Forums

eh, providing that AI will get good fast at writing at least very serviceable remixes...isn't it all based on good faith at this point, anyway? the essay or info bit would be more of an outlet for the artist to be honest and simultaneously highlight why they think this creative M.O. was interesting in their mind. i think if you allow the use of AI, it's good to at the very least encourage honest disclosure about the particular use.   even if someone *hacks* the judges panel with an almost purely A.I. created remix (and maybe an equally A.I. created faux essay detailing the use of A.I.), they could still disclose it later on in the remix comments... "hhahaha gotcha!" then it's funny atleast.   i think we oughta be focused on people who care about creativity period...setting up some punkbuster-like anti-cheat system seems futile. (of course, you could employ an A.I. to punkbust mixes that are likely created by A.I., but that would seem a very elon musk solution. can't beat em, join em :D)

That background video is cool as fuck

Well, you know I like principles. I'd just personally have a hard time writing that specific principle up, in a universal manner, without it essentially being distilled into Luddism. History is full of examples of technology making some jobs obsolete, or much easier, and I kinda think we're on the first of many waves of AI basically doing that; while I hope that we can get governance and social safety nets in place ahead of time, my observation is that most regulations are reactive, not proactive, in this regard. Perhaps you can rephrase what you think the generalized principle actually is, in a way that wouldn't essentially prevent any new technology from ever disrupting any job market? I believe it's difficult? Sure, I think requesting a brief statement on the use of AI, if it was employed - even if that statement is written by AI, so long as it is accurate - is a decent way of trying to capture the influence of the tech on any given track, in an honor-system mode. Ala Valve. I'm not convinced that usage in a large training dataset, where aesthetics/characteristics are gleaned and end up in a kind of weird soup that almost reminds me of human brains at times, is directly equivalent to usage as a "mere asset". People use OC ReMixes in far LESS transformative fashion, where I suppose you could call it a "mere asset",  when they employ them in non-profit works, streams, let's play videos, etc., don't they? The goal of promoting VGM has some siblings - one related goal is music education, and I think we've always hoped that folks would learn from arrangements, study them, be inspired by them, etc. I guess the key word there is "folks" - it's definitely not the same with AI, because of the scale & speed. I don't want to sound defeatist, here, but I also want to repeat that there is enough music that is completely in the public domain that a pretty capable model could be built from JUST that corpus, so it becomes unclear what is being achieved, precisely... I think this is a great, essential conversation to be having, and this announcement does actually seem like the relevant place for it...

Added to that: be careful that the arrangement still has to be considered a cover, and if you’re very liberal with your arrangement, that may become a problem. Not that I’ve seen that myself, but I already vet the ones that I think are too liberal and simply don’t try to post them. Another big one: original lyrics are a no-go. If the source track has lyrics, you can use those, but anything with your own lyrics won’t fly. To be safe, also for stuff like choirs and so on, stick with the regular oohs and aahs (even though you might possibly get away with the single phrase here and there).