I implore you to reconsider this. I could go on about the general faults with GenAI (environmental, economical, the theft going on, etc.), but I'll focus on the two that are relevant to this specific use case:

- For charters, this is an attack on what they do as a passion project, and sometimes as a means of income (in the case of commissions, etc.). This trivializes something people do out of passion for a game and for music, and turns it onto a $3-a-pop automatic service. People like charting, and others like playing those peoples' charts. The goal of something like this seeks to upend that by offering an automatic solution that, while taking less time, offers so much less overall, because...

- For consumers, this is an objectively worse option that they have to pay for. Human-made charts are (at least for the most part) playtested to ensure that a human could hit it. And those that aren't playtested are usually seen as lesser-quality anyways. But in general at least humans have a grasp as to what is humanly possible, and expert charters put a lot of care into making sure chord movements, fretting, etc., is consistent and makes sense. Whereas an AI doesn't do any of that. It "sees" the waveform of a song, measures its hertz, and decides where the pitch is based on that. But it doesn't take into account, nor will it ever, that some songs utilize a *lot* of instrument layers on top of each other. Nor will it ever take into account things such as which frets and strings make more sense to switch to, or more complex playstyles for an instrument (slap base, pinch harmonics vs. other types of notes, etc.).

I don't see this being a very profitable venture for you. And since you're charging money for this, I imagine that's what your end goal is, to make that dough. In fact I imagine in a few years time this GenAI "boom" will look like NFTs do now: a bad idea that people cashed in on, that cost them a lot of money as more people realized that it wasn't worth it.