Billboard allows AI song to continue charting

[Ladle Ghoulash 54,440]

1 minute ago, JohnnyVersace said:

This is why it’s a tricky subject imo. Because AI can be used to create an artist’s vision that isn’t feasible. But at what point is it deemed “bad” or “unethical”? Idk if Billboard can really dictate that

 

I think if it’s being used to compose the bulk of the song or generate the vocal, that’s at least a solid place to start

[Economy 52,931]

9 hours ago, SavetheEarthNow said:

Billboard, like all the charts, are trash. If the Grammys or the Oscars award songs written (actually stolen, because that's what AI actually does - it steals art) by AI, artistry is officially dead, credibility of the voters is officially dead and it'll be time for a major artistic rebellion. 

In the words of Patrizia Reggiani, I may not be ethical, but I am fair.... What I can't wrap my head around is people who steal just for ego. 

 

 

 

 

 

Its gross tbh. AI belongs in being a useful tool for research in medical field and other fields of research. Im even ok with using it as a tool to help with sets and backgrounds on some movies and tv shows instead of CGI

 

But it does not belong in art creation. Art is by nature about emotional expression. AI has no emotion so it should not participate in such things (and like you said, steals what has already been done)  

Edited Wednesday at 09:04 PM by Economy

[JohnnyVersace 9,297]

12 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I think if it’s being used to compose the bulk of the song or generate the vocal, that’s at least a solid place to start

100%, but this is going to keep happening. What your'e saying is exactly my point - is it all or nothing? Or a percentage of the composition? Who is to say where the line is drawn? 

[Ilia Malinin 3,012]

2 hours ago, darkgaga said:

I am also creative sector, and at our office we try to use those new technologies as best as possible instead of being scared of it

good for you.  i refuse to do that because of what generative ai super computers are doing to water.  my small city is getting one of these data centres and thousands of people in my city are about to lose clean drinking water, possibly forever.

[loveandpeace 1,852]

If I were him, I would’ve kept it to myself. I mean, is there actually any rule that says you have to disclose that you’re using AI in music, for example?

[gumzy3000 7,923]

AI for business - yes 

AI for art - hell no x 100000

[Defmix100 7,109]

11 hours ago, Ilia Malinin said:

good for you.  i refuse to do that because of what generative ai super computers are doing to water.  my small city is getting one of these data centres and thousands of people in my city are about to lose clean drinking water, possibly forever.

the data centers are insane, I saw something about some people actually losing their homes even if they had it fully paid off

[Future Lovers 7,711]

On 8/12/2026 at 7:09 AM, SavetheEarthNow said:

If the Grammys or the Oscars award songs written (actually stolen, because that's what AI actually does - it steals art) by AI, artistry is officially dead, credibility of the voters is officially dead

At least as of now they won’t. I believe both shows (along with other major US and UK award shows) have specific stipulations against it. 

[Future Lovers 7,711]

16 hours ago, darkgaga said:

I am also creative sector, and at our office we try to use those new technologies as best as possible instead of being scared of it

Well then you and your co-workers aren’t real creatives. 

Like I’m sorry to be so blunt but no one who actually sees any value in art would accept AI into that process whatsoever, so I have to assume based on a statement like this that you don’t see that value. 

Real creatives do.

Edited Thursday at 11:47 AM by Future Lovers

[gagzus 23,623]

23 hours ago, shape of a rvfzme said:

Let them completely ban AI from streaming and the art world. I'd rather have this spammed on TikTok than hear something on Spotify 

Sadly because people have this ridiculous “AI allows people to be artistic” view — despite the fact it doesn’t make you an artist it makes you a collagist.

[gagzus 23,623]

7 minutes ago, Future Lovers said:

Well then you and your co-workers aren’t real creatives. 

Like I’m sorry to be so blunt but no one who actually sees any value in art would accept AI into that process whatsoever, so I have to assume based on a statement like this that you don’t see that value. 

Real creatives do.

I second this. Me and my coworkers recently lost out on a big contract at the company I do Graphic Design at, because the client said it was cheaper them using AI to generate something in the style they wanted for all their marketing instead of having us make it from scratch for them. 

They’ve since posted said marketing and we all agree it’s HORRIBLE and cartoon-like. Almost Disney knockoff.

[NewEnglandWitch 97]

On 8/12/2026 at 4:52 PM, JohnnyVersace said:

Because AI can be used to create an artist’s vision that isn’t feasible.

Elaborate please? I definitely don’t agree with this statement