I’m wondering if its a legitmate line of argumentation to draw the line somewhere.

If someone uses an argument and then someone else uses that same argument further down the line, can you reject the first arguments logic but accept the 2nd argument logic?

For example someone is arguing that AI isnt real music because it samples and rips off other artists music and another person pointed out that argument was the same argument logically as the one used against DJs in the 90s.

I agree with the first argument but disagree with the second because even though they use the same logic I have to draw a line in my definition of music. Does this track logically or am I failing somewhere in my thoughts?

  • AnchoriteMagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    17·
    2 hours ago

    But it isn’t the same argument.

    When DJs sample, they choose the samples, choose the pitch and playback speed, and choose where and when to put the sample in their songs.

    There is no human intentionality in AI-created music. No one decided what the song should sound like, it’s a mash of what an algorithm calculates is the most predictable next sound based on its prompt, and it calculates what’s next by illegally using the intellectual properties of real humans.

    Whoever used this argument with you isn’t arguing in good faith.

    Edit - I didn’t even answer the overarching question. You’ll find, in almost all cases, that it isn’t the same argument because one or more things that factor into the decision will have changed. Very rarely is a situation entirely static, and if some variables have changed, then the entire argument must be reconsidered.

  • gigastasio@sh.itjust.works
    3·
    1 hour ago

    The short answer is, yes, you can accept an arguments logic and reject it as a rebuttal for said argument. In doing so, however, it’s good practice to critically think about how the logic is applied for both the argument and the counterargument.

    With this particular example, I see the parallels being drawn as faulty. The way AI constructs music is not the same method used by DJ’s, and both arguments are oversimplified and show a lack of understanding how either works.

    “DJ’s sample and rip off other artists.”

    DJing was an established practice for decades as a means of broadcasting music, and artists were (and still are) compensated for those broadcasts through royalties collected by PRO’s. There are laws in place that protect the artist and spell out instances of “fair use” in sampling. DJ’s in the 70’s and 80’s began to elevate the practice to a performance art, which led to the evolution of several new musical genres, but they all still function within that legal framework. So maybe people did in fact say this to disparage what DJ’s do, but it’s incorrect.

    “AI music samples and rips off other artists.”

    It would be a stretch to say that the way in which data is fed to an AI/LLM qualifies as “sampling” in its commonly understood sense. However, given that the music being used to train AI’s is used without the consent of the artist, without compensation, with the aim of copying or mimicking the style or brand of an artist, sometimes even down to a single musician’s timbre and/or mannerisms, there are serious legal issues that must be addressed. So while I can take issue with some of the semantics of the statement, I can agree with its spirit.

    So I’d say this: maybe instead of thinking of it a “drawing a line,” think of it as ensuring that both arguments are being supported by statements grounded in reality.

  • over_clox@lemmy.world
    15·
    2 hours ago

    I have the right to wipe my ass with a pinecone.

    You have the right to tell me that’s not the right thing to do.

    So, which of us is right? 🤔

    💩