But if there is no person on the other end, why should I care?

There are countless people "on the other end" --- everyone who contributed training data, and of course the one who prompted the AI to generate the result. It's odd that this debate always ends up with one side thinking there's a machine autonomously generating music, when in fact AI-generated music comes from humans using AI to create what they want.

▲

torben-friis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Suppose I ask my tattoo artist for a dragon. Would you agree that I created the tattoo?

If not, why then would asking the AI qualify as creation?

▲

troosevelt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There is absolutely some form of creation there. The most basic models now are just prompts but somebody has to prompt them, there is a human being there prompting the song and then deciding to share it (a form of curation).

I'd imagine these will get more and more granular to where you're not just prompting but you are gradually building up songs and at that point I'd be surprised if people were still making this argument.

These things don't exist without human interventio.n

	▲	userbinator 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		to where you're not just prompting but you are gradually building up songs There's indeed a huge difference between asking the AI to just generate something with a short and generic prompt, and directing it far more specifically. To use the dragon tattoo analogy, it's the difference between asking for "a dragon tattoo" and precisely specifying exactly what type of dragon, what pose, colours, any other adornments, etc. An example of the latter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_e8bQ6i43o

▲

card_zero 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

People on both sides (which of course are not monoliths) are liable to imply that the AI was the artist.

Really what you get is a sort of conceptual art.