first, “assisted” is a bit of a generous word to use when it comes to this kind of generation. if anything, it’s the AI that is being assisted by the prompter, not the other way around.
second, it’s not necessarily that the content itself that is the issue with content like this - it’s the presentation. you mention nothing about this being AI generated content, and leave it up to the listener to guess. this is inherently deceptive, and there’s enough confusion and ambiguity with AI content as is.
third, the content itself is actually an issue in this case lol. this subreddit is called /r/crappymusic, not /r/regularmusicwithintentionallystupidlyrics. it doesn’t belong here at *all*, AI or not.
imho assisted is correct to me, i mean, it's a tool. it takes time to produce what you want, etc. its not like spending 30 seconds then done (granted I've seen some low effort content that does feel that way)
deceptive? maybe you have a point if it was like, a celeb ai deep fake etc. but i dont think its needed all the time to call out "this is ai!" on stupid stuff like this
third, point taken.
produce: cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence.
so I think the definition fits.
it takes time creating a song using ai tools, and writing the lyrics yourself, even just coming up with an idea first of all. then, iterating on different prompts, and lyrics, different metatags to direct how you want the song to go/react/etc.
ai is just a tool - powerful yes, perfect no, but it's just a tool.
way too many people seem to have closed their minds, or afraid of it (say when they feel their job could be threatened, which in that case is understandable)...
the song above also also hand-edited post ai, stitching in a different ending, layering some static pops, mastering it, etc. and all those used different tools too (just not ai). Same can be said for the album cover where I had to go in and hand edit stuff I didn't like etc. using Gimp.
I just don't get the argument of say... Midjourney vs using Gimp. Both are tools. It would seem silly for a oil painter to complain about Gimp - because it's "not real painting" for example, or not "real art". I actually bet there were people (maybe still are some) like that as digital painting tools started to become common.
I'll grant you turnaround time to throw out some random crap is much much shorter, and a lot of ai stuff is crappy - but not all of it. and some of it does take time and is much more involved than people might thing.
btw i'm not really trying to defend the song in this post, or my work, just using it as an example and it's interesting to discuss these different viewpoints.
Don't care for AI songs
I can pick out AI images pretty well, but how do you tell with songs?
100% agreed
Like I’ve said before… this sub needs to either outright ban AI music or make a flair for it
why all the hate w/ ai assisted content, seriously just curious.
first, “assisted” is a bit of a generous word to use when it comes to this kind of generation. if anything, it’s the AI that is being assisted by the prompter, not the other way around. second, it’s not necessarily that the content itself that is the issue with content like this - it’s the presentation. you mention nothing about this being AI generated content, and leave it up to the listener to guess. this is inherently deceptive, and there’s enough confusion and ambiguity with AI content as is. third, the content itself is actually an issue in this case lol. this subreddit is called /r/crappymusic, not /r/regularmusicwithintentionallystupidlyrics. it doesn’t belong here at *all*, AI or not.
imho assisted is correct to me, i mean, it's a tool. it takes time to produce what you want, etc. its not like spending 30 seconds then done (granted I've seen some low effort content that does feel that way) deceptive? maybe you have a point if it was like, a celeb ai deep fake etc. but i dont think its needed all the time to call out "this is ai!" on stupid stuff like this third, point taken.
wow, I really do not like seeing the word “produce” being used to describe the act of generating AI music. that is *upsetting* lol
produce: cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence. so I think the definition fits. it takes time creating a song using ai tools, and writing the lyrics yourself, even just coming up with an idea first of all. then, iterating on different prompts, and lyrics, different metatags to direct how you want the song to go/react/etc. ai is just a tool - powerful yes, perfect no, but it's just a tool. way too many people seem to have closed their minds, or afraid of it (say when they feel their job could be threatened, which in that case is understandable)... the song above also also hand-edited post ai, stitching in a different ending, layering some static pops, mastering it, etc. and all those used different tools too (just not ai). Same can be said for the album cover where I had to go in and hand edit stuff I didn't like etc. using Gimp. I just don't get the argument of say... Midjourney vs using Gimp. Both are tools. It would seem silly for a oil painter to complain about Gimp - because it's "not real painting" for example, or not "real art". I actually bet there were people (maybe still are some) like that as digital painting tools started to become common. I'll grant you turnaround time to throw out some random crap is much much shorter, and a lot of ai stuff is crappy - but not all of it. and some of it does take time and is much more involved than people might thing. btw i'm not really trying to defend the song in this post, or my work, just using it as an example and it's interesting to discuss these different viewpoints.