[spicyusername]

I have no problem with AI music, but it's absolutely crazy to let labels pretend they're real people.

It should be required to include the AI model as a featured artist. Or maybe it's labeled like DJs, where the prompter is the artist.

As an aside, I think you're going to see a real resurgence of live music that let real artists showcase their real skills.

[kgwxd]

That would require people go outside, and pay for stuff. No one want to go outside, and no one can afford anything.

[MisterTea]

All you need are screens.

[m463]

> let labels pretend they're real people

I thought AI work couldn't be copyrighted, so "pretend" might mean "hide".

[Rochus]

Still more laws and regulations. We're already drowning in regulations.

If you start to require such things, then you should also require that labels declare whether the artist indeed sung him/herself, and whether it was their real voice or some autotuned stuff.

[Capricorn2481]

> If you start to require such things, then you should also require that labels declare whether the artist indeed sung him/herself, and whether it was their real voice or some autotuned stuff

How do you complain about regulations, and then insist on more regulations? These seem like two completely orthogonal things to me. One is to prevent unmitigated spam on music platforms. The other corrects your pitch slightly.

[jollyllama]

The GP never explicitly mentioned law. Now's would be a great time for the recording industry to prove their value by instituting a framework for self-regulation. They could actually differentiate themselves from things like Bandcamp if they had some proper enforcement on this topic. But of course, we know that they're purely extractive, so that won't happen.

[lenkite]

If food can mention artificial ingredients, I see this as effectively the same regulation.