I’ll admit I’m not that informed in the field, but did Samsung have any controversies that caused everyone to consider it worse than Chinese-owned companies? The only negative I’m aware of is that their stuff is really overpriced.

Was it? “Danny” is saying people are “celebrating him getting punched”, and context says he’s the one who got banned.

(I also think/hope the one you replied to said “I hope he’s alright” in response to “I’m not yet sure what happened to the kid that punched the fascist”)

To encourage people to use the auto-generated ones and normalizing it.

I mean, I don’t see any other reason for them to remove a previously working format otherwise.

to me this is the same as good hip-hop versus people who just rap random shit over premade hip-hop beats. It’s “art” but its just no high quality

I still don’t think it’s the same, even the guy who rapped random shit over someone else’s beat put MUCH more effort and input into the “song” than the random prompt guy.

The line gets blurry when you talk about stuff like Duchamp’s readymades, which are considered “art” by a reasoning that you could easily apply to the prompt guy song too. Just goes to show how literally everyone has a different definition of “art”, and even a single person’s definition might be contradictory in itself.

One thing I wonder is if you make a recommendation system that generates new music purely based on what previous music you liked (That was also generated by AI) who is the artist? Think like spotify but the AI keeps creating new music based on what you like from it. In the end I feel you are the artist of that song then no? Your recommendations then created whatever final song you listened to.

Ehh… that’s just an indirect commission. For example, the Prince of Wales in 1876 was gifted by the Maharaja of Jaipur some british usage items crafted by the city’s artisans that were specifically made as a gift to him. But the “artist” in this situation is not the prince whose taste was tailored to, nor the Maharaja who commissioned them, it’s still the individual artisans.

In the case of the algorithm-made song, you basically “commissioned” to it a song made for your tastes, and it “gifted” it to you. But it’s still the algorithm who “made” it, not you. And personally, unless you take it and consciously edit/remix it in some way, I wouldn’t label it as “art”. But again, it’s a blurry subject and that’s just my opinion.

All forms of human production carry some artistic value, we simply value things where the production process feels less alienated than others (Carpentry vs factory work)

And we agree on that, I think most people do. What they don’t agree on is what qualifies a “human production”. Or, to which degree does a human have to get involved in a production for that to be considered “human”.

I think there’s a gigantic difference between someone composing a song and writing its lyrics, then pasting it into an AI and having it sing it (basically Vocaloid), and a guy going onto Suno, writing “make me a pop song”, and taking the first output. And they shouldn’t be treated the same way.

I think there’s a place for AI in music, just like sampling, and it has to be regulated, but not straight-up banned (or regulated in a muddy way like “substantially made by AI”).

It doesn’t help that everyone has their own personal opinion on how much AI should be allowed, though, and we’re never gonna reach a solution that everyone agrees on.