AI Music Studies:Preparing for the Coming Flood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As music generated using artificial intelligence (AI music) becomes more prevalent -originating not only from individuals but also commercial services -the need to study it and its impacts becomes important. How can this material and its sources be meaningfully studied and critically engaged with, especially considering the unprecedented scales possible with generative AI? The paper begins to answer this question by considering AI music along seven aspects: 1) the company providing an AI music service; 2) its founders and employees; 3) the use of the service; 4) the users; 5) the algorithms; 6) the music; and 7) the sustainability. We make our discussion more concrete by considering the contemporary AI music service Boomy. While our investigations are preliminary and focused on a single AI music service, we argue that they open several interesting avenues of exploration for many disciplines and their intersections to help prepare for the coming flood of AI music. This paper asks many more questions than it answers, which is a feature (not a bug) of it advocating for a new domain of study: AI Music Studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".