Lived in a little shit town where everyone was in your business, coupled with a nanny ass school principal who felt is was his duty to society to parent every kid in the school himself.

Me and another kid got detention for fighting.

At my house.

On a Saturday.

I heard on AM radio that opening doors is woke now so I just repeatedly crash into them until someone else opens it, and then I shove my way past and say, “thanks libtard.”

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.

Rose

IYKYK