Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music AI The 2000 Beanies

New Grammy Award Rules Require Human Input, Curb AI Use 38

Posted by BeauHD from the human-creators-only dept.
The Recording Academy on Friday updated its rulebook for the Grammy Awards, banning work produced entirely by artificial intelligence. Some music created with AI help may still qualify, however. Reuters reports: Music creators must now contribute to at least 20% of an album to earn a nomination. "A work that contains no human authorship is not eligible in any categories." In the past, any producer, songwriter, engineer or featured artist on an album could earn a nomination for album of the year, even if the person had a small input.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Grammy Award Rules Require Human Input, Curb AI Use More

New Grammy Award Rules Require Human Input, Curb AI Use

Comments Filter:

  • As long as it brings in viewers. From 2012 the viewership of the awards show is about 1/3 the size now.

    • How many of those viewers are bots collecting training data?

    • I agree.

      I don't understand how AI is special relativity any other aid in making art.

      If one is able to get something out of it that moves people it seems to me one should get credit.

      • I've been thinking about how this would go, and I kind of think that people are overreacting a little, but in the case of the writers guild, for example, I'm thinking that, essentially, they're worried that the corpses would fire most of the writers, and require or cause the fewer writers the use of the tool through time-starvation. Someone's always going to cross over to do that work.
        Or worse, for anyone wanting to be entertained, some suit just "computer, give me 4 episodes of {sit-com} {social structure}

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          That is exactly it.

          It's basically the studios thinking they no longer need writers - that a writer can be replaced by ChatGPT. So some executive producer goes, fires all the writing staff, then asks ChatGPT for scripts instead.

          Same goes with virtual actors - some executive producers think they can replace all the actors and have ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, etc to act out the entire show.

          Of course, for the studios, it's not about the writers, but saving money - after all, if you can direct more of that $10M/e

          • Welp, maybe we'll end up with another United Artists. That is, using Leia's rule of the tightening fist of oppression and some creative destruction. So write your "AI" canned shows. Real artistry lives over here? It's going to happen anyway outside any union shop situation, internationally certainly. I dunno, Americans by and large prefer reality TV and McDonalds, although there are many that appreciate craftsmanship it's not enough to sustain quality by the numbers. We get....Starbucks, but also, fine coff

        • I think I mis understood the post I was replying too.

          I understand the WGA, though I honestly wouldn't mind editing AI output, giving it the human touch with the outline and drudgery handled, it is also a slippery slope.

          I've used it in the sense of "write a brochure for a this type of business" and heavily edited the output and it made my job much more pleasant.

          As a consumer of TV, I'm more concerned about the studios trying to drop set writers.

          • I think that's what we should be using it for. And you're right about the real people involved. It's kind of like realizing that there's a person behind everything. For example, the automated announcement you hear at the airport. Someone went to work one day and read a script into a mic, they won't be needed to do that anymore, and the copywriter just pulls from Airplane! not like the text isn't set already besides some localization. There are many more examples like it.

            And besides, he's the one who want

  • Improve that percentage (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chrism238 ( 657741 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2023 @10:12PM (#63619838)
    I believe that that 20% figure (by humans) should be 80%.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Gordo_1 ( 256312 )

      What's more interesting to me is how they would calculate a percentage of human input in the first place. If I write a very detailed prompt that outputs the final song without additional tweaks, what percentage was I responsible for the song?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        What's more interesting to me is how they would calculate a percentage of human input in the first place. If I write a very detailed prompt that outputs the final song without additional tweaks, what percentage was I responsible for the song?

        Probably input versus output. How many characters was your prompt, versus how many characters was the output?

        If your prompt was 100 characters long and it produced a 900 character string as output, you contributed 10% (100/(100+900)) of the output.

        In the case of the 80%

    • Oh, then most awards are already null and void. Most stuff is already heavily edited by computers, with lots of inputs already auto suggested by algorithms. Like rhythm corrections, voice corrections, voice additions and enhancements, instrumental additions... the list is very long. At 80% "most" (of the insiders circle) would not qualify.

      I would say 20% is more like realistic. But then, how would they even know how to compute and arrive at this percentage? It's not all apples or oranges to be able to compu

  • Human input? (Score:3)

    by gosso920 ( 6330142 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2023 @10:16PM (#63619844)
    Like, say, Milli Vanilli?

    • Those guys were talented entertainers. The musical performers were also very good. The only mistake they made was not labelling themselves as a performance group and misleading people, because otherwise their act was pretty great.

      - Surak, still bitter that this was done to Milli Vanilli but no one called Paula Abdul on that not really being a six foot tall animated cat.

  • At this point, it's all synthetic (Score:3)

    by presearch ( 214913 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2023 @11:16PM (#63619930)

    So they are afraid copy-pasted loops won't win all the popularity contest any more?
    What about a piece that's auto-generative that someone just patched up some algo and pressed record?

    Might as well let everything in.
    If someone made some sounds, and recorded and released it, it should count.

  • Presidents in Paris.
    Period.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • Because if you start banning AI at the Grammys, there won't be any musicians left.

  • I have an idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @06:12AM (#63620416) Journal

    Open the competition to everyone/everything.
    Let the legions of AIs do the voting.
    Then no humans have to watch that shit at all.

  • We don't serve their kind here.

  • Ronnie Scott jokes... (Score:3)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @07:46AM (#63620526)
    ...Ah, time to revive some golden oldies, just like "musicians" or "artists" typically do nowadays (I mean the ones who can't be bothered to learn to actually play music on instruments for themselves): Q: How do you know when there's a guitarist knocking at your door?
    A: He doesn't know when to stop.

    Q: How do you know when there's a singer at your door?
    A: She can't find the key & she doesn't know when to come in.

    Q: What do you call a guy who hangs out with musicians?
    A: A drummer.

    Q: How do you get a guitarist to turn his amp down?
    A: Put sheet music in front of him.

    Favourite joke of a singer I used to work with: "Ooh thank you. I do like a warm hand on my entrance." ...OK, OK, I'll get my coat...

    BTW, concerts that just have a rapper/MC with a radio mic, lights, screens, & a PA are a pretty mediocre substitute for a real band that can actually perform music at a decent professional level. I fear a lot of audiences are missing out & don't realise it. Then again, lots of people listen to music through the loudspeaker on their phone.

  • Doesn't matter. (Score:3)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @08:54AM (#63620750)

    The Grammy Awards are mostly industry masturbation. No need to kink shame. Let them jerk off however they please.

  • Movie studies will flip to entirely AI generated content once the tech matures. Why pay expensive actors, crew, equipment, sets, etc.? Human-acted movies will become a novelty. Not sure what the awards will look like at that point.

    I, for one, look forward to the 99 new seasons of Firefly that I have always wanted.

    • Movie studies will flip to entirely AI generated content once the tech matures. Why pay expensive actors, crew, equipment, sets, etc.? Human-acted movies will become a novelty. Not sure what the awards will look like at that point.

      I, for one, look forward to the 99 new seasons of Firefly that I have always wanted.

      I mean no one is saying you can't make AI content and you'll make money or whatever you just can't win an award for creativity which is what we're talking about. as far as I'm concerned 20% is a low bar no one should be upset about this.

  • AI could only be an improvement over what the grammies currently consider to be music.

  • I wonder when was the last time that an actual artist was awarded with a Grammy.

Slashdot Top Deals

There are never any bugs you haven't found yet.

Close