Australia’s music industry bans AI songs from charts

[u/Saltedline]

https://apnews.com/article/australia-ai-generated-music-charts-ban-aria-9bfb0c91166ae4405a6df1a3c4891687

[u/atape_1]

Good.

AI generated sounds are not music.

AI generated images are not art.

AI generated text is not literature.

[u/Chief_H → u/atape_1]

There needs to be a law that AI generated content is labeled as such.

[u/guineaprince → u/Chief_H]

Well the good news is that courts have been consistent in that because AI lacks human inventiveness, it cannot be copyrighted.

Instant public domain.

Something is AI? Pirate that shit.

[u/Dzugavili → u/guineaprince]

Well the good news is that courts have been consistent in that because AI lacks human inventiveness, it cannot be copyrighted.

It's not quite that simple: anything simply generated from AI is not subject to protections.

But once you start feeding in human data and performing work on the outputs, it gets murky. You can lose a lot of core IP protection; but still own the actual product.

This is mostly a corporate problem -- they are quite obsessed with soaking up every piece of IP -- if you're interested in actually using the technology creatively, you probably have enough protection to commercialize works made in good faith.

[u/c-dy → u/Dzugavili]

Actually not that murky. The murkiness originates mainly from the challenge of proving either side of a case.

As for what is considered a sufficient human contribution deserving the copyright, that's basically the whole history of copyright law.

[u/Dzugavili → u/c-dy]

...so, it sounds pretty murky.

One issue that I see: the models might be trained on recognizable IP; but what it extracts is mostly the commonality between these IPs. As such, there's not always a strong claim to be made from existing rights holders against new creators; as long as the creator is making best efforts to avoid the use of IP they don't own.

There's some complex questions about data providence and derivative products that would clear this up, but I don't see a solution that doesn't water-down or overcomplicate IP rights as they exist, so trying to interpret new works within the existing framework seems the likely outcome: eg. if I take a work in the public domain, edit it into a new work, I do own the new work; though, I don't own the public domain work.

There are issues around the use of AI-generated intermediate products, but I suspect end-to-end protections will arise due to the difficulty in separating the human elements from the technological ones.

[u/itchylol742 → u/guineaprince]

i've never seen anything that was ai generated but also paywalled. the quality is so low, it isnt worth pirating

[u/Uberutang → u/Chief_H]

There is. It is called the EU AI Act.

[u/beardriff → u/Chief_H]

To want laws dictating what art is?

[u/TFreshNoLimits → u/Chief_H]

I think a fair compromise is AI is okay for research/technical stuff, and acceptable for internal art/concepting purposes, but any published/distributed art/literature/video/photo/imaging is banned/illegal.

It's clear it was trained on artists and writers without their consent/approval. Plus we really just don't need it?? AI-generated content has added nothing of value to our society and has only hurt jobs.

[u/guineaprince → u/TFreshNoLimits]

That's the muddying of the waters that they want you to mentally absorb.

What's been used for decades in research is nowhere near these shitty LLMs and plagiarism bots. Never have been.

[u/TFreshNoLimits → u/guineaprince]

Oh 100% it sucks shit, but if someone wants to use it to help write code or kick off research, it's not in the same stratosphere as publishing a fake AI video of a senator having an affair or firing a department worth of writers to replace them with AI.

Again it's bad but I don't think it needs to be made ILLEGAL in the same way.

[u/VeryLazyFalcon → u/TFreshNoLimits]

These are different kinds of AI programs. Generative AIs have no use in research, for that they are specifically designed and work in different ways. And AI is marketing therm, proper is machnie learning, and has nothing with intelligence.

[u/Agravicvoid → u/atape_1]

Thank you!

I have been labeling AI made stuff as just that (images, sounds, and text,) and I get weird looks when I call it out.

Kinda hurts being a writer and people ask things like which AI did it or if I used AI.

AI is nothing more than a skinwalker or a mimic. It isn't human, has no emotions or thoughts, but is destructive and only traps those that use it and kills their creativity on top of the fact it hurts real artists, writers, and musicians.

[u/HKBFG → u/Agravicvoid]

People ask me which AI i used on my novel that i finished in 2018. My theory is that they've replaced their thinking with AI and now can't picture anyone thinking for themselves.

[u/big_duo3674 → u/atape_1]

🤣 It looks like you really triggered some people, I'm guessing they are the type that consider themselves "artists" because they've gotten really good at entering a few words into a prompt

[u/AshtonCopernicus → u/big_duo3674]

He's 100% right too. I do think it's fun to create stupid songs on Suno -- I have a long music background so I respect it, but I sometimes waste time at night putting together a song about a friend's silly dog, about how bad drivers and potholes are in my city, how my wife accidentally misplaces her phone all the time and sometimes it's in the fridge and I even have a dad joke song of every joke I could think of at the time -- then I send them off to friends for a laugh. But I would never monetize or publish them, as that should NEVER have been an option in the first place. It's not art, literally anyone can do it for $10 a month or whatever.

[u/Jerome_Eugene_Morrow → u/AshtonCopernicus]

I like using it for playing around with instrumentation on top of things I’ve written. You can feed in your own demo track and add your own written lyrics and even sample your own voice. I can’t get a string section or a full band in my apartment on a moment’s notice. It’s helped me show other musicians what kind of feel I’m thinking of for a song when we start playing it. I’ve also used it to resurrect demos from old bands where recordings got lost or destroyed.

I wouldn’t release or monetize them, but as a musician it’s a great tool for ideation and experimentation.

I’m fine with banning AI tracks from the charts, but honestly if it’s in the hands of a really good producer using it on top of an established artist, would people even know?

[u/techmnml → u/atape_1]

I think the whole “ai art” title that crowd tries to call it is dumb as fuck. Just call them what they are, ai generated images.

[u/Key-Ad6653 → u/atape_1]

On top of that all AI, does is just mix and match.

It just copies already people made art to create the bs it creates.

Soo blatant stealing.

[u/PrimeIntellect → u/Key-Ad6653]

so it's like a DJ

[u/ThriKr33n → u/Key-Ad6653]

Like a collage out of a Sears catalogue.

[u/Earl_of_pudding → u/Key-Ad6653]

You do realize that that's all human creativity is as well, right?

Creating as more than a remix of previous ideas and concepts would be like a violation of causality. Only a first uncaused cause, a prime mover, a god, would be capable of doing it.

Ah, wait. There's another source of uninspired creation.

Randomness.

Gen AI can do that too.

[u/Havenfall209 → u/Key-Ad6653]

That's what Mark Twain said about humans, right? "We only mix old ideas into new patterns like a kaleidoscope." Or to go with Durden. "We are the all singing, all dancing crap of the world", and AI will never force that title from our grips.

[u/Daffan → u/Key-Ad6653]

On top of that all AI, does is just mix and match.

It learnt that from Humans.

[u/1wiseguy → u/Key-Ad6653]

I would argue that almost all music is inspired by older music in some way. Was rock music in the 1960s not derived to some extent from the blues decades earlier?

But to say that rock music was just copies of existing music, i.e. blatant stealing, would be a gross oversimplification.

[u/PhillSebben → u/Key-Ad6653]

That's how it can work but not how it should work. You could push it to extrapolate from what it knows into making something unique. Part of the problem is that some of it is actually really good. Otherwise we wouldn't even need this protection.

It's good to protect artists and musicians, but we also need to understand that plenty of other countries don't give a shit. In time, that stuff is going to cross borders. At the same time it's going to be harder and harder to tell. So despite the good intention, this is going to be extremely difficult to manage.

[u/finebushlane → u/Key-Ad6653]

All art is based on what has come before, that’s what humans do all the time, unless you think people create in a vacuum. 

[u/apheliotrophic → u/atape_1]

AI generated content is art in the same sense that vomit is food

[u/bluegreenie99 → u/atape_1]

Call it what you want but who are you to tell other people what to consume?

[u/Sophira → u/atape_1]

I'd like to put a qualifier on that: generative AI sounds are not music.

I say this because there's at least one program similar to Vocaloid that I know of for making vocals that:

• is not generative AI (it's not the type of thing you prompt; it requires actual creative input in the form of dragging notes, tuning, adding lyrics, and so on)
• has no way of creating custom voicebanks; you can only use offficialy-created voicebanks (which are all trained only on consenting singers who are paid for their work),
• can only be used for vocals (you can't generate any other part of the track with it),
• nonetheless uses AI techniques to recreate the voices. (I repeat: not generative. You need serious creative input for this.)

The results sound incredible. But don't get me wrong; I still wouldn't use it for actual original music that I wanted to register and publish. I would still want to actually have a human singer. (But I might use it to give them a reference on how I imagine it sounding, or use it in hobbyist activities or songs offered for free, with the program and voicebank clearly credited.)

That's not because the output isn't good (it's incredibly good; when tuned correctly, you'd have a very difficult time distinguishing it from a human), or because there wasn't creative input. I just don't think it's right to replace human vocalists like that.

That's why I'm still in favour of what Australia has done here, even though it would stop works produced this way from entering the charts.

[u/ImSabbo → u/Sophira]

The article says AI-assisted music is eligible; it's just the stuff made solely by AI which is not. I imagine for all the middleground they'd have to make judgments based on how much was AI of whatever kind.

[u/Sophira → u/ImSabbo]

While you're correct that AI-assisted music is eligible, I was basing that last paragraph based on this sentence from the article (emphasis added by me):

Tracks can be eligible only if “humans wrote the song and performed the lead vocal and the primary instruments,” among other requirements, the statement said.

I think it's fair to say that creating a lead vocal with a program like this, even one that had a lot of effort put into it, would not be classified as "performing" it.

[u/webguynd → u/Sophira]

I wonder how they count "performed the primary instruments"? Like if I'm making electronic or LoFi music, and I plug in a few chords into Logic Pro and loop it, etc. I didn't once "play" an instrument, the entire song is effectively computer generated, just at my direction and my creative choices. But, electronic music production is borderline programmatic. Throw a scripting interface over the DAW and you could "compose" music by programming.

[u/HighOfTheTiger → u/webguynd]

It’s a slippery slope of how it’s defined. Like for me I don’t see much difference in someone who prompts an AI song, vs someone who just drags in other people’s samples for everything. I think they are both incredibly lazy, uncreative ways to end up with a song. Selecting the chords for Logic to play and dragging in drummer samples is about the same level of skill required.

I’ve got a buddy who makes music, he’s been sending me stuff that is way better than what he usually does, and I was like “wow dude did you write and play all that?”. And he’s like “nah it was just a sample I drug in”. So that credit of “wow this amazing” goes to whoever created the sample instead.

[u/Sophira → u/webguynd]

That's... an extremely good point, and I hadn't considered that. You're right; under my definition, a lot of people don't "perform the primary instruments", either. I'll need to rethink my position on that.

If this were /r/changemyview, I'd give you a Δ.

(I still think the ban is well-intentioned, but now I can see that it perhaps was not written with the kinds of music people enjoy in the charts in mind. It's absolutely possible that music with lead vocals made by SynthV could make it in, and I'm still not sure how I feel about that, even though there is a lot of effort involved and I adore the program itself.)

[u/CankerLord → u/Sophira]

And it's only going to get harder to parse this as time goes on and the algorithms get integrated into more and more of the tooling.

[u/Mike_Kermin → u/atape_1]

I mean, it is, it's just ai generated, and as such doesn't have genuinely artistic merit behind it's production.

[u/TitularClergy → u/atape_1]

How do you classify Telstar?

[u/martianwomanhunter → u/atape_1]

I agree with you but we’re reaching a point where it’s feasible in the next year or two that AI art, images and video are going to be THAT GOOD. It’s already starting to be very hard to tell but a trained eye and ear can spot the differences. But soon we’ll have to consider that AI art may surpass human art in consumption because it WILL BE THAT GOOD.

[u/finebushlane → u/atape_1]

Where do you draw the line though?

If I have AI generate 100 synths and then listen and choose the best one, is that bad? 

If AI generates a drum pattern that I then adjust until I like it and use that? Is that bad?

The reality is that artists are doing this now, AI use is already incredibly common among anyone producing music. And you can’t tell. 

[u/AnalogFeelGood → u/atape_1]

Amen to that.

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."

[u/Willtology]

What next?! Are we going to disallow robots from competing in human sporting events? Hopefully obvious sarcasm.

[u/sabin357 → u/Willtology]

No silly. They obviously get their own, superior league.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Stadium_Series%E2%80%94Base_Wars

[u/Gman54]

Hopefully more countries will adopt this.
Using Ai as a tool - to organize and analyze data, perform complex medial research (like DNA analysis), predict weather patterns - these are good and useful examples of how to use Ai. Even generating generic images (not for artistic intent) is fine in my eyes so long as it is limited.

However, using it in something that is supposed to have artistic intent and value… just rubs me the wrong way. Ai can’t “feel” and can’t put meaning into what it creates.

[u/DemIce → u/[deleted]]

the line that seems to hold up is whether the output is the product or the input

Oh, no. That line disappears real quick when the output text isn't prose, but code.

Even among artists who will use numerous arguments to detail why generative AI is bad not just for images but for text output as well - code gets a pass. Because code isn't expressive.

So maybe that's really the line: whether the output is 'expressive' or not (which would jive with Gman54's suggestion that generic images would be fine; though artists would very much disagree with that).

( Not a fan of genAI myself. This isn't a defense of it. It's a condemnation of people suddenly shrugging when it comes to code when their arguments are e.g. copyright infringement, job loss, opportunity cost, knowledge cost, 'slop' output and so on, and they suddenly have to pivot in order to justify their stance. )

[u/Unable_Shoulder_8747 → u/DemIce]

Long comment but I love this discussion.

I personally think code is art, but with that idea I have to admit that I think almost anything made by a person is art, which is a bit more contentious. 

But in terms of code, I'd argue it's absolutely expressive. There's so many languages to choose from, and so many things you can do with every language. The process involves decisions and there's no "right" decision, just ones that people find preferable.

Somebody else already said this but if you're painting a picture of a dog, your "problem" is making that picture and the art comes from how you approached the "solution". You can draw a picture of a dog with code and there isn't just one way to do it, and code isn't better or worse based on the approach. We say Code is good or bad in the same way we talk about other art; if there's an objective or a goal, we're just saying how closely it meets the criteria. Art can be functional. In Australia we have street signs to warn you about Koalas and Kangaroos in the area, and the signs are black-on-yellow silhouettes of the critters. They're pictures, they're art that was made by people to serve a purpose.

Sure, there's "rules" for code but there's "rules" for what a painting or a movie is, those can be stretched pretty far, and you'd be surprised how far you can stretch the definition of what code is. Like pipes and valves can be code. A piece of paper can be code (dot matrices).

Code can be funny, it can be elegant, it can make you feel a lot of different emotions and at times it can expand your understanding of the world.

I think the difference for me is that I consider the input the art, because the output's story is based on the input. This gets complicated with AI because I have to admit that with my own definition, it's technically art because the story being told is that you gave up on yourself and used a robot. I'd love if anyone could push back on that because I don't love this conclusion.

Thanks for letting me ramble!

[u/work_m_19 → u/DemIce]

I would argue that "vibe-code" is the "input" given the person's definition.

When a developer generates code, the code isn't what's consumed by other users, it's what the code represents, which generally involves some human input, at least that's how it's commonly done at our company.

A software engineer's job is to solve problems, not to code. The output is the solutions to those problems, so how an engineer gets there, most users don't care about it too much since they normally don't and can't see behind the scenes anyway.

Now, I still would recommend not using LLM generated code for junior devs because it is good for self-practice and discipline, but it's not like we can see inside Netflix/AWS/Youtube/Meta's codebase anyway, so it being opaque to us users doesn't make much difference if it's vibe-coded, coded by a junior dev, or coded by a genius 10x engineer. It's their team that has to deal with the vibe-coded slop.

[u/ahall917 → u/[deleted]]

Charts used to be a sales ranking, but hardly anyone buys music anymore due to music streaming services. Instead, charts are now determined based on a mix of sales and number of streams. Idk what math they came up with to determine equivalence between a sale and number of streams though. I'd imagine an AI song, if it were popular enough on streaming, could land on a chart by these metrics (assuming no restrictions on AI generated media are in place).

[u/funkyb → u/Gman54]

Ai can’t “feel” and can’t put meaning into what it creates. 

As Adam Savage put out: AI can't have a perspective.

It can't feel anyway about anything so any "art" it makes is definitionally hollow and imitative (or at best randomly non-immitative)

[u/GayMamaLuigi → u/Gman54]

To me it just depends how hands-off it is. I've seen some incredibly original and creative AI projects that require far more effort from human artists to implement than would have been needed without the AI element. There are certain things a deep learning algorithm can do that a human just can't (e.g., a video game NPC dynamically responding to any player input instead of just repeating its script forever), and it make sense to use it as a tool in those cases.

What I don't like is when the human creator does nothing but send a prompt, with their goal being to minimize their own engagement.

[u/gameoftomes → u/Gman54]

Does science and discovery not have elements of creativity and artistry?

[u/rugbyj → u/gameoftomes]

Pretty sure they both have pencils.

[u/pixelprophet → u/Gman54]

Using Ai as a tool - to organize and analyze data, perform complex medial research (like DNA analysis), predict weather patterns

If we could trust that AI wasn't poisoning the data that it was processing would also be nice...

[u/Ronem → u/pixelprophet]

This is an instance where "AI" is used too broadly. Before LLMs, AI referred to something specific and non-generative.

LLMs cant do anything other than be the fanciest parrots ever created

[u/LinkesAuge → u/Gman54]

What is the different to writing a programm that procedurally generates something?

I could open Houdini, SpeedTree etc. right now and get an output for 3d models, textures etc. that are 100% the result of an automated process and that is even very common for game dev so what is the argument here? That the automation is too easy?

[u/robodrew → u/Gman54]

Even generating generic images (not for artistic intent) is fine in my eyes so long as it is limited.

Even this has destroyed the clip art and stock photo industries that employed a lot of people

[u/GayMamaLuigi → u/robodrew]

Every innovation kills some jobs and creates others, unfortunately that's always been the way of the world and isn't specific to AI. The economic system that throws people out on the street if they lose their job is the bigger issue.

[u/Turbulent-Sign-6067 → u/Gman54]

Artists can use AI, too. Art is about making the vision in your head come to life. Any tool is fair game for artists when used appropriately.

[u/SmartaHari]

GOOD. Everywhere should

[u/hakenwithbacon → u/SmartaHari]

SKARS in shambles

[u/i_am_a_real_boy__ → u/SmartaHari]

I don't know. It kind of sounds like millions of Australians are listening to AI music and this solution is to just pretend like it isn't really happening.

[u/Very-very-sleepy → u/[deleted]]

America is a very capitalistic country and their government loves AI. I don't think will come into place in America

[u/birdentap → u/Very-very-sleepy]

Not with this administration but future ones might decide that it’s corroding entertainment industries the way it corrodes others. Overall bad for the economy if it’s only making money for the top few.

[u/FlamboyantPirhanna → u/Very-very-sleepy]

How things are today is not necessarily how they will be tomorrow. Rome ruled the world, until it didn’t. Eventually the rot spreads too deeply and the only way to survive is to root it out. Don’t give in to this cynicism, it’s a lie.

[u/baddecision116 → u/[deleted]]

Nice ad. you use AI to run your bot?

[u/Cyrotek]

Can we also ban automatically generated text in IT industries. This shit is getting infuriating. Having to read 10 pages of crap that could have been condensed into two pages is just not a worthwhile use of my time and I am getting tired of calling that out.

Yes, Bob, you are faster with AI. While you slow down EVERYONE else. Good job.

[u/slickwombat → u/Cyrotek]

I had a big argument with my boss about this. In summary:

him: "What do you mean you're writing your own emails and documents? This is not what you should be spending time on, get AI to help!"

me: "Well if you/whoever wanted to know what the AI thinks, just ask AI. If you want to know what I think, how can AI help me?"

him: "You have to explain to it what you want in lots of detail obviously, then go through it and make sure it all makes sense, and get it to adjust stuff where necessary."

me: "How is it faster or better to write an explanation of what I want to say and try to and cajole an AI into maybe saying it than to just... write what I want to say?"

I can't make sense of people who do this, unless it's just functional illiteracy.

[u/Cyrotek → u/slickwombat]

I feel like some people are just easily impressed by a machine generating lots of pointlessly complex text and believe that this is somehow a hallmark of quality.

Interestingly people that should have the means to know better still fall for it.

[u/discordafteruse → u/Cyrotek]

Just have AI read it and summarize it for you back to original. Dur!

[u/bizbods]

Wow! ARIA protecting the Australian music industry is like installing a smoke alarm in a house that burned down in 1997.

And let's be clear about what they're protecting: a chart where the AI song already spent SIXTEEN WEEKS in the top 20 and peaked at number two. It didn't sneak in. It went on a run. It had a whole era. ARIA watched it happen for four months, waited for it to slow down, then banned it — like a bouncer chucking someone out at 3am who's already had a lovely night and is calling an Uber.

Meanwhile turn on any Aussie radio station and it's American, American, American, ad for a mattress, American. The machines aren't the ones keeping Australian artists off the air, mate. They just automated a job that was already fully staffed.

[u/Son_of_Atreus]

Good. Its all trash theft.

[u/ben_nobot]

I better not be hearin no autotune didgeridoo either

[u/Lagao]

Oh man, the AI bros are out in force. I bet they also get upset when people copy/paste their stupid monkey jpeg too.

[u/Call555JackChop → u/Lagao]

“All my apes gone”

[u/mrmongey]

As a musician, and an Australian one , I support , but it’s an impossible thing to police.

What if a AI Tool is used to mix the main vocal and instruments? AI autotune ? What if a AI drum tool is used to program drums.

The only thing that really stops AI music from being popular is the masses rejecting it.

[u/Silly_Double408 → u/mrmongey]

good point AI songs have been the only thing for years havent they...now its getting to the point you dont need a person anymore.

[u/Chucknastical]

When I think of AI slop music, I agree with this.

When I think of BBL Drizzy, I think it's problematic.

[u/KnifeFed → u/Chucknastical]

Jokes are fine but there's no way that original song needs to be allowed into any charts. However, then a real song sampled it (Metro Boomin) and I agree that's sort of problematic.

[u/WesternWitchy52]

AI music. Is not. Music.

Said from an actual musician who took lessons in the 80s.

[u/bolanrox → u/WesternWitchy52]

the closest i come to machine music (former gigging musician) is Kraftwerk

[u/SkinnedIt]

If anyone wants to listen to music written by nobody, that's their business.

Likewise, I don't think there should be any obligation for the list compilers to include those songs on them - especially when their lists include an artist. AI is not an artist.

Feel free to create your own dataset.

[u/Acrobatic_Wrap_9971 → u/SkinnedIt]

Haha maybe they should make a separate AI Top Bot Music chart. Each song has to include the prompts used to create it.

[u/kabaab]

I’m old enough to remember the backlash against music made with computers….

No one will care in the future how it’s made only if it’s good.

[u/TopHatButler → u/kabaab]

There's a big difference between made WITH computers and made BY computers. AI 'artists' acting as if prompting is a skill that quantifies AI music as something that falls into 'WITH computers" is utter delusion.

[u/alles-moet-kapot → u/TopHatButler]

Just curious how you feel about drum computers or rhythm patterns in syntesizers?

[u/MrDubious → u/alles-moet-kapot]

The vast majority of these angry folks have literally zero idea how technology works. They think AI is just putting existing pieces of music together, literally copying existing compositions. So they have no idea at all how generative patterns based on math have been used in EDM and hip hop for decades.

[u/Crypt0Nihilist → u/kabaab]

I broadly agree. I think people will want to see some intentionality and skill behind it, but AI will be accepted as drawing the rest of the owl.

It's bizarre seeing the same old comments here saying that AI Slop will never compete when AI is being banned literally for competing. Also trotting out the theft argument as if they suddenly care about the profits of the huge rights-owning media companies or they wouldn't still hate it if it were only trained on out of copyright music.

The only thing worse than AI Bros are No-AI Zealouts. Since polarised opinions are all that's allowed, I'll take my downvotes from both camps now.

[u/Blue_58_ → u/Crypt0Nihilist]

>The only thing worse than AI Bros are No-AI Zealouts

Maybe if you're only friend is a chatbot

[u/FocusPerspective]

The less you know about the actual music industry to more you think AI is a problem.

The reality is between sampling and synthesizers, ghost writers and autotune, most music on the radio is not the magical art form you think it is

You want to believe in the myth that your favorite performer is also an artist but most are just performers and have been for decades

[u/TA_DR → u/FocusPerspective]

Weird to include synths with autotune and ghost writers. Very different concepta

[u/Lraund → u/FocusPerspective]

Ok there are 1 million songs made a minute all of roughly the same quality, how do you deal with it?

[u/Chroiche → u/Lraund]

Nothing to deal with. It's a self invented problem. Ignore it and carry on? Like what

[u/mnilailt → u/Chroiche]

Right? If you like the music you like it, if you don’t skip it. I think ultimately people just don’t like the idea of enjoying something and it turning out to be AI.

[u/Nut_Butter_Fun → u/Lraund]

the real problem isn't the creation, it's spotify saving money by putting this shit on my playlists when I never asked for it.

[u/Armejden → u/FocusPerspective]

Or I could just not listen to garbage that makes it onto the radio and dead mall playlists.

[u/C2B280]

There was a study that people actually rated ai music more favorably than human made music when they weren’t labeled https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.02856

[u/Phallic_Intent → u/C2B280]

Ah yes, a study using 65 second instrumental elevator music samples. I see how that directly correlates to pop music and real songs. If this is the best you have and you actually think it means AI generated pop music is better than human created music then I'm finding it hard to believe you have ears. Whether that means you're a bot or just deaf, take it as you will.

[u/Teledildonic → u/Phallic_Intent]

You'd like it if you had ROBOT EARS!

[u/AlternativeUsed2551 → u/C2B280]

doesn't surprise me, the average person has dreadful taste in music

[u/OneTinyKittey → u/AlternativeUsed2551]

Heckin normies don't like the art I like freakin no taste having normies why don't they like what I like it makes me so mad

[u/damontoo → u/C2B280]

There's people all over this thread saying they don't care if humans prefer the slop and that it should be banned regardless. It's nuts.

[u/_pinklemonade_ → u/damontoo]

Why should we embrace it?

[u/damontoo → u/_pinklemonade_]

You don't need to embrace it. But like 50 said, "I don't take fights that I can't win." Outlawing technology instead of regulating it's use has always been a losing position. Time for some radical acceptance.

[u/AlternativeUsed2551 → u/damontoo]

it should be banned because it monetises the work of real musicians without their permission, nothing to do with its perceived quality

[u/The_Grogfather → u/damontoo]

You don’t think it should be banned from the charts?

[u/damontoo → u/The_Grogfather]

No. If it got there because humans listened to it more than human-created music, it belongs there. It's a ranking of the top music people are listening to. Nothing about it stipulates that it must be human created. If I make my own list that ranks top tracks, it's fine for Australia to say I can't include AI music either? What makes the billboard charts different than some rando's list besides being the defacto standard?

[u/More_Hold_5522]

Sorry, Kanye.

[u/Far-Ad-1934]

This is all well and good but what happens when you can’t tell the difference between ai and human, ai is only going to get better where human made music has become stagnant for years now

[u/Due-Joke-1152]

More room for the Psychedelic Porn Crumpets.  

[u/_Aj_]

How does this work with people who use AI tools in their work?  

Similar to Adobe programs which have AI tools within them. Is there a zero AI rule for music? How do they know? How do they enforce it?  

It's one thing to say "grok make me another generic country song about trucks and heartache" and have clearly AI generated songs.    It's another thing to be someone like, Skyebrows, who is a musician who uses AI in the production of their songs that are quite original and totally slap way harder than one ever expects it would. 

[u/sydmanly]

Time to ban AI YouTube videos

[u/ConfinedTiara]

Correction — it only banned songs that are entirely AI. It didn’t ban songs that partially use AI. They should outright ban any use of AI, but Australia is becoming America’s lapdog for AI.

[u/greifinn24]

i recall when Moog Synthesizers were the enemy

[u/SyChO_X]

I wish YouTube music would have a option to block AI music.

[u/Emergency-Share-8353]

Good. Can we ban all the pro-AI morons in the comments too?

[u/americanadiandrew → u/Emergency-Share-8353]

Good idea. Opposing views are really starting to ruin my perfectly constructed echo chamber. Oooh after that we can go to the libraries and schools and ban all the books we don’t like as well!

[u/Justthisguy_yaknow → u/[deleted]]

Giving equal free speech rights to bots and paid AI viral sellers is also pretty moronic.

[u/damontoo → u/Emergency-Share-8353]

In /r/technology? I wouldn't be surprised, unfortunately.

[u/Memphisrexjr]

You have to always ask yourself. Why were they on the charts in the first place?

[u/azionka]

Reminds me of that time they banned TRON from the special effects award because they used a PC

[u/hypnoticmirage]

If the artist behind the a.i. track inputted the entire vocal melody and lyrics, what is the song's status at that point? Digitally enhanced, or a less scowly form of A.I. slop?

[u/sabin357 → u/hypnoticmirage]

I'll share my comment from above, as it touches on what you're talking about. Since I wasn't trying to monetize or even widely spread my stuff, it's not the same thing as the AI slop plague being discussed, but you might find it interesting all the same.

I've used my actual songs from some of my old bands to create updated versions with things like SUNO. A botched hand surgery took my ability to play an instrument, so it's been cool to show my wife songs I wrote & composed 30 years ago before we met. It's accessibility for me just like if I required a wheelchair. It lets me do something that I'm not able to due to a physical disability.

I feed it the lyrics, samples from existing low quality recordings from back in the day or use a DAW to recreate the various instruments & melody. I was even inspired to write new songs with all the free time I had on my hands & skills I was learning, as well as be inspired to complete some partial songs I'd struggled to finish, then I could turn the creation into an actual recording.

AI was only a small part of my workflow & each song was getting somewhere between 20-30hr of hands on "old school" work to make it as good as possible. It would be way more, but I already had the lyrics & music in most cases, I just had to recreate them in a DAW & then work on the AI output as well using my audio engineering skills, weak as they were, to improve it drastically.

I loved it, but I only shared my stuff with my wife & a my friend group. I even made some children's songs for my young niece & nephew that they loved. I had no desire to try putting it up to make money from it.

From my perspective, what I did was similar to being a producer that hired session musicians to cover my songs since I physically couldn't play them myself & didn't let it make any structural creative musical decisions.

[u/hypnoticmirage → u/sabin357]

Very good! I went through similar process in seeing my old tracks come alive again, but enhanced to the moon. I love it. 

My wife said " Hey that's your song!" She thought someone copied my song. lol 

I used to play all the parts except bass, it was fun but exhausting. I'm not interested in doing all of that again, just no time for it either.

Enjoy your creations my friend, you earned it years ago through sweat, now you can enjoy them done up full. So satisfying:)

[u/sabin357 → u/hypnoticmirage]

Yeah, I see it misused frequently & lots of people overgeneralizing because that stuff is looking for attention. People like us are just trying to find some joy we lost & share it with the people we love.

It's a shame they can't see the accessibility aspect.

I gigged, played sessions on albums, even gave guitar lessons for a long time, so it makes me really sad to get the comments like "learn to make music like a normal person!" I wonder if these people also kick the crutches out from under people or shove those in wheelchairs down stairs & tell them to learn to walk like a normal person.

I'm glad we both got to enjoy it as a novel way to play with our own creations.

[u/FocusPerspective]

Meanwhile Taylor Swift can use words written by many other people, autotune, backing tracks, synthesizers, computer generated sounds, backed by a corporation with thousands of workers behind the scenes, while you pretend she’s some “artist with a guitar”.

[u/OkEqual324]

I hope this works but what if artists use it to generate songs in their own style and then present them as compositions?

[u/Mental_Resident_5107]

Australia bans anything that’s let’s normal people be able to make money and make themselves a bit richer, it’s literally a country that likes to keep the poor poor and the rich rich

[u/Tylerulz → u/Mental_Resident_5107]

Protecting artists from losing their jobs ?

[u/ROUXDBOI]

I write and mostly listen to my own AI music. I write my own prompts and lyrics. When I hear bands like TLC or Oliver Tree say they never got paid I don’t really feel like I’m missing anything lol. Plus I’ve met ppl in the music industry, promoters etc and they’ve all been kinda shady if I’m being nice. I’ve been in music school basically my whole life so making this music is easy and fun for me. I don’t really tell anyone anymore bc AI music is still kinda taboo and people get very tribal about it. It’s a happy lonely hobby. And honestly banning AI music from charts doesn’t really change anything for someone like me. I’m not making it to get on the charts or to impress the music industry. I’m making exactly what I want to hear. Oh and when people say they like a song I made I always make sure to let them know that they like AI music. ;)

[u/Celestial_Elixir3]

Josh Fawaz here crying 😂😂😂😂

[u/BadOutOfTheBox]

What!? You mean "I glued my balls to my butthole again" has zero chance at making it to the top 20?

[u/Usual-Masterpiece199]

As someone who makes music, I just can't compete with how advanced AI has become.
It's sad, but...
I mean, not only is it easy to create, but it has an endless supply of ideas, right?

[u/americanadiandrew]

The crackdown comes as a variation of Madonna’s pop hit “Like a Prayer” created by an Australian producer using AI-generated vocals and drums has spent 16 weeks in the Australian top 20, stoking debate about generative AI’s place in music. It peaked at number two on the Australian Record Industry Association’s top 20 Australian singles chart in May and remained in fourth place on Tuesday.

Sounds fucking hideous to me, but the trouble is most people don’t fucking care who made it if they like the song.

[u/whatYourMomCallsMe]

What will boy george do now

[u/mrphoneface]

ha, banned from charts means nothing

[u/LongjumpBrian]

Fair dinkum.

[u/chakan2]

Meanwhile...in the US...is that Charlie Kirk song still on the charts?

[u/HappyGovernment7299]

How do you prove it was made with AI?

[u/RetiredITGuy]

As an Australian myself: Good luck drawing a line where only blur exists.

[u/red286]

That's fine if the people putting it out openly admit that it's AI.

The problem is when they don't. Some of it can be easy to tell, but it's getting harder with each new model. Eventually people won't really be able to tell the difference, at least, not going by the music alone. Of course, these dipshits will still upload like 80 songs in a month and make it super obvious that there's no human involved.

[u/Nik_Tesla]

Better than nothing, but it doesn't really matter what the Australian Record Industry Association does, as long as Spotify continues to push AI music on it's users.

[u/Kelpsie]

Where do I go to find the people whining about this?

[u/fajadada]

Good for them

[u/sleeless]

Only banning wholly generated music. So say the person generating contributes one note then it isn’t wholly ai generated. Any assistance should bar it

[u/vladesch]

I see social media ban mach 2 approaching. Good luck enforcing it.

[u/That_Bit_4815_Flo]

Je trouve cette décision intéressante, car elle cherche à préserver une place pour la création humaine tout en laissant la possibilité d’utiliser l’IA comme outil.

Le plus important sera sans doute de définir clairement la frontière entre musique créée avec l’IA et musique entièrement générée par celle-ci. Un débat qui mérite vraiment d’être suivi.

[u/tjsr]

This will be a can of worms - finding the line is going to be a new political battle.

[u/Ill_Revolution_5827]

Good. Now follow suit, world (looking at you US)

[u/Turbulent-Sign-6067]

If you can AI generated music it will be used secretly instead.

[u/ritesh808]

How would they even enforce this? Especially if something is partly AI-made?

[u/Reasonable-Rain-7474]

All Men at Work all the time!

[u/SpaceEggs_]

Yeah only real music and you still can get everything stolen from your hard work if you sample a flute. Anyway back to jorkin it to cuties, the government's favorite movie.

[u/898648956]

Let's fucking go

[u/EmergencyRace7158]

AI content that isn't clearly labeled as AI generated needs to be banned period.