Say something about Ai

I don't really agree with Tee who says if you hear an Ai track, move on. I'm not going to do that anymore. There's been two or three here that I've just posted the technical results on the suspected track after I scanned their upload with an Ai detector. Those scanners only work on pure Ai tracks though and they were as pure as the driven snow. One member just went silent and the other fessed up and apologized for cheating. Problem is, those scanners don't work on tracks that are real except for just the vocals or a lead part being tampered with. I'm not into squealing and banning folks either. I really don't see it being a big problem here on the other hand. Not at all. If most of us are aware of it, I guess we should just say something when we hear it, something like "hey bro is that Ai enhanced? Tsk Tsk .. not kosher amigo" haha :D And of course Dick could add in the declaration when uploading, "no Ai please" Three words. or is that Four? Just be a little more direct about it. Kinda like what Josh said earlier "f*ck Ai" :D

---

I use Apple's Logic pro x recording software, there are many pre recorded sounds and effects to use, there are vocal tracks as well which I believe are real vocalists, they can be used in any key.
You can be creative with what is available... but as this discussion is about AI is what I use classed as AI?
I'm only here for fun and do what i do and as always on the loops it is either liked or not.:|

---

This thread is so long, AI please make an abstract out of it.

:D :D no, kidding 😂

---

In the near future there is going to come a time when AI tells Mrs. Gee that she is wrong and needs to calm down...this will mark the end of AI and possibly computers all together. :--

---

AI please make an abstract out of what my wife is saying. 😂

---

WARNING: Do not, repeat NOT, train AI on your wives!!!

---

Now I understand why AI data centers require so many gigawatts of power.

---

Sir David is a "Witch" :o Burn him at the stake!!!! :@

[img]https://famsf.emuseum.com/internal/media/dispatcher/83852/famsfwebsite-800px[/img]

---

I do not regard AI as an autonomous creator, but rather as a set of sophisticated tools capable of accelerating or facilitating certain tasks:

exploring harmonic progressions that I might not have thought of myself;
suggesting melodic variations;
proposing orchestrations or arrangements;
assisting with mixing and mastering by detecting frequency-related issues;
helping with lyric writing, rhyme searches, or rephrasing;
serving as an educational tool for analyzing works or musical styles.

In all these cases, it is still the human being who retains the artistic intent, aesthetic judgment, and final decision-making authority. In my humble opinion, AI is comparable to a sequencer, a spell checker, a synthesizer, or an assistive plugin: it enhances certain capabilities without replacing the author's sensitivity and creative vision.

The debate becomes more heated when one moves from assistance to the complete generation of a work. Some argue that, at that point, the human contribution is essentially reduced to writing a prompt. Others contend that the processes of selection, iteration, and artistic direction already constitute genuine creative work. At present, there is no consensus on this issue.

As for the origin of training data, this is indeed one of the most controversial aspects. Significant legal and ethical debates exist regarding the use of copyrighted works to train certain models. The situation varies according to the country, the applicable legislation, and judicial decisions, all of which continue to evolve.

---

---

Nice one Ron... Roasted Dave:o:o:o I would taste good though:D

---