trained on intellectual property without permission were trained illegally, and using them (unless under duress, forced to by school or work) is unethical.
Nothing produced by generative AI was actually created by the AI user, any more than someone made an item they shopped for online with keywords, or cooked a meal ordered in a restaurant. It's an illusion of creativity enabled by the theft of the world's intellectual property - the AI robber barons' exploitation of the real knowledge and skills of real people, stolen to offer to AI users so they can pretend to have knowledge and skills they don't have.
Anyone who's ever used genAI knows it can generate quite different results from identical prompts. Image generators typically offer four simultaneous options from a single prompt, options that can look very different. The user didn't create any of them. AI users do have the power of choice when that AI regurgitates something for them that may or may not be close to what they'd envisioned. But so do shoppers. And choosing among things you didn't create isn't creativity or artistry.
Anyone creating real music, through instruments or voice, is much more of a real musician than anyone prompting AI to exploit real musicians' stolen work.
No one who cares about real music should give any support to the travesty that is AI music.
= new reply since forum marked as read