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.