Raw LLM Responses

I watched your example about enhancing a hand-drawn sketch of roses using AI, and I noticed something that seems overlooked in the AI music discussion. You said it’s legal to use AI to enhance a drawing that was originally created by a human. That makes sense, the human created the foundation, and AI was just used as a tool to bring it to life in a more polished or complete form. Now let’s apply that same logic to lyrics and music generation. If I hand-write original lyrics, and then use a tool like Suno to turn those lyrics into a fully produced song, I’m doing exactly what you described with the flower drawing. I’m providing the core creative content, the words, the theme, the intent and AI is simply enhancing it by adding melody and arrangement. That’s not autonomous creation. That’s human-led, tool-assisted art. You made a great point about how authorship depends on meaningful human input. But if that’s true in the case of visual art, it should also be true in music. Lyrics are a major part of songwriting. In many genres, they are the heart of the song. So if lyrics come from a human, and the AI simply builds the instrumentation around them, it’s no different from enhancing a pencil sketch with digital tools. What’s frustrating is that people keep acting like AI is doing everything, when in reality, the prompt, sometimes the lyrics, the style, the mood, the tempo, and the genre all come from or can come from the human user. That’s a significant amount of authorship. If someone gives vague input, they get vague output. But when someone brings strong creative direction to the process, they’re clearly the driving creative force, not the AI. We don’t stop being songwriters just because the tools evolved. I’m not saying AI music should replace artists or dodge ethics. But let’s be fair and consistent: if AI-enhanced visuals can be protected when guided by a human hand, then AI-assisted songs built from human-written lyrics and prompts should be treated the same.