Because people don’t want to listen to robots. There was a radio station here in Norway caught playing AI music to save on royalties, it was not good for them.

Music is about the human experience, emotions, mistakes, accidents, discoveries.

I could listen to music by real people being vulnerable and expressing themselves, or I could listen to a computer soullessly regurgitating a stock "blues" melody with inane lyrics about a trash can. Why would I ever pick the latter?

I wouldn't be surprised if it has, or is currently in the process of, doing so. The results are good enough at this point that I think you could probably drop a few songs into a popular Spotify playlist and someone who didn't listen too closely would be fooled. I assume someone is already doing this.

It has hit the mainstream imo. Most people are content with the amount of music already available.

it's not art (for humans) if it's not made by a human with a human story. AI can be used as the tool with which art is made, but not as the maker itself. now, on the other hand, maybe AI can make it's own form of art for other AI's to consume. However, for the human, the creation of art will always need the human taste and story involved

From the OP:

> For complex AI generated music, tools like Suno and Udio are obviously in a different league as they're trained specifically on audio and can produce genuinely impressive results. But that's not what this experiment was about.

I agree. It's shockingly good.

It's not just good at producing complete songs though, AI has made it trivial to take garbage and make it sound good.

I largely stopped making music because imo unless you're in the top 5% of musicians AI is probably able to write better music than you.

I guess it's the same with visual artists. Unless you're really, really good it's hard to understand why anyone would produce art by hand these days.