Raw LLM Responses

​@GaiusTacitusNot in a meaningful way? Whether music created by a computer or a human is meaningful or not, is up to the listener to decide. How would you litigate that? You could litigate a very basic principle that data, in the form of music, is taken in by AI models and humans and the output from each is influenced by that data. You have to prove that AI is no more of a threat to human artists than other human artists. You listen to a song and you absolutely love the song. If you don't know how it was made, you're still going to love it. Music is music. I can ask a human piano player to play Chopsticks and they play it. I can ask AI to play chopsticks and it'll give me a file of the song I can play on my computer. The output of both versions will still be Chopsticks. Again, litigation is about convincing a judge. Not about personal feelings. So here is a counter point - Competition by humans is regulated by the fact that not everyone can create music, whether it's because they chose a corporate life or they might not have the talent. AI music created by people who have no musical instrument or vocal talent will flood the market, giving AI music an unfair advantage. But what's the advantage? I create lowfi music. Both by creating my own arrangements using production software on my computer and by using AI. I'll never play live. My music will never be played on the radio. I will never walk the stage of any award show. I will never have a multi-million dollar record deal. Where is the competition?