Forums

You're right - OP fails to clarify at all, and mentions "a prompt" - singular, not "prompts" - in its opening, bold line. This is exactly what I'm saying is unclear; not specific enough. Right, that's ALSO unclear, because the waters have now been muddied with the ethicality/shade angle... which I don't think makes sense to even discuss until OCR has its own policy on whether OC ReMixes can be part of training sets, themselves... thoughts on that? I don't get the feeling that either of us is entirely up to speed on the current tools, and hell, they're adding features on a daily basis. It's one thing to ban something and then say "Until such time as..." and explain how the tools would need to evolve... but that wasn't done, right? Even with the current, limited tools, I can see someone spending a few hours with multiple prompts & revisions, tweaks at specific time markers, and some form of basic melodic input as part of the prompts, and then generating something that met most of OCR's OTHER criteria and ALSO involved more human input - more actual decision-making & human touch - than at least SOME mixes already accepted by the panel. The OP also says "wholly or in-part," so hypothetically one could generate a simple chord progression/structure using genAI and then add gorgeous, original, human vocals & instrumental performances on top, Made By Real Homo Sapiens!™, and it still wouldn't be kosher... Is that how MOST folks are using the current tech? No... they're doing simple prompts, just as you say. Is it a good idea to ban a tool based on how most people might be "abusing" it? Then go ahead and remove the torrents, right? Otherwise, get to the real crux of what you're actually trying to avoid... the underlying principle. Well I wasn't there for the conversation, and for all I know Shariq decided this himself... who can say? Did the community decide already, or is it still deciding? It's a great, relevant, & essential convo to have; it's a little disappointing when a community's very first official statement about a whole new field/technology is to ban it with language that is unspecific and already - relevant to the state-of-the-art - outmoded. What would that "larger percentage" of human touch be? At any rate, regarding percentages, I'm 100% on board with the notion that the amount of human input & decision-making for submissions to the site remain a focal point, in perpetuity...

I mean, OP doesn't mention "basic prompts" or anything of the sort, it just mentions prompts. The "simple" part was by me 😋 There's really 2 points in the OP, one is about the ethics of how the models were trained regarding artist consent and copyright. I'm not sure if OCR's stance would be the same if the models were "ethically" trained or if, for example, a user trained their own model only on songs they made or something like that. There's a second point about the "interpretation" aspect of AI generated music, the "human touch". I think we simply disagree here, I don't think current tools provide much "human touch". Even if Suno allows for more than "a simple prompt", the "human part" is still a low percentage of the finished creation. Of course this could change with time and how the technology evolves but it's my stance on what I've seen of current technology. In the end, it's up to the community to decide how it approaches these things. I think it's fair if OCR decides it wants to focus on music that is created on a larger percentage by the "human touch" and, of course, policies can change over time as technology evolves.

The point you're making about degrees of control, and the points I was making about the balance between human input and machine output, are essentially the same. I don't think the OP is focusing on the right idea - starts talking about ethics, which is a different concern - and one that makes a lot more sense to tackle once OCR itself has its own policy as to whether genAI can be trained using material on THIS site, right? If it's such a "completely different" technology than what the OP is referring to, take a look at: https://www.suno.wiki/faq/metatags/voice-tags/ - among other pages. These services are developing their own prompt tagging & nomenclature and some of them ALREADY let you provide an existing melody or sound clip that they will ingest & incorporate. The tech is ALREADY substantially beyond "a single basic prompt," and thus the OP is ALREADY insufficiently precise in what it is trying to communicate... yes, that's three capitalized alreadies. @Rozovian That was one of my favorite posts of yours; I think you're right in that some of what's being discussed would have ramifications for the actual standards. "No edits," and I hope your ideas are considered.

I mean, the rule discussed in the OP is pretty specific, regarding websites like Udio, which are quite dubious (ethically) in how they were trained. OP is not banning all uses of AI in music and points it out clearly. This is not about being technology myopic and saying "AI is the devil" or something silly like that. This isn't about "you can't use tools in music" or anything similar either. For example, I begin all my mastering from Ozone's "smart master" function, which uses AI. I don't see the point in this honestly. Sure, a big percentage of stuff we use in music is, to some degree, a black box (like, I have no idea how an EQ actually does what it does), but the difference in how much control I have between those plugins and (today's) genAI tools is night and day. Although I don't know exactly how my VSTs generate the notes that they generate, I tell them what note to play and I usually have control over a decent amount of the sound properties. With genAI you don't have control beyond a prompt and stuff like modifying an output is basically impossible (with today's tools at least). As for more complex prompts like what you're saying... I dunno, it seems like a technology so completely different to what the OP is discussing that I don't think bringing up it as an hypothetical makes much sense really.

I Remembered This old Essay by squarepusher (excerpt): "As is commonly percieved, the relationship between a human operator and a machine is such that the machine is a tool, an instrument of the composers desires. Implicit in this, and generally unquestioned until recently, is the sovereignty of the composer. What is now becoming clear is that the composer is as much a tool as the tool itself, or even a tool for the machine to manifest its desires. I do not mean this in the sense that machines are in possesion of a mind capable of subtly directing human behaviour, but in the sense that the attributes of the machine are just as prominent an influence in the resulting artefact as the user is; through his work, a human operator brings as much about the machine to light as he does about himself. However, this is not to say that prior to electronic mechanisation, composers were free and unfettered in their creations. As a verbal langauge facilitates and constricts our thoughts, the musical tradition, language and the factors of its realisation(ie instrumentation, limits of physical ability) were just as active participants in the compositional process as the "composer" was. Idealists who believed such constraints were simply obstacles in the composer's way have laboured to relieve us of them, only to reveal that music is in fact contingent on the very existence of these restrictions, and was never a pre-eminent "form". The "modern" composer, robbed of his constraints, finds himself in a wasteland of desolate freedom. The inconsequentiality of new classical music serves to illustrate this point. However, for those who don't seek eternal freedom, help is at hand. Whatever may remain of the older constraints is of little consequence as music is now in the grip of a new restriction, the machine. The machine can be a respite from the meaninglessness of musical freedom. Yet the old tendency to try to unfetter ourselves surfaces: instead of a collaboration, the machine is put at our service. Some of us still flatter ourselves with a certain sort of delusion whereby it is solely our conscious, rational thinking that directs our creations, and is manifest in them. Trying to force a machine to manifest a conscious purpose brings about a stifling and deadening process that only in our time could pass for "creativity". It imposes that the didactic "collaboration" with a machine is a strictly one-way energy channel, from the user to the machine. In this situation, the machine cannot constitute a genuine "oppositional factor" in a dialectical equation as it offers not the antithesis of the conscious human will but rather the negation of it. When being forced to "purpose", all the machine seems to be capable of is resistance. It is not that the machine is a lifeless vacuum that continually absorbs inspiration and ideas from its user, but that the user hinders the collaboration by assuming he is the progenitor of these things in the first place. It is in this trick of perspective, from the humble "it happened" to the questionable "I made it happen" to the disastrous "I can make it happen" that lies the labarynth of paradoxes that is our "modern" world. The problematic relationship between humans and machines stems from the abject remnants of the modernist idea that we can control our fates, perfect ourselves and our surroundings, postpone or eventually eradicate death. (Anyone who is afraid of dying needs salvation, but not as they might say, from death, but in fact from life, and of course a retreat into dogma suits this purpose very well). This view holds that anything can ultimately be made a subject of our conscious will. However, bending something to our conscious will, whether that is a person, a machine, or a situation always manifests a compensatory and contradictory aspect. Something crops up which subverts our will. Yet it is never admitted that such subvertions are simply the corollary of our obsession with conscious direction of our surroundings and thus the idiocy continues. It is in this attitude of blind hectoring that the machine user-artist limits the possibility of transcendence. In this situation, it therefore makes little sense to the user to do anything with the machine other than to try to utterly dominate it, or risk being dictated to by a sterile lump of plastic. Unfortunately, working with any material in a violent and dictatorial way simply produces artefacts of human stupidity, not art. Inevitably, the violence commited by the artist returns to its source. This is why many artists have gone insane, died young, or commited suicide. Although they are viewed as heroic, they are simply the people who have most consistently sensed the fundamentally ambiguous nature of all action and died fundamentally not from suicide or illness, but from despair." Um...idk what This says about A.I. human Interaction precisely. But i think it's food for thought regarding creative man machine Interaction. ("Tools") Good creative man machine Interaction Is achieved by many many feedback loops between man and machine, During which "Happy accidents" pop up. You want those. This concerns synthesizers, Samplers, drum Machines, Mixers, even sequencers... If working With an A.I. in an evolved, mature way can give you similarily elevatory lucky Breaks after some amount of sweat....it's a great Sign. I think the sweat part Is pretty much crucial. "We Work all night to get lucky"