Creation is a human activity, charged with emotions, efforts, which are their own rewards, as much as the end-product, which is invested of this human (sometimes collective and not instant) effort and intention and creative loopbacks. Let's call that some kind of history (because the process did happen).
Generation short-circuits that entirely, as it happens at non-human speeds, and non-human scales. It's something _else_ entirely. You do get an end-product. It may be fun and useful for some; it sometimes is. However, you don't get the process, the collaboration and the inner transformation it comes with.
Adding: with two different end-products, the issue is then how they are perceived, received, appreciated and valued by those not "in the know" of how they were made. And that is both an artistic, aesthetic and economic problem. Generating soulless shit that isn't invested with a human sentiment miseducates people and destroys taste.
Models that are oriented around one-shot, text-only direction are pretty limiting in creative flow. This will hopefully continue to improve.
Bullshit. These "tools" replace the creator, who now has no meaningful input to what gets created.
The composer is the AI. Not the person who spent 10 seconds typing a prompt.
In the same sense that a music producer telling an artist to "make me a new song" or a new album is creation of music on the part of the producer.
It's not what most people think of when they hear "creating music".
This does not augment the music making process in any way, it simply replaces it with what might as well be a gacha game. There's no low-level experimentation, no knowledge acquisition, no growth, and you can't even truly say you made whatever comes out.
It's not a tool for music creators, it's a tool for people who want slop that's "good enough".
Making an activity in which the primary limiting factors for most people are the time, knowledge, and effort required (as opposed to expensive tools) into an effortless slot machine pull is enfeebling to human creativity and agency. Who will spend the hours of making bad music to get to the point where they become good if they can just rely on something else to generate music that's "good enough"?
There's something to be said about all this which is related to AI generated images that I rarely see brought up: people with specific skills play roles within groups, so AI making their hobby that they dedicated so much time to more easily accessible makes them lose social value, which might make them quit altogether.
The common response that "people should make art because they love it, not for attention" is a prescriptive statement that supposes there are more or less "pure" forms of performing an activity and also ignores that art is a form of communication.
I agree that the slot machine pull of current models is tedious and boring. I look forward to models/systems which better facilitate more creative control, directed exploration and iterative refinement.
