So, what would be the difference between the composer and the client then? I say cut out the middleman, and let the client generate their own music directly.
Why pay an elector posing as a composer? For their taste and decisions alone? Taste is acquired. AI is only going to get better. Let the client make their dreams come true without the needless back and forth between them and “a composer”. Let them speak directly to the boss.
This is speculation about the future, but it’s likely built on a misunderstanding of what clients hire composers for. Clients usually have strong taste and clear preferences - I have experienced this very thing many times. What they don’t have is the musical craft to turn those ideas into structured, emotionally coherent music, that’s why they hire composers/producers etc. AI doesn’t change that distinction, just adds more tools into the ever increasing tech-heavy toolbox that modern music production already relies on.
Well, that’s a precarious assumption to take as a theorem. For your sakes, all people trying to make a living out of music I mean, I hope it holds and that the proof will not present the greatest oops of all times.
Because when the craft starts revolving around prompts, maybe composers will not have an advantage over the client. That craft doesn’t involve knowning theory, harmony, ranges, rhythms, orchestration, tracking, recording, mixing, etc etc..
You just charged him with a character flaw and then showed that same thing yourself. Dismissing his comment because of some made up fear that you have invented.
You have also proven what he said about it’s pointless to argue with you people. You just don’t get it cause your heart is set on AI so nothing can convince you otherwise anymore.
…
Fear of technological change? What even is that? Is that some kind of metal boogyman? Music Optimus Prime 2000 the Robo villian? 
Um, nope aktually, us who are against AI haven’t defiled our conscience to the point it no longer functions (therefore AI generation is still disgusting to us because it’s disgusting); because nobody likes people getting something for nothing, cause that’s unjust, and so the vast amount of grifting required to try and making stealing appear to be not stealing, cause people who can’t make music worth a damn are making music by stealing. That’s not technological progress! That’s a CRIME; in any generation of man in human history, except for this one.
AI generation is as a gold ring in a pig’s snout.
But it is that simple. I can also say all rapists = bad. They are without excuse and a robot making music is not music, no matter how bad some people need that crutch.
AI lovers can say the word “tool” all day, but it doesn’t prove anything. It’s more like religious chanting. Just like charles dawkins will say the word “science” until you believe in magic monkeymen.
Because these things exist that justifies you using them? Your proof that they ought to exist is because they already do? What? So a machine gun got updated to a newer model so that means I’m free to use it how I like cause an older model exists? Is this really the IQ level of your defense of AI? It exists therefore = good. ?
Well, thank you , I didn’t know I had it in me.
I love technology; if it wasn’t for technology, I wouldn’t be able to do what I do today…
Don’t shoot the messenger, bro.
Again, don’t shoot the messenger.
Of course not, I have zero moral superiority. I told people facts (when arguing in the past about this BS) and we were coming back to the same BS. Hence, I am really tired of this.
I just answered a post, that’s all.
Thank you for the refresher.
None of the above equates to → Open window → type in the form prompts such as → Rock track → Up beat → Happy → Awesome.
Darn, you got me arguing again about this…ARRGGGGGGGGG!!!
Were you asked at one point or another to choose a future with or without AI—meaning its data centers, its millions of processors, and its immeasurable memory driving all prices up? No? Neither was I… Same with the smartphone, same with the digitization of all public and banking services. No referendum, no poll, only constraint with no choice possible.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you used AI to come up with that response. Because your response is also a textbook example of ideological absolutism.
Showcase one scenario where AI musicians are not doing that. Because I can’t see it. And if you’re using it to make music for others without disclosing it like essentially every musician not paid by Suno out there, you’re proving that point on top of commiting fraud.
None of those features are opt-out by default and not all versions of Cubase have those features either. You’re doing the equivalent of proving the point of door locks being useless by taking someone’s door down with a battering ram. Cubase doesn’t auto quantize or perfectly tune your audio automatically. Pretty much every single AI tool out there uses your data and information entered for their auspices first then maybe they’ll ask you if you give them permission. And even if you don’t, they just can’t stop using all of your data. You have to jump through multiple hoops. It’s like when Spotify puts your music in their platform without your permission and then you have to take Spotify to court to have it removed. Then it’s back in there a few months later again without your consent. This is a whole ethics matter not limited to your quantification fallacy. Or in the words of Richard Stallman: “Other people have cancer. Why shouldn’t you?”
You call it “computer-assisted activity.” I call it “standing on the shoulders of giants you defaced and calling yourself a giant.” You didn’t make anything. You asked a mathematical algorithm to give you a “reader’s digest” version of the collective work of thousands of people then picked the stuff which pleased you and called yours when you did no work to get there.
Just a note - the Logical Editor is not generative
This room is getting too hot for me.
Thanks, AI!
When I first saw that, I thought it said “Thanks, Al!” (in the voice of Peggy Bundy) 
.
It seems to me that the crux here is how you use AI and what for. I ask myself “Do I need AI?”, and the answer is no. It could be a nice to have, if used ethically and pragmatically; I see no use for it creatively. Since I don’t need it, and since the cost of having it is far, far too high, I am against. It reminds me of the obsession with “Organic” as a label some while back: all marketing and no substance.
Without getting lost in the weeds with a list of further suggestions to clutter the water, I want to thank Mohamad for a clean, clear direction that I sincerely hope Steinberg decides to follow.
I wish posts weren’t hidden so we can see them. I always wondered what someone wrote that got it moderated. Same with reddit: “post got deleted by moderator”. SHOW US WHY!
