I get that you don't need to be a professional instrument player to make good music...or be a professional composer...but if everything that takes effort, knowledge, experience and practice is done for you, what are you really contributing? Curation, maybe?
This is great for people who make indie games to focus on gameplay and structure. You can make a full soundtrack and background images in a 2 minutes for free. But you can't say it is going to help foster the creativity that great composers valued, because you will eventually see e.g. music at the top level, as styles you can remix with some characteristics, but won't be aware of how they are built and can be rebuilt to create something truly new.
This will limit creativity, because we will associate novelty with a high-level remix/fusion in a preset number of dimensions instead of the much higher possibilities coming from complexity underneath.
...it's like I'm talking about low-level programming languages vs high-level ones :)
The self-repairable part is odd to me.You need to keep feeding, oxygenating it and to prevent infections, otherwise it will rot :S Besides, on humans the healing relies on blood for platelets and crusts to form and a whole immune system...it needs too much babysitting to be called "self-healing".
I think it's pretty clear they want to own it, not ban it.
First, they will use the rights of artists to gather popular and lawmaker support in their war against AI-content, then big labels will integrate it to turn around and screw creators over. It's a classic.
I was surprised it took them this long. But this just means that labels want to own AI songmaking, this is not good for creators or listeners either. Rick Beato was talking about this today:
