Evaluating Human-AI Interaction via Usability, User Experience and Acceptance Measures for MMM-C: A Creative AI System for Music Composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), there has been increasing interest in human-AI co-creation in a variety of artistic domains including music as AI-driven systems are frequently able to generate human-competitive artifacts. Now, the implications of such systems for the musical practice are being investigated. This paper reports on a thorough evaluation of the user adoption of the Multi-Track Music Machine (MMM) as a minimal co-creative AI tool for music composers. To do this, we integrate MMM into Cubase, a popular Digital Audio Workstation (DAW), by producing a "1-parameter" plugin interface named MMM-Cubase, which enables human-AI co-composition. We conduct a 3-part mixed method study measuring usability, user experience and technology acceptance of the system across two groups of expert-level composers: hobbyists and professionals. Results show positive usability and acceptance scores. Users report experiences of novelty, surprise and ease of use from using the system, and limitations on controllability and predictability of the interface when generating music. Findings indicate no significant difference between the two user groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".