Well, I was thinking the same thing. Just today I thought I had better curb my Ai ones. But then again I thought what about all the cover ones that are being allowed and uploaded also.   Thats it for me now for a while. I'll be uploaded my own.

I can also prove that I never used that ChatGPT I  put them all on cassette tapes. years ago with the dates i wrote mostly in 1984/5

I think it should be allowed as long as as AI is mentioned.

Thanks for the input so far, folks. I'd like to hear even more opinions!

It is indeed not easy to draw a line ... what is simple "sound assistance" and what is not, like a complete production with instruments and vocals... I agree a simple 'sticker' (AI involved) would help. Is "flex pitch" AI ? i guess not... but it's already some sort of 'make me sound better than i do'. The basic idea of saying that lyrics and music are machine-created is a good start to know what is what, maybe ?

I have found in some experiments that I was able to create a nice Ai female vocalist. I did my own music and then upoaded the bass and drum tracks and the site created a vocal track, with a female singer, using my own lyrics. It is actually a lot of work but in the end it is rather interesting, although I have not really been able to get a suitable finsihed production. I see nothing wrong with using Ai in this sense. Some people have similar issues regarding MIDI and many are simply Luddites, Technophobes and "rockists", always unhappy. I am working on some projects and when I upload them I will be using an Ai vocalist but I will be performing all the instruments. I would not be interested in hearing an entire song created by Ai, however, I know people have uploaded song in the past made from all Garage Band/Logic loops. I think that I even worse.

My short answer to what I would like to listen to and what I don't

Terrific input so far! I would really like to continue hearing from more members!

Since a few months, the biggest streaming service ('Spo.ify') seems to allow AI generated content (mainly because there' much less royalties to pay to the creators - that are already super-low...), and there's some estimations around 10% of the worldwide new songs being AI (crazy, aint that ?).  Be transparent (as @Wyndsok mentionned it) is probably the best. Clearly label AI-generated tracks and inform users when they’re listening to machine-made music, but also give users a choice to filter their preferences in profile to exclude AI-generated music, that won't appear in the new music section. Just an idea...

So I'll throw in my three cents (inflation you know...)

Thank you @deezee @Wyndsok @Telemetry @Dyl @thewyrmwoodkult @KennethLavrsen @jgurner . I think I can see something of a concensus coming together. We seem to be fine with using AI to a certain extent. Using it as a tool for creating individual tracks within a project -- like the way we use loops -- is ok. Where we seem less ok with it is when AI is more of the creator than the human. Further, as listeners, we want to be informed about the use of AI in a song. Is this correct? I guess my next question is to what extent should the artist disclose this information? For example, when uploading a song, there could be individual checkboxes for any area that AI was used: drums, bass, keyboards, lyrics, melody, etc. The idea is that instead of having to do a write-up about how AI was used, the artist just clicks the appropriate checkboxes. Remember iCompositions had a checkbox for "Uses loops" or something like that. This would be similar. What do you think?

I think a check box for AI and loops is a great solution. It's simple and easy (well, maybe not so simple and easy on your end @Dr_J  ).

@Dr_J 

everyhing is permitted everything is allowed-what you care about is your choice

I've always tried to identify whether my drums were, live, loops, or personal midi constructs in whole or in part.

@Wyndsok  you are a man of singular talent-I have always been a *****-remember those who can hear -will hear -those who cannot-it will never matter

As I noted in my all too long post.

If you choose to use AI, please be transparent about it! 

As several people stated, transperancy in imperative. There should be nothing wrong with being open in how we make our music. There should be nothing to hide. Even what hardware we use or DAW.  Many of may have unique and even eclectic work methods that could be inspiring to others if we shared them. But, for example, if we create a bad *** guitar lead using Ai, and then edit that in a song, we should give credit to the Ai and not pretend we did it. In this sense the Ai becomes a collab partner for people, like myself, who may have a hard time working with others, or who simply... well... have no friends. (Sorrowful cello music in the background.)

https://youtu.be/PeKZvUcr0-M?si=Dz47ySDEFex2WvTJ

A check box will suffice for me. Companies are on the bandwagon for AI because it's the new best thing since sliced bread.As I write this Grammarly is correcting my awful British English so I say let the Skynet loose insert evil laugh here --------

Well I upload a song already and told it was AI generated 

I think a check box/label is fine. I recently wrote a new song/lyrics. For fun I asked ChatGPT to write lyrics for a similar theme. I liked mine better :) But I'm of course biased. And the ChatGPT lyrics weren't too bad. For the record, I used none of the ChatGPT lyrics, so once the song's done I hope to post it here and not check the AI box ;)

Question: I used to have a midi keyboard.. I connected it to Mixcraft software which had virtual instruments to choose from.  Would that be considered AI?  I was the one creating the backtracks aka composing. There were just no real musicians playing...Virtual instruments.. It was my own creativity, choosing each instrument per track and composing by ear . Before I had the keyboard, I used loops and sewed them together. So would any of that be considered AI?

@Sociallite1957 If you are actually composing the notes, then it's not A.I. If the computer is choosing/generating the notes, then some would consider that A.I., although others like Kenneth would say that's an "advanced arpeggiator". I'm still trying to figure it out myself!

I'm not a fan of using ai to write music. If you write a song with it, that song the ai software fetches up will not be your song, It will be the AI softwares song. I would hate to read what the charts would read if AI gets anymore serious.  Your music schould not even have your artist name because no artist wrote the song. We would have to give AI the benifit. I also would not let it write lyrics for me, they wouldn't be your lyrics then. Maybe I can see putting in search cues to brainstorm words though.

@Dr_J  Thank you.. I am definitely writing the notes of all the instruments as well as vocal melody and singing backups and harmonies ( no harmony machine which I was once accused of on another site) Also once I had the Midi, often I would add instruments to the songs I used loops on to fill it out and make it more orginal. Good topic

@Wyndsok Kind of funny in a way. I don't think he meant harm but at first the 'Social-Lites' got a bit ruffled over it!

@Sociallite1957  If they say that I would be proud,

@Toveco  Yes.. it could be taken as a left handed compliment... Guess my lengthy work on them paid off!

Personally, I'm keeping my generated stuff separate from my own original work and I won't be posting any of it here. Since I don't make my living from performing or selling my own stuff, my view is it's fine either way you decide. 

My main "mission" is playing the sax and I have no use for AI in that regard because it is cheating no matter if I am being paid or not being paid. I look for backing tracks, so AI is fine because it gives me music to add to for my own enjoyment. I sometimes create my own instrumentals, never used AI but I would because I am just looking for a non-commercial "band" to play with. If I was lucky enough to get paid for creating a song, for me AI is not an option because it is cheating. I draw the line when I am being paid to create music for commercial use.

to all the real mucisians ie everyone overt forty-i salute you

Just not real music. Good for those who can't write.

Where to draw a line? Anything you insert into an AI algorithm is usually back by some sort of personal creation. I really don't care. I'm glad we can collaborate in whatever form that suits us.

One more thing… Are loops considered AI? Many of use them for a variety of purposes. Not all of us have access to live instrumentalists or vocalists so if you use AI to access vocal samples, who cares? I think just indicate that the piece is AI generated if it seems like an obvious AI creation.

@Grathy Loops are not considered A.I.

I'd say No AI...cook your own dinner.

i've been recording music since about 1975. being a tech geek, i used whatever i could find to make sounds. cheap tape recorders, tone generators, homemade effects like fuzztone, wahwah, phaser. i had a guitar that i modified in various ways to get new sounds. my way of thinking is that whatever tools you have are fair-game to create music with. i've been using computers to make music since 1985. at first to create midi-based tunes. and then writing programs to create chords or melodies for me. it was a cycle of change the code, listen to the output. if i liked it, i recorded it on tape. i took a break from creating from 1995 to 2005 or so....... i really enjoyed how electronic music exploded in the late 80's and through the 90's. so many new sounds came out of that era. sampling and synths let artists mix up genres in ways never heard before....... then around 2005 Apple came out with GarageBand and i went crazy continuing my music hobby. i had no qualms trying to use all of it, loops, samples, and continuing to write my own programs to generate music and audio....... in my view, all technology is ok to use to create music. i have not seriously tried AI to generate sound. a quick try at a few free websites generated some very poor attempts. but that was a few years ago, and AI has changed dramatically. maybe i should try it again. but i suspect i would only enjoy using AI if the user interface lets me tweak and adjust lots of parameters, listen, and repeat. just clicking the Submit button and accepting what comes out would be no fun at all for me. i need to be part of the creative process. otherwise, what's the point?

The way I am, there's no AI, it wouldn't make any sense to put my name on it at that point. In fact, I don't even use loops; I want every atom of the music I produce to be the product of my own mind.

Way back in my early days at iComp, most folks were using Garageband to create tracks. I played a little guitar and piano/keys before getting my hands on Garageband, and I never owned any serious recording equipment...mics, mixers, processors, or anything that could let me make semi-pro sounding recordings, until I tried GB. You all know the GB story, so I won't go there, but it opened the whole world of sound effects, loops, recording real or sampled instruments via midi input devices and keyboards, combined with layering tracks...basically a free recording studio in a box. There were Apple's loops that came with it, and tons of free loops started being available from zillions of sources, so I definitely took advantage of them. I started "building" songs, playing and experimenting. When something started to sound like it might have the beginnings of a "song" I'd start to hone in on an idea, or melody, or concept triggered in my head. I'd work at it, stitching bits together, adding my less than stellar lead playing, maybe editing individual notes that I could slightly move in the timeline (sometimes my rhythm wasn't cleanly in the pocket...) I'd generaly create a soundscape, with a mix of loops and my own input...whatever worked. Sometimes I'd play electric bass through the keyboard, where the selected instrument was pounded, kneaded, and rolled through the different processing tools to come closest to the sound I wanted. It was never perfect, but I got better and better in the kitchen turning out pieces of "music" on my own, that were completely my own. Anyone else using the same tools would never duplicate what I made, because first of all, I was, and still am, an amateur hobbyist, and nobody would want to replicate my stuff, but mainly because any two people using the same toolbox or box of paintbrushes, or ingredients in the kitchen will always produce something unique. Even with a few shared bits and pieces, what comes out in the end will be different.

@Pdxflint i totally agree with "On iCompositions we did have the check box if loops were included, so I'd say maybe a check box for both loops and ai generated. Also, maybe ask that the ai generated songs be accompanied with the prompt and whatever ai-generated "tool" was used." There's no good or bad, but this AI thing is SO invasive that we need to know, as listeners, what's going on. @Dr_J could this feature be in the next updates ?

I have been sent a track to produce. It was generated by Suno from lyrics sung acapella, a detailed prompt and a basic backing played live. I did a tempo map of the Suno track and completely rearranged the backing by creating midi stems and live stems. With the aid of a stem splitter I was able to lift the Suno vocal and mix it with the new backing. If I could get someone to redo the vocal, the end product would have no Suno component whatsoever. I admit the Suno track did throw up some ideas that I used. It also generated a vocal that will be hard to match. If I post the track on iBandstand I will certainly detail how it was created. Would this be a big turnoff for anti AI purists who might pass on without even a listen?

@zincshed Roger, i honestly don't think so. There are some artists here on iBandstand that clearly stated that they were using AI (https://www.ibandstand.com/artists/387 for example), and they got listens and comments anyway. The main problem with using AI to generate melody, lyrics, vocals, etc .. without telling it (check box or in song description) is that all comments become irrelevant: "she's got a great voice" ... and there is no "she". The listener (and commentator) feel like a fool...This small community exists on caring and curiosity... Not on "make believe". Only my opinion ...

@Dyl 

i'd forgotten about reading this forum post over a year ago. i was pleasantly surprised to find i still have the same feelings about it back then that i just recently posted in the chat about AI.

Folks keep using the word "tool."

I for one think Ai is bad for everyone. If you use Ai you're not learning to improve your creativity, you're being a sloth like a couch potato. Or go do something else, maybe music or art isn't for you. I wish Ai would go away, but Ai supporters just have to bring it to life so they don't have to work or have fun along the way making memories with people. They want instant gratification. I won't support any ai music, ai books, or any ai so called art. The future of Earth sucks, sorry.

The site has now been updated. When updating a song, you can click a checkbox to indicate that Ai was used in creating the lyrics, and there is another checkbox to indicate whether Ai was used in creating the music. If either checkbox is ticked, then a textbox is presented where the artist can enter details about how Ai was used. I think that's the best way for now because I've come to find out there are so many ways that Ai can be used, that if you had a checkbox for each of them, you'd need 50 checkboxes. Best if the artist just describes what he did. It seems people have been wanting more transparency regarding the use of Ai, and hopefully this update sufficiently addresses that.

Well we now have an AI button thanks to our superb administrator Justin.

@musicinthesky 

I have mixed feelings about AI in music. Personally, I am not a fan of it, actually I hate it!

Do the newer versions of LogicProX use AI? I must have a much older one, unless we're now identifying any and all samples as AI. Seems a bit of a stretch for me.

@Wyndsok not simple to define what is AI and what is not, but basically, a tool is a tool. A hammer is a tool. The hammer is not deciding how your door or your chair should look like. You do. The creativity is in your hand. The same logic applies to AI. As long as you give the direction, and use as many tools as you need, it's not AI. It's you. And i'd like to add : yes, our limitations are also what makes us unique. The intent, the style, the sound of our voices or amps or guitars is what makes the charm. Not the polish, not the "perfect pitch". But some are obsessed with that. That's how it goes...

@Dyl 

@Dyl 

@Wyndsok Ah ! I see that the subject is mind-blowing somehow... haha ! But yes. I guess the ultimate question is "who decided" (what notes, what sound, what words, etc) and "who proposed" ? If the musician can answer "I did" to both, then we can't call it artificial intelligence ... And it can absolutely involve digital 'things' (now i dont want to say 'tool', hehe), synths, compressors, and so on. Am i wrong ?

@Dyl 

👍🤖

"Old MacDonald had a Forum ..

I am enjoying this forum thread very much and enjoying the debate it is creating.

I've been mostly out of pocket for a while, and likely won't be around too much for some time more, but I saw the AI issue was once again front and center, so I wanted to add my four cents once again (stupid inflation)...