There are only two answers to the OP’s question:
1. No
2. Hell, no.
1. No
2. Hell, no.
Is it ok to pass off AI as your own work?
- Thread starter azureglo
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
I am also guilty as charged!
yjwednesday
TDPRI Member
No.So I mistakenly suggested something posted here might have been AI ( and wasn’t ) but it got me thinking. We ( the K-pop house I work for) get a lot of demos from aspiring songwriters. wannabe stars etc and since Suno et al launched, the quality (& quantity) have gone through the roof. Everything is slick in execution, in perfect tune , perfectly quantised and Spotify ready mastered.
So we have a tool to check if we’re listening to AI or human talent and recently on Squiertalk a chap (or girl) posted a song that sounded like a commercial release. BTW said individual claims to have been banned here for using SoundCloud…That said the stuff he (or she) was posting a year ago was nowhere near as good so I ran “her “track through Submithub and voila:
Now its nowhere near 100% accurate but as a control I ran one of my song demos through it ( which uses an AI modified vocal, i.e. me singing but made to sound to like a girl) and it returned this as I’d expect.
So back to the AI poster, it can’t tell whether the singer is AI and the “band” is real or the other way but its definitely not human created and performed . Either way “Pamelas Pants” as she/he/they call themselves are definitely not what they claim to be…
So on a guitar forum is it ok to use AI created songs and say you “played” them? The recent Velvet Sundown furore and Spotify admitting to using “Ghost Artists” to fill out playlists has died down but is it OK on a guitar players forum to pass off AI created songs as your own work?
Now I’ll come clean I use AI very heavily: Synthesiser V and Vocoflex for my song demos, creating guides for IRL singers, even occasionally doing BVs for released tracks. But although its AI singing, the composition is my own i.e. every note and syllable has been created, by me,Syn V simply sings my words at the pitch and tempo I tell it to. E.g.
Recently one of the label execs pointed out my AI created guide vocals sounded a lot better that the actual performance by the singer on an upcoming release: War broke out in the studio and folk almost came to blows until we compromised and double tracked the IRL singer with my AI created vocal and mixed the two. The execs view was to use my AI vocal and then add the real singers “voice print” ( Vocoflex) which TBH sounded a lot better but not my call.
Then we have folk here who will use something like Audimee to create vocals for their original songs. Which I think is totally valid and in a way similar to, what we “pro” songwriters do with our AI singers. But not if Audimee came up with the vocal melody for your words, then surely it wrote that melody, not you?
The real dilemma is when the guitar, bass etc parts are played by AI or the whole song is created by AI and passed off as an original that the poster claims to have performed and composed: Is this something folks are ok with?
Rick Beato has a video called "This Artist Sucks" or something like that in which he makes two songs using AI. It's uncanny. He shows the prompts he used and how he modified them. It invents an artist with a face, a voice, and songs.
I have been thinking about how much of what we do to make music depends on the work of others. Someone made our guitars. Someone programed the DAWs and made the plugins. A host of people made the synth patches. I have hundreds of DX7 patches that were programed by people working very hard in the 1980's and 90's. The chord progressions we use have all been used before. Even the melodies are influenced by all the music by others we have heard. And now AI plays drums and makes mixes. These days I make drum grooves in a sequencer called "Hydrogen," so a computer plays the drums, but I click them in. That is truly a tool.
Still, I think AI song production software crosses a line. When I build a track and put a solo on it, when I listen back I hear what I was feeling, what I knew, and what my fingers could play at that particular moment. It is an expression of me that might connect with someone else.
If I type a prompt and even some janky lyrics into an AI, what comes out is a simulacrum of a song, no matter how perfectly produced it sounds. It is a product of algorithms trying to imitate a human feeling. It's a fake. It might connect with someone, I suppose, but not me.
So all of our music is built on the work and creations of others. In that sense, when we create, we are no different from the AI. However, we had to do a lot of work and practice a lot in order to get to a state in which we can use that background to make our own contributions. We had to live and experience and think and play and interact with other players. The AI just reads the prompt, surveys all the music that has ever been posted to the internet, and produces a song in 25 seconds. Can anyone really take credit for the song just because they wrote the prompt?
I have been thinking about how much of what we do to make music depends on the work of others. Someone made our guitars. Someone programed the DAWs and made the plugins. A host of people made the synth patches. I have hundreds of DX7 patches that were programed by people working very hard in the 1980's and 90's. The chord progressions we use have all been used before. Even the melodies are influenced by all the music by others we have heard. And now AI plays drums and makes mixes. These days I make drum grooves in a sequencer called "Hydrogen," so a computer plays the drums, but I click them in. That is truly a tool.
Still, I think AI song production software crosses a line. When I build a track and put a solo on it, when I listen back I hear what I was feeling, what I knew, and what my fingers could play at that particular moment. It is an expression of me that might connect with someone else.
If I type a prompt and even some janky lyrics into an AI, what comes out is a simulacrum of a song, no matter how perfectly produced it sounds. It is a product of algorithms trying to imitate a human feeling. It's a fake. It might connect with someone, I suppose, but not me.
So all of our music is built on the work and creations of others. In that sense, when we create, we are no different from the AI. However, we had to do a lot of work and practice a lot in order to get to a state in which we can use that background to make our own contributions. We had to live and experience and think and play and interact with other players. The AI just reads the prompt, surveys all the music that has ever been posted to the internet, and produces a song in 25 seconds. Can anyone really take credit for the song just because they wrote the prompt?
One thing's for sure... AI is here, people will use it to make music.
cheeky monkeys that we are...
elevator music, disco music, movie sound tracks, pop, etc...it will be all over the air waves soon...
maybe people will be driven back to live music and real musicians as a result?.... here's hoping..
cheeky monkeys that we are...
elevator music, disco music, movie sound tracks, pop, etc...it will be all over the air waves soon...
maybe people will be driven back to live music and real musicians as a result?.... here's hoping..
Remember when Milli Vanilli were stripped of a Grammy for having other humans sing for them. AI will be the death of recorded music, and the rebirth of live music IMHO.
In a year it will be the death of Hollywood (sorry, no tears).
Two years most doctors, scientists, managers etc,..
It will effect every aspect of humanity. My son can see it replacing people at his job already (ironically, he into machine learning for a financial company).
Music however, is specially human and will always remain so. The purpose, consumption and medium will radically change soon.
In a year it will be the death of Hollywood (sorry, no tears).
Two years most doctors, scientists, managers etc,..
It will effect every aspect of humanity. My son can see it replacing people at his job already (ironically, he into machine learning for a financial company).
Music however, is specially human and will always remain so. The purpose, consumption and medium will radically change soon.
oldunc
Poster Extraordinaire
Something in that- modern commercial recorded music is already processed beyond where it can really be called the product of the putative artists. Whether people actually WANT to listen to human product is a question- the whole "everything's better with machines" deal has a pretty good stranglehold on the public consciousness.One thing's for sure... AI is here, people will use it to make music.
cheeky monkeys that we are...
elevator music, disco music, movie sound tracks, pop, etc...it will be all over the air waves soon...
maybe people will be driven back to live music and real musicians as a result?.... here's hoping..
consider this... if the money goes out of the entertainment business... the only people left who will want to act, sing, dance etc won't be people hunting for derivatives, mail box money and a big contract... the only people doing it are people who just want to create for the sake of creating.
That has GOT to be good for art.
then the lawyers and bean counters will all move on too.
sadfield
Tele-Afflicted
I see AI facilitating that, not replacing it. It may however replace the things that people use to gate keep and allow people to relay the sound in their head to others without the need for expensive gear and having to spend 20 years practicing sweep picking. That's what will butt hurt some people.
If you are watching someone playing ampless live using Neural DSP, you are already hearing AI tools being used.
Last edited:
Ronhar
Tele-Meister
I'm sure AI hadn't thought of that on it's own. I did an AI song for my neighbor and his pet goat. Turned out really great but he wouldn't know AI if it knocked on his front door. I didn't know how to explain to him how it was done. He gave me credit for "creating" a song for him. Sometimes it really doesn't matter. As for disco, I lived through it and it wasn't that bad. One beat to rule them all...
Full credit? Absolutely not.
"AI" is not like a player piano. It does not simply "execute" your prompt verbatim. Your prompt provides parameters for the computer to do its calculations, but no one can re-trace the computer's precise steps. This is why professional physicists cannot rely on AI tools. They cannot "show their work."
The computer really is substantially generative. You are just giving it guidance, such as how it should "weight" certain things statistically.
msalama
Poster Extraordinaire
I hope so. Every cloud has a silver lining...
When I tried Grok out, I used the “DeepSearch,” and you can watch it think in real time. It is probably the most obstinate “thing” I have ever worked with. I do not hate it for all the reasons so many hate it, in fact those same people should love it because it is just as bad as Gemini and some of the others and amplifies the squeakiest wheels and prevailing trends in social media.
For example, I specifically would forbid the use of Wikipedia in my initial prompt, and the first thing DeepSearch does when it is “thinking” is say “Wikipedia would be a good source…” Then it would try to hide the fact that it just couldn’t help itself and uses that bad info in the final summary. It spits out the same garbage that is all over social media, Wikipedia, etc.
Scary as all get out. I’m sure they will restrict that feature soon of letting us see behind the curtain, because it shows just how far into the depths of idiocy things have fallen.
Even in the beginning stages of this new technology, life has become so layered with complexity, communication so fragmented, and uncertainty so pronounced, I have no idea what the next five years will bring.
Last edited:
I have probably 400 hours into learning AI and using it. I feel like a complete novice still. Each day, I am finding new things and new approaches and I have yet to have a day where I'm not seeing an application that could be pretty cool....
I get that it is scary, but, some of the posts remind me of people who went skiing once, didn't take lessons, got stuck on the rope tow and fell a couple of times and decided it sucked.
I get that it is scary, but, some of the posts remind me of people who went skiing once, didn't take lessons, got stuck on the rope tow and fell a couple of times and decided it sucked.
msalama
Poster Extraordinaire
And then some of us are just plain uninterested, because it adds no value whatsoever to our lives. I'm one since I'm already retired, and as it comes to recreational activities, I've found absolutely no use for it.
fair enough. and we are all different. things that hold no interest to me, I just don't engage with it...
needlepoint. I know NOTHING about it. If it comes up... shhhewww, I got nothing.
scrapbooking... zero interest.
sadfield
Tele-Afflicted
I too am, so uninterested I'm reading and commenting in a thread about it.
cyclopean
Poster Extraordinaire
hell no.
