Nah.
Categorizing all AI as slop lacks nuance and demonstrates a shallow understanding of art
Categorizing all AI as slop lacks nuance and demonstrates a shallow understanding of art
1.) Sampling a real snare sound 2.) Suno generating a couple random snare hits for you to choose from
? There are ways to use it that aren't far-removed from how real producers work.
It's different to say "Generate me top-40 Sounding pop song"... But Suno has more uses than that.
Tweaking drum sounds until they sound good is one of the more satisfying activities for a beat producer, and one of the primary ways I demonstrate my value. I’m not paying to turn that over to someone else.
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.
You may see it as a means towards the collective action you'd prefer, but your argument is that sheep are easier to herd towards a goal you've already determined is "right" without inviting critical thought or analysis when you don't allow for nuance.
Even if true, I disagree with both your assertion that "organizing against AI" is the right path forward, and the approach to engaging in discourse.
I also don’t really think the problem with society is that we’re ‘polarized’, a viewpoint which believes that there are merits to “both sides” of human rights issues.
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.
Because if you can’t do that, and effectively articulate why AI media can’t be art when used as a tool by an artist to achieve their creative intent, I would claim the win on this. one.
I have zero desire to get into a semantic argument over this. That would be very boring and is a poor refuge for anyone trying to have an honest discussion.
It’s not a coincidence that nearly all the people today with actual artistic talent universally despise AI. Meanwhile it’s all the talentless tech bros who won’t shut up about how they’re now incredible “artists” that love AI.
I don’t see prompting an AI as creating art in the same way that commissioning a painting doesn’t make you an artist. In this example, it’s the AI model that is the artist creating the “art”, but since AI models aren’t sentient (yet) then what they create isn’t art anymore than a sunset is despite being aesthetically beautiful.
Your “it’s just a tool” argument is especially ridiculous when you consider that the “tool” can create the same “art” in its entirety without you. It would be like if I googled the Mona Lisa and copy pasted it into Paint and then called myself an artist because I used Google and Paint as my tools.
In the case of AI models anything you can think to prompt is already embedded in the model so it’s not like you’re even creating anything. It’s already there. If you have infinite monkeys on a keyboard prompting AI they can generate every single possible image an AI is able to generate. Where is the artistry again?
--
Your framing of AI presumes that my proposal is prompt in >> art out. False frame.
You also state "near universal" disdain of AI from people with "actual" talent. A bold claim to make with little data, and at least for me, clear examples of being false.
I know award-winning directors, iconic creatives, and career/professional artists who are all excited by the technology, exploring ways to use it, and learning how to composite it into their work.
Perhaps you would propose that they have no talent and are not "true" artists! This is why I ask for the definition of art. It's not a "poor refuge" for an honest discussion, it's something that is the fundamental term upon which your argument is hinged. You can't gatekeep "art" without defining what the gate is.
The OP talks about Suno Studio - A DAW experience with recording, editing, generative tools, and generative restyling. This is, objectively, a different level of tool than a "prompt to music" generation experience.
Something that is composited through multiple decisions made by a human, toward some end that only they see, through an iterative process...
Well, I'd say that's where the artistry is.
Let’s play a game. I’ll pick an artist who hates AI and you reply with an artist that loves AI. Let’s see who runs out first.
https://www.wired.com/story/guillermo-del-toro-hopes-hes-dea...
I'll do you one better - I'll cite someone who has changed their mind.
https://deadline.com/2025/04/james-cameron-use-ai-cut-cost-f...
The songwriter for K-Pop Demon Hunter’s Soda Pop used AI to help them write the lyrics - fine. The hacks on X calling themselves incredible artists because they can prompt Dall-E - slop.
The majority of people using AI believe that production itself is art. They produce slop because they have no craft, no taste, and no innate talent.
Artists recognize that art requires the development of craft and taste - and there are many that see AI as a tool that can be used in that process.