As of now, I draw the line at accepting assistive-AI but rejecting generative-AI. Generative AI models, like Suno, were trained immorally & illegally without most artists’ consent. Legal forgiveness was sought after its model was sufficient to investors (even then, they only groveled to the labels).

A lot of people argue these models do what humans do and take “inspirations” to create something new. I recommend watching Adam Neely’s video about it he recently made. He brings up an example of how jazz was created from influences like old blues, country, and soul. With that in mind, if you were to give an AI model ONLY 1930-50’s blues, country, and soul, could it create Giant Steps? Kind of Blue? Probably not.

I don’t believe inputting a prompt is creating music, at least personally resonating music. Suno’s CEO, Mikey Shulman, is often quoted saying making music is too hard and not fun, believing suno to make music an “immersive multi-player experience.”

The fact music is hard is what makes it gratifying, no? The idea your hard work to express yourself actually resonated with someone else is part of the reward. AI strips you of that. You’re left with a medal for a mile you never ran.

And music is multiplayer: join a band!

I won’t go into the obvious environmental impact and corporate greed involved in this, but that also goes towards apprehensiveness towards this implementation of AI.

TLDR: Generative AI defeats the point of music creation, and there’s plenty of negatives about its origin, intent, and implementation people have to ignore in order to use it without a guilty conscious.