[vouaobrasil]

Musicians want what all creators want: the ability to create and share their art with other people. Because global technology like YouTube actually makes that harder (paradoxically, you can share more but fewer people genuinely care), and because of the global push for artless music (modern pop), and because art is being usurped by the tech leviathan to show ads, musicians have little real venues to make music that truly comes from the heart.

So tech provides a bandaid with tools like this. You might think this will allow you to make more music and maybe it will, but it will just be of the artless kind that serves only for connectionless entertainment that will fill up another infinite scrolling algorithm to the detriment of all of humanity.

I would never use your tool nor want to listen to anything made by it.

[Bjartr]

Artists will use the tools available to them to create art that speaks to them and for them, regardless of how "artless" the tool might be.

[vouaobrasil]

Not sure if you've talked to many artists, but quite a large majority oppose AI, and in practice what "speaks to them" is art created without the interference of AI. (I am one of them, but there are many others).

[satyrnein]

Many artists also opposed the synthesizer.

I think it's too early to tell how this plays out.

[vouaobrasil]

Perhaps, with some issues, we should not let them "play out". I feel like our tendency to let things play out all the time has been a diaster for humanity.

[suoduandao3]

It's funny, I've mostly encountered 'artless' as a complementary descriptor.