>or to make money off of trash if people want to buy it
The article is about a chart, not a distribution platform. Regardless, we make laws controlling the ability to make money off of things people want to buy all the time - laws protect humans (idealistically) and our economy/incentives (realistically).
>The musicians who are afraid this is going to replace them are probably not doing much original or creative in the first place.
This is a lie. People of all creativity/originality levels are justified in believing that AI will improve.
You're right, I shouldn't have used the word "illegal". But banning something from the charts is basically saying "people are wrong to listen to this". Why can't people make up their own minds about what to listen to?
I think the end product is what matters, not what tools were used to make it. I don't see a principled argument for drawing the line at AI tools but not other software tools like DAWs or plugins that generate chord progressions and melodies using techniques other than machine learning.
They can listen to it, it's just not being considered to be in the charts. You are again implying something that isn't there, people do listen to this crap but the chart producers created a rule for their system where it won't show there.
No one is stopping people from listening at all, it's just someone's rule for their thing, nothing else.
Nobody is suggesting this.
>or to make money off of trash if people want to buy it
The article is about a chart, not a distribution platform. Regardless, we make laws controlling the ability to make money off of things people want to buy all the time - laws protect humans (idealistically) and our economy/incentives (realistically).
>The musicians who are afraid this is going to replace them are probably not doing much original or creative in the first place.
This is a lie. People of all creativity/originality levels are justified in believing that AI will improve.