And I'm not even a student there.

AI needs to die in a big, public event.

and harmful in lots of ways. Starting with the theft of the world's intellectual property.

If it's rejected, the financial house of cards it's based on - theft, dishonest hype, and circular financing - will collapse, and AI use will become the mark of shame it should be, rather than something to brag about or at least try to excuse.

Just like they've "archived" all the human-written books and articles in the last 10 years or so.
The only way to protect your work is to never have it digitized, and never post it on the internet.

AI isn't intelligent or creative. It's a very expensive parrot, regurgitating whatever is in it's training database, without understand one damn thing.

I forbid the use of AI in my classes.

and compises music for a living. I'm sure he's voiced his concern.

robots replace workers who can't be replaced by software alone.

Dealing with the public at large, the AI bros have long tried to peddle their illegally trained tools as meant only to make workers' jobs earlier, with shorter work weeks.

Talking to employers, AI bros' main sales pitch is replacing human workers with AI.

I agree completely.

However, I said the same thing about Fruity Loops and other similar programs when they came out over a decade ago, and people are getting Oscar nominations for using them in their scores.

So, it's nothing new, really.

And, yes, it is the opposite of both.

Of course, learning and creativity are the opposite of the modern music industry, but that is another story for another time.

Tony Visconti is a legendary producer, one of my favorite producers, and he has an understandably low opinion of that sort of tech:

https://musictech.com/news/music/tony-visconti-on-modern-producers/

You wrote that AI is "nothing new, really." I wish that were true, but AI is much worse. It can take just a few words in a text prompt to get multiple tracks/songs as options.

The AI user can know absolutely nothing about a type of music or types of instruments mentioned in a prompt, but if they're in the AI music generator's training data of stolen intellectual property, the AI will produce in seconds some fake music cobbled together based on text descriptions of the music (endless books, articles and reviews also had to be stolen to train the music AI) linked to all the world's recorded music the AI company could steal.

Zero effort required.

Zero real knowledge required.

And zero thought beyond a wish to pretend to be a musician without any of the skill, work and commitment.

It's complete - and completely unethical - pretense. Pure fraud.

Basically, it's a course on what is coming that no one asked for.

How will composers price their work if there is an online jingle factory that just needs an account established to get something that's "Good Enough"?

Will Hans Zimmer and Trevor Horn be up against this vending machine?

see what a threat it is.

The AI bros set out to steal.humanity's knowledge and culture, with the intent of selling it back to people, even possibly convincing people they can't create and can't be succrssful without AI.. They have convinced some particularly gullible people that using AI plagiarism machines somehow makes them creative - and some of those gullible people have been flooding the internet with all the slop they can create - but they also stirred up anger and loathing for both the continuing theft by the AI industry, and the fraud that AI enables, and all the other harms it creates.

aren't real creativity. They're a verbal nudge to a genAI model to try to cobble together a pastiche of work stolen from real artists - truly creative human artists, not wannabes pretending via AI.

...
I don't need to finish that.