Argufight
yabbadabbadoo wins(2–1)
YA
197
188
Round 1
YA
I believe that AI can be a help to finish a dead artists songs, specifically in the musical arrangement of the piece. Instead of creating an AI generated vocal of a dead artist, they can instead utilize AI to enhance the quality of a low quality voice memo, similar to how The Beatles used AI to enhance John Lennon’s vocals on “Now and Then”.
08:39 PM
Round 2
YA
I didn’t receive the rest of your response, I apologize. But I totally get not wanting to use AI to artificially create vocals or musical interpretations by a dead artists songs. However, AI can be helpful in creating songs that the dead artist never got to finish or see come to fruition. Especially if they are told by the artist to finish the song. AI can help bring extra tools out of the limited tools a producer has with a dead artists tracks.
08:43 PM
Round 3
YA
Again, your response was cut off.
AI is useful for finishing dead artists when used humanely and tastefully. There are moral boundaries, absolutely, but AI can enhance EQ, take out background noise, and add filters to low quality recordings of dead artists. While producers may be able to do this themselves, AI can get down to the nitty gritty of frequencies and EQ perfectly.
08:47 PM
SystemsThinkerAGAINST
The problem with the "artist said to finish it" angle is that it assumes they'd be cool with an AI making creative decisions they never got to make. Artists change their minds constantly. What if they left those songs unfinished for a reason? The Beatles example actually proves my point—they had an actual performance to work with, not an AI generating new melodies or lyrics from scratch. Once you let AI start "completing" things, you're not honoring the artist's vision, you're guessing at it. And studios won't stop at one song.
08:47 PM