[fasterik]

I listened to the song in question. It's truly awful. Simplistic and cliche in every way musically possible, and it sounds like it was written about 15 years ago at the height of the indie folk craze.

That said, it shouldn't be illegal to like trash, or to make money off of trash if people want to buy it. It's trivial for a human musician with moderate talent and experience to make better music than this. The musicians who are afraid this is going to replace them are probably not doing much original or creative in the first place.

[happytoexplain]

>it shouldn't be illegal to like trash

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.

[fasterik]

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.