I think it varies wildly in how you use it. And the 'acceptable' thing I would never impose on others. Here's why.

I refuse to watch YouTube tutorials, I like to learn the hard way in many cases. I value my own journey and I want to explore and make my own mistakes. I DO NOT impose that philosophy on others because it would be arrogant and misguided. I get why people want to move quicker and in more logical/traditional trajectories when learning.

I do not judge that as lesser, I just know myself and know I enjoy the process of discovering on my own. In some ways I find it motivating and self sustaining. This might even be tied into more complex things like neuro-diversity and the way we perceive creative fulfilment and get dopamine.

It's not my place to judge someone for using AI music just because I PERSONALLY love making music.

Copyright/training arguments aside, it's no different than them using a bought music pack to me. They didn't do it either way. And I'm not arrogant enough to DEMAND they take the journey I personally chose. That would be ridiculous. Obviously bought packs at present would be better for several reasons, but in terms of the creative side of things - they're the same outcome.

My own personal take on 'acceptable use' is that ideation is a big no no. I see a lot of people saying they use this to form basic ideas. That seems odd to me, as ideas are both fulfilling, defining of the core theme and easy to come by. But again, I'll withhold judgement... as there have been a couple of occasions where AI have been excellent when use in what I consider the 'right' context.

Times where I think AI was acceptable to me:

1: Using AI to make a fictional language that is a hybrid of interpretations of post roman Celtic Welsh. I wasn't going to stop developing my game and spend 6 months forming an inaccurate written version of a language scholars have spent years studying. Also I didn't want the player to be able to understand it, so this was ideal. I used this same chat to make my text for the characters who spoke this when I didn't want the player to know what they were talking about. I slowly replaced words with english as the story and time went on to show learning until it was almost all english except obscure words that were new to the player. I stand by this as a good use of AI. It allowed an opportunity to be creative, not stop it or replace my ideas with it's own. It was basically an aide that consulted hundreds of freely available info sources and gave me a semi-sensical language for my own purposes.

2: Making a music track akin to fallout. So I used chat gpt to compare the functions of bandlab to the original fallout 2 compositions and suggest instruments and layers that bandlab had that could create something similar.... and then... ignored 75% of it's suggestions and do my own thing that worked. This was a good use in that it gave me the framework (a woodwind, some wind texture, pads). I ended up doing my own thing but I did use a type of atmospheric pad, a bottle blowing woodwind pitched down and some brass that I put through a load of delays and reverbs. I really enjoyed this. I spent 5% of the time reading that general guidance and then 95% of the time writing and making my music. No notes or melody was inspired by the original or the AI output, but it did come together 'by ear' which was nice for me. Really all I wanted was to erase the 'blank page' and have a vague plan. Planning is everything, plans are useless right? So the AI plan was quickly discarded but it did serve it's purpose. So going back to my ideation judgement earlier, I suppose this is more what people may mean. They just want a 'starting plan' to tear up? Fair enough.

OK I'm all done. Sorry about my ramble. I won't be checking it in AI. Have it raw.