Actually, That AI Drake and The Weeknd Song Is Not Eligible for a Grammy
gizmodo.com
Actually, That AI Drake and The Weeknd Song Is Not Eligible for a Grammy::The song "Heart on My Sleeve" was pulled from streaming services after it was revealed to have been created with artificial intelligence.
You are viewing a single comment
What? This is their real, day-to-day job. This isn't a competition, in the sense which you describe.
Their managers submit their works (read: the stuff they made at their day to day job) from the calendar year, which are reviewed in private by the judges.
If the goal was 'you have X time to make Y song within these parameters', you'd have a direct comparison but it is not, and you do not.
If they make an AI song they are allowed to sell it and people are allowed to listen to it but, that particular song just isn't eligible for the competition that is The Grammy.
When artist make music they WANT to win a Grammy but it is not a REQUIRED part of business model. Most music produced in the world do not win Grammies and still able to make money.
Yes, but we aren't talking about songs which are not entered in the Grammys.
We are talking about the Grammys laying down shortsighted rules to protect their image, not to progress the medium in any meaningful way.
That is a different set of arguments than the ones you started with.
This is more about wether it's good or not for music to ban AI from the Grammies.
I think it's good. I don't think AI is art and I think it's theft. The only reason AI music is able to exist is because it is stealing other people's hard work.
Artists work their entire life to develop unique sounds that are influenced by their personal experiences and tastes.
Then a AI techbro (but more likely a multi billion dollar corporation) steals it without the artists permission and without compensation.
The goal of AI enthusiasts is to break down artists rights fast enough so that proper regulation don't have time to set in. Because people like you despise art and artist. Every time I get involved in these discussion you can feel the pure contempt and the ones that can't keep the mask on properly gloat at the brazen theft they are doing.
In order for AI to be good for art it needs to be regulated and since it is not regulated organizations like the Grammies need to step in and protect the artists they have represented for decades.
But feel free to cry and piss about how unfair it is to have rules for things.
I didn't say enything about unfair, nor did i cry or piss.
All I've said about AI is that they are simply banning what they don't understand. All generative processes rely on the influence and templates created by those who came before them.
Everyone is having very emotional and visceral reactions to AI tools, meanwhile these tools are not even remotely close to mimicking or surpassing human performance.
This is another repeat of what happened 40 years ago when electronica and synths made their way into mainstream music.
You say that you are not but I can see both the tears and piss in your 20 different comments across several different people. I even think there is some shit in there. You know AI is different from electronica, I know it's different. Why should I pretend that it isn't for the sake of your pissy little tantrum?
Huh? I'm commenting on a variety of topics as I am bored and laying in bed.
You're a pretty sad little dude if you think calm and logical responses are a tantrum. Stay pressed.
We can all tell how calm and logical you. We know because you said that you are.
Every comment you made in this thread featured a personal attack of some kind. Get help.
Well, I did bring up points like the importance of regulations to protects artists owned works and you ignored that part completely in favor of comparing it to electronica. In those cases bullying is the answer.
No it isn’t. He was completely wrong, but bullying makes the internet a worse place, and conversations worse to participate in. Either ignore his reply or rebut it, but don’t be a dick. It’s pretty simple.
Edit: of course, he’s ALSO being a dick in other parts of this comment section.
Diversity of tactics I guess.
Competitions are still subjective.
Also the competitions is “in the current year (as defined by the contest rules) create a song that is better than your competitors”
Just because it’s their day to day job doesn’t mean it isn’t a competition.
Than, by your logic, the highest charting song per genre out of the ones submitted would be the only ones which are awarded. This is demonstrably not the case with such awards programs.
Except that’s not the arbitrary criteria set by the competition, which is the whole point of this discussion. Any competition can set an arbitrary set of rules. The Grammys are a completion, and as such can set any arbitrary rules they would like.
You are fixated on the arbitrary nature of the rulesetting process as if that justifies a nonsensical rule.
Which brings us full circle to the original point: you may as well ban anyone using any software at all to produce music. A flat ban on AI models is premature and will age like milk.
I’m of the opinion AI should be banned from all form of competition and anything that AI generates is not art. Art fundamentally requires human experiences. AI does not have that, and therefore can never produce anything more than a soulless, lifeless, worthless replica of what math thinks could be art.
Okay well that is entirely an opinion, so good for you?
Yours is the same reaction people had to midi board and electric drum timers. Time will tell who was correct.
Neither of those (try to) create anything. They are only tools. AI is not a tool. It’s a game of numbers where if you try enough times you might find the right combination of things that work to make something semi-reasonable. There is no human creating anything with it.
Yeah that about wraps it up here. You are arguing from the heart and not the head.
AI tools are simply tools. They do not do anything of their own accord. Final edit falls entirely upon the human being putting it all together.
When a hammer hits your thumb, do you fault the hammer?
AI is functionally different than tools. Generative AI specifically is remixing content it has seen before in slightly different ways. It is doing all of the “work” in everything it creates. A hammer cannot do anything on its own, it requires active work to use it. Generative AI is like being a middle manager. You don’t create anything, you tell someone else to do all the work and then claim credit for it all.
I have a degree in this shit. I know what I’m talking about. These are extremely complex mathematical models that nobody, including the researchers who create them, understand.
They absolutely do things of their own accord. We do not understand how or why the decisions are made. Untucking that black box isn’t possible (as of yet).
Lmao you have a degree in feces?
Actually makes a lot of sense considering the bullshit you pulled out in that comment.