(February 8, 2026 at 3:58 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: In fairness, that depends: how are we using it? The recent work Peter Jackson's done with the Beatles' old work proved it actually does have a place in music, even if it's just in the way of creating stems from old recordings and making half-century-old recordings sound new. But using it as a substitute for actual creative work is a nonstarter. Unless, of course, the AI just wrote some really ridiculous songs.
I listened to some of the songs by DV8 that you posted a little earlier. To my completely inexpert ear they sound about as good as a lot of stuff that's popular. That is, not very good, but designed to appeal to a certain kind of consumer.
There's one by DV8 called "Fuck Being Polite," and it expresses exactly the kind of sentiment we hear on this forum all the time. So not every note is written from the "mind body and soul" of a human, but the idea it expresses is exactly the kind of thing that humans often express. A human used this AI tool to express a sentiment that a lot of people feel. If we were tricked into thinking a human wrote every note of it, I suspect we'd just say it's a not-very-creative normal kind of song. Someone who thinks it's cool to be impolite would put it on the jukebox and feel rebellious. (Do they still have jukeboxes?)
Naturally, the purists who believe that any human creation is a pure expression of heartfelt creativity will object to this. But how much of what gets sold these days is anywhere near that? A tool is a tool, right? What matters is what a person does with the tool.
