so in the end, the A.I. assisted piece would be justified by an essay by the artist detailing the creative input process. (and it being a good piece.) right? but it's still zukunftsmusik at this point as we say in german. i think a flat out anti-AI-policy is the right step until we get a better grasp of the creative potential of future tools.

It's great to see new policy forged in my absence. I do expect this stance to change & evolve over time, as the tech also changes over time. As written, the first line mentions "a prompt" (singular) but then further down it mentions "tracks generated wholly or in part" and cites a couple of those shiny new services. I agree that music generated by a single short text prompt doesn't come remotely close to the expectations and concept of this site, or any similar community which emphasizes the creative process & human decision-making extensively. Right there with you on that one. My mind just tends to then jump to all the future hypotheticals that will one day crop up: What if it was 5 prompts instead of one? What about.... 50 prompts? 100? What if was just one prompt, but instead of text it was someone singing a complete arrangement and tapping their fingers on the table and the AI took that, respected all the beats/intervals, and built out the whole track around that concept? All will be possible, at some point... It really comes down to a ratio of input to output & the overall amount of human discretion and time involved. What I expect is that these lines will only get blurrier & blurrier, and more difficult to assess, as AI-based tooling becomes ubiquitous within DAWs and as part of creative pipelines, not just as a soup-to-nuts prompt-based magic track generator. I also do wonder about traceability/proof - beyond asking for project files as evidence of effort, seems like it would mostly be honor system. Even asking for project files will only work until AI is proficient enough to understand & navigate DAW interfaces and work within human-oriented tools, allowing for further human refinement. It's all a matter of time, and just more to consider when it arises. The ethicality argument, well... I don't think you actually need to go there, so I personally wouldn't. People learn from & mimic other people, just not at the same speed & scale as AI, and the body of work in the public domain alone is sufficient for a pretty badass model, even if that's not the approach Big Tech seems to have taken. The issue of creative input ratio is not only more critical, it also persists even if you (somehow) fix any ethical concerns.

Hi Nase! My time to review the workshop is getting strangled by work this week but I will be popping in to give some more comments soon!

i don't think it's that - i think the plugin just hasn't been tested well on FL. i should write the dev a letter, really. the whole plugin is a bit wonky in FL - like, the for the included presets in ML drums, half of them load with a badly distorted kick drum. when i load the kick drums myself in my own presets, all plays fine. i can use it fine right now if i just record the master with edison, the sampler, in FL... i think the finnish dude who made it needs a few bug reports from FL studio users.    

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.