Ask Lemmy

But it isn't the same argument.

When DJs sample, they choose the samples, choose the pitch and playback speed, and choose where and when to put the sample in their songs.

There is no human intentionality in AI-created music. No one decided what the song should sound like, it's a mash of what an algorithm calculates is the most predictable next sound based on its prompt, and it calculates what's next by illegally using the intellectual properties of real humans.

Whoever used this argument with you isn't arguing in good faith.

Edit - I didn't even answer the overarching question. You'll find, in almost all cases, that it isn't the same argument because one or more things that factor into the decision will have changed. Very rarely is a situation entirely static, and if some variables have changed, then the entire argument must be reconsidered.

"Drawing the line" is a Thought Terminating Phrase, which is a concept worth reading and thinking about.

In the abstract / in your example, if you're just "drawing the line" then no, that's not a legitimate argument. It is literally just you saying "nope, I arbitrarily say this is different then this".

However, if you can back up why one thing is different from the other, then it is valid to distinguish between them. Sometimes it can be worth dividing a system into chunks and drawing arbitrary lines rather not drawing any, but you should still be able to logically back up why it's better to chunk things than not.

But in your example, it sounds like you don't actually have a logical argument, just one based on you arbitrarily deciding that music can only be made by a human.

Its not rejecting the logic, its just setting a boundary on it. I can slap my wife playfully for fun, but I cant swing full force. Its the same action, just different limits.

I'm not big on debate and structures and shit, so I'm gonna get blown apart logically here, but if we say "you cant just say we have to draw the line" then you can 'but it logically follows' your way to all manner of unacceptable evil.

In this situation it's safe to say that the DJ of the 90s vs AI today is an "Apples and oranges" comparison.

Where you're taking an endeavour of human effort to take bits of music that already exist and making something brand new out of it, much the same way you could reuse wood claimed from an old 1920s boat to make a new one. Comparing that to "The computer program that makes something that sounds like it could be music because it's copying real songs."

I know it's just an analogy to give an example but ive heard the argument so many times now it's become habit to talk it through lol.

In terms of holding two similar beliefs that are tangentially related, it's entirely possible to say where you draw the line, especially if the argument is a fallacy, for example like the slippery slope, where a person arguing believes that any minor concession will have an exaggerated impact.

Most people honestly don't use clear lines in their logic. Even for many laws and ethics, we don't. I personally think this is okay because using the "drawing a line" thinking is restrictive, meaning it doesn't allow you to grow so well, intellectually-speaking.

A common way people fail to keep to their lines in the sand is when they justify their side, politically speaking, to do something that they've demanded the enemy cannot do. This is bad and unfair. But then again, I'm sure a lot of you will be guilty of this way of thinking throughout your life - we're only human.

Maybe this is age, but I really couldn't care about most people's opinions on subjective topics. Theyre subjective.

Oh, you hate the Top 1000 musicians? Yeah, understandable have a nice day.

Oh, you think AI music is incredible? Yeah, understandable have a nice day.

The only time I waste my energy on arguments is when it involves requiring me to actually do something with the music.

Other explanations are great, but I see yet another difference that makes it not the same argument used twice.

AI does rip off artists because it isn't inspired by music to make something similar, it is literally regurgitating a combination of data with some randomness so that is sounds like of like a thing. But the current implementation is a rip off primarily because it is an end run around copyright by acting like it 'learned' how to make music when it is just parroting it back.

A DJ creates new songs out of recorded snippets of sound. They treat a sample like playing a note on an instrument, and mix them together as music. It isn't just a randomly mashed together mess like AI music, it is put together intentionally in the same way as playing a piano or a guitar. There is a lot of inspiration going on, but each DJ has their own style just like rock musicians have their own styles. The most important difference from AI is that at this point in time they do compensate the artists they sample (it didn't start that way, but was quickly changed).

So the fact that AI is ripping off artists and DJs who sample don't makes it not the same argument.

Essentially your (very specific) example is a situation where someone is citing precedence. You could either disagree that the situations are analogous or you could disagree with the precedent. It's not really a matter of drawing a line so much as figuring out what exactly it is you disagree with.

If you have nothing to back up your opinion beyond choosing arbitrary criteria to define it, then no.

Your opinion about music could be further defined by finding a distinction between the two. An obvious distinction is the actual work done by people in creating it. It could be argued that DJs create a transformative work through their own human effort and creativity. A generative AI is not capable of creativity and is not a human.

Furthermore, "not real music" is gatekeeping, thus not a logical distinction. Gatekeeping is a social control tactic which appeals to tribalism instincts with the intent to cause people to react from their fear of exclusion rather from rational thought. By claiming that AI music is not real music, you are indirectly targeting the agents who favor it rather than targeting the product itself. A better-formed opinion and thus a better argument would stay away from social disqualifiers and focus more on the specifics of what you disapprove of and why.

Music itself has a quite broad definition that in turn relies on other subjective terms. So yeah, totally fine to draw an arbitrary line somewhere, in fact, you kind of have to.

After that it's just a matter of how many people agree with where you drew the line.

@fenderstratocaster@lemmy.world, are you an expert in this kind of line too?