Is slop a function defined by the tool or the users level of effort in using it?
Once you add in a level of nuance, youre bickering about the degree which is far worse argument to be having, tactically.
Why don't we scrap anything that uses ableton because it makes art sterile [1][2]. Or maybe anything that uses autotune [3]. Maybe we can have stickers that say "AI free". Or maybe the fact that suno is a distribution platform that doesn't encourage creation of the _form_ of art that that I like is the problem [4].
It's a tool. Your view that art exists in some purist state and isn't for people to enjoy is extremist. This war has been fought and lost, continuously, about every innovation in music. People want to enjoy things. You can tell by their pattern of consumption.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2002/05/laptop-2 [2] https://web.uvic.ca/~aschloss/publications/JNMR02_Dilemma_of... [3] https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/vocal-fixes [4] https://www.salon.com/2003/06/18/itunes_innovation
If you are against most uses but want to introduce nuance, my argument is that doing so normalizes the use for the majority of cases you do oppose and makes it harder to organize opposition.
If you’re cool with AI in all cases we don’t have much to talk about.
I have thoughts on when AI is appropriate, but the conversations I want to be having is ‘how do we oppose AI’ and not ‘why is my specific definition of what is Ok better than your very similar one’.
Also, once Any AI is allowed, each step beyond that will be barely worth fighting for because it’s only just beyond acceptability.
Funnily enough, slop AI video I still get entertainment value out of, just because it's often so bizarre and absurd.
The issue I raise is that we can critique the users of it without discarding the tool as used by an artist who produces something that is not slop with it.
