Poll concerning AI sub-forum

[Aiwendil]

5 hours ago, Monarcheon said:

Although I hold that AI music is still technically music, however unethically created it is, AI music is certainly not composed. It's more so generated, and this site is arguably about the composition of music, not the music itself

 

Exactly.  Completely agreed. 

It wouldn't be appropriate to post, say, a Haydn string quartet in the "share your work" forums, because it's not your work.  In exactly the same sense, it doesn't make any sense to me for someone to post an AI-composed piece here, because it's not the poster's work.  What would be the point?  Best case, you fool people into thinking it's your own work.  What then?  People give you feedback, assuming you wrote the piece, and that feedback is totally useless to you since you didn't, in fact, write the piece.  I suppose maybe somebody will say, "Good job," to you, and OK, congratulations, you tricked someone into praising you.  (Though, I must say, to date, I still have not heard an AI-composed piece of music that I thought was anything better than mediocre).

 

1 hour ago, Kvothe said:

Follow up: 

If there is sub-forum for AI, how will that impact the forum as a whole? How do you review entries with AI? 

This is exactly what I can't understand.  What would anyone expect in response to a piece of AI-generated music?  Sure, I could pretend that a human actually wrote it and write a critique of it based on that fiction, but I can't imagine why I would ever do that, nor can I imagine what use that would be to the person who posted it.

[Kvothe]

@Aiwendil

Exactly. Those who favor AI do not want it monitor and regulated. But there was incident in holiday contest where someone used suno. Imagine Suno was used in real life. Then what? 

[TristanTheTristan]

On 1/8/2026 at 10:55 PM, Kvothe said:

@Aiwendil

Exactly. Those who favor AI do not want it monitor and regulated. But there was incident in holiday contest where someone used suno. Imagine Suno was used in real life. Then what? 

 

Regulation.

[Fruit hunter]

I’m kind of on the mix opinion here for me AI music seems very dishonest and rather very silly in its own part. It should have no place competing against real human work however, though I am completely foreign, even encouraging the use of some AI music software’s. (stuff like cantai.) that allows for the performance of a human work to be perfected.

 

Thing number one: I definitely feel like that a performance using AI is not as bad again this is not regarding about the performance of music. This is a regarding about people’s compositions.

 

Thing number two: it should be unfair to have AI as a wild thing in competitions. Sure they could be in an events. Events are perfect for AI as that nobody is competing against anybody, however, though I feel like top priority should be given to real people’s human works first AI could wait.  
 

Competition competitions and AI do not mix unless if you have a AI only competition

 

 

My final thing to say though is, I am very mixed about having a AI only sub if we do have one sure I wouldn’t mind as much and it’s not a huge problem but again you’re not composing music  at least there should be someplace for AI music here and to have at least a very strong filter that can be unable to get rid of it for those who do not want any part of it

 

things to go against AI is definitely some anti-AI software to tell if someone is using it for ill intent. At least some knowledge of a piece of music can work as proof and even if it’s a short thing, then at most a score to accompany with it.  Honestly for contests score in audio should be mandatory unless if stated otherwise.   Thank you.

[Kvothe]

@Fruit hunter

Cant is not what being referred here. That is more score play back and it is not AI. Same goes for NP. Walden is similar to what one would do in a daw.  Those are fine. What is not Suno. Suno is completely AI. No perfomace at all. It just words written into app and then creates music? but how? 

[expert21]

@Kvothe

I don't know what you mean by "Cantai isn't AI". It literally says on it's website that it's an AI tool for generating vocal mock-ups.

[Aiwendil]

2 hours ago, expert21 said:

@Kvothe

I don't know what you mean by "Cantai isn't AI". It literally says on it's website that it's an AI tool for generating vocal mock-ups.

Here's the thing, though: "AI", by itself, is pretty much meaningless.  For decades, people have been using "AI" to refer to the programming controlling NPCs in video games, for instance.  Sometimes, "AI" is used in a sense that covers any machine learning or neural network application.  More recently, "AI" has caught on in the context of Large Language Models like ChatGPT that take a prompt as input and then use some minimization function over their corpus of training data to predict what the most likely response to that prompt would be.  The broader class of software including LLMs and similar models that output images, sounds, etc., are called "generative AI". And because "AI" is such a hot topic now, anyone whose software product uses anything resembling a neural network is going to be sure to advertise it as "AI".

In my opinion, it would be better to use more precise language and, when we mean LLMs, say "LLMs".  But I suppose that ship has sailed.  In any event, clearly what is under discussion here is whether music composed by a generative, LLM-like software should be permissible here - and as I've said, I don't think it should be, since this is a composition forum and there's no sense in posting a piece of music you didn't compose.

But by the same token, if you composed the music, then of course you should be permitted to post it, regardless of whether you used tools that are advertised as "AI" to produce the audio mock-up of the music you composed.

[PeterthePapercomPoser]

1 hour ago, Aiwendil said:

But by the same token, if you composed the music, then of course you should be permitted to post it, regardless of whether you used tools that are advertised as "AI" to produce the audio mock-up of the music you composed.

Right because by that reasoning .. if I were to use a VST plugin with AI assisted vibrato modeling or some such thing, it wouldn't be permissible to post.

[Kvothe]

Since this is a composition form, it is difficult to have to have live performances, I will ask this:  

What are your thoughts regarding Note Performer? @PeterthePapercomPoser @Aiwendil

Here are mine: 

NP has it owns instruments that are used in playback in notation play back. Thus, this is similar to how VST library operates: each library is. They have they own instruments.  It cannot replace DAW and those VST.   

When it comes to mock-ups, composers usually work with in daw. But they could use NP, too. 

The studio string orchestra that performed my piece was sent a midi mock up with score and parts. 

I.e. I am fine with a midi mock-up with score and parts (either from daw or using NP).  But I am not fine with something like Suno. That is not mock up!  

I hope this helps   

 

[Henry Ng Tsz Kiu]

2 hours ago, Kvothe said:

What are your thoughts regarding Note Performer?

I think we are discussing more on the authorship when a composer is REALLY the one who composes the work themselves. As long as the AI doesn't interfere with the composing process it should be allowed, so AI programs like Cantai or Note Performer are no problem at all.

Henry

[Thatguy v2.0]

"3. If we decide to regulate AI music, how should we detect it?"

This could probably be discussed further, there seems to be a myriad of options, and maybe more than one can work

[M. Bulteau]

Coming back from the dead just to vote on this.

The core of any artform is the creative process, and the use of genAI to generate music is anti-process. It focuses instead on the result, and advertises itself as a "facilitator", a "helper", or something to remove the "hassle" of the process.

It misses the point that when passion is involved, the creative process is a hassle that one ultimately enjoys. There is no art without passion, and all genAI does is vomit results to the passionless.

A creative process comes about through the passionate development of a skill, and it fosters further understanding of said skill. The result is one particular target of a process at a given point in time: it comes about as the inevitable conclusion of a process.

This decades-long shift of focus to the result is what makes genAI seem legitimate, because it's the endpoint of a logic that defines art as the object instead of the craft. It's made of the same cloth as the commodification of art, and the reduction of everything to "content." It's a corporate point of view, which can't conceive of art in any other way, and only seeks to expedite what it wrongly perceives to be nothing but a very slow assembly line.

I am a composer because I know how to make music, and I learned how to make music by making music. A prompt engineer did not learn how to make an illustration, they learned how to tell a particular machine to do so.

One could argue that prompt engineering is a craft, because it isn't absent of human involvement. But where it fails is in never being directly responsible for the result. With genAI, nothing about how to directly reproduce the result is learned because there's no process involved, only instructions by proxy given to a glorified blender.

What differentiates genAI from art is the absence of a skillful process directly related to the object.

Therefore, the point, and what makes one anything from a hobbyist to an artist, is the process. It just so happens that one cannot go through the process without inevitably coming to a result, which informs more process, and so on and so forth.

That's how an artist grows.

[TristanTheTristan]

8 hours ago, M. Bulteau said:

Coming back from the dead just to vote on this.

The core of any artform is the creative process, and the use of genAI to generate music is anti-process. It focuses instead on the result, and advertises itself as a "facilitator", a "helper", or something to remove the "hassle" of the process.

It misses the point that when passion is involved, the creative process is a hassle that one ultimately enjoys. There is no art without passion, and all genAI does is vomit results to the passionless.

A creative process comes about through the passionate development of a skill, and it fosters further understanding of said skill. The result is one particular target of a process at a given point in time: it comes about as the inevitable conclusion of a process.

This decades-long shift of focus to the result is what makes genAI seem legitimate, because it's the endpoint of a logic that defines art as the object instead of the craft. It's made of the same cloth as the commodification of art, and the reduction of everything to "content." It's a corporate point of view, which can't conceive of art in any other way, and only seeks to expedite what it wrongly perceives to be nothing but a very slow assembly line.

I am a composer because I know how to make music, and I learned how to make music by making music. A prompt engineer did not learn how to make an illustration, they learned how to tell a particular machine to do so.

One could argue that prompt engineering is a craft, because it isn't absent of human involvement. But where it fails is in never being directly responsible for the result. With genAI, nothing about how to directly reproduce the result is learned because there's no process involved, only instructions by proxy given to a glorified blender.

What differentiates genAI from art is the absence of a skillful process directly related to the object.

Therefore, the point, and what makes one anything from a hobbyist to an artist, is the process. It just so happens that one cannot go through the process without inevitably coming to a result, which informs more process, and so on and so forth.

That's how an artist grows.

 

... 

Since when...

 

Anyways, I agree with your point. It is useless composition if you don't learn from it.