI --- and if such a thing happened, it would be an unwanted artifact leading us to re-do the part extraction in some other way to avoid it.

▲

nottorp 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The question doesn't feel legit to me though. The OP somehow found the one justifiable example among a sea of AI slop.

Justifiable because there were some filters. That may not even have been "AI". They may have been some deterministic algorithms that the software maker has to label "AI" because they otherwise think it won't sell...

	▲	sigmar 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I've done audio engineering as a hobby. Even a decade ago, verbiage like "ai noise reduction" was very common. Of course that was RNNs, not transformers. But I think they have a valid point. I googled and found this 2017 post about iZotope integrating machine learning: https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/what-the-machine-learning-i...
	▲	vladvasiliu 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I don't know. I think there's a tendency to look at things as pure or impure, as all black or all white. If it was touched by AI, it's AI. If not, it's pure. I'm not familiar with the music business, but I'm a Sunday photographer. There's an initiative to label pictures that had "generative ai" applied. I'm not a professional, so I don't really have a horse in this race. I also enjoy the creations of some dude I follow on Instagram which are clearly labelled as produced by AI. But in between, the situation isn't as clear cut. As photographers, we used to do "spot removal", with pretty big "spots" for ages [0]. You just had to manually select the "offending" "spot", try to source some other part which looked close enough. Now you can use "object removal" which does a great job with things like grass and whatnot but is "generative ai". These are labelled AI, and they are. I can understand someone arguing that what required a lot of skill is now more accessible. And I guess that's true? But that just sounds elitist. So what's the issue with "AI"? Do you enjoy the result? Great! Do you hate it? Move to the next one. Does that particular "artist" produce only thins you hate? Skip them! -- [0] my point is about "artistic" pictures, not photojournalism or similar where "what was" is of utmost importance. Note that even in those cases, selective cropping only requires your feet and nobody would label as "edited". But I specifically don't want to open that can of worms.
	▲	ml_giant 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Seems to me like he just wanted to advertise that song.