If A.I. took the place of musicians, would you listen to it?

Sounds of nature can definitely be called music. As for the who the composer is, there is no composer, the music created itself. In other words, there was no creation - it always existed.

Human composers don't really create anything either, they simply bring out what was already there.

hilde45, you should drop the whole intention angle. It’s misleading. The throbbing of a big twin motor is definitely music to the mechanic’s ears and only a few are immune to the heavy metal thunder -- intent notwithstanding.

Btw, very nice thread you started!

Thanks. I'll think about it.

Let me see if I am getting your point: In music, intention doesn't matter. Don't look for it. Music is whatever sounds like music to someone. Under this description, nature can make music, engines can make music, and Beethoven can make music. There is no more "intention" in a Beethoven piece than in a waterfall, so none should be looked for -- or used to separate "sounds" (however pleasing" from "music."

Am I getting that right?

Yeah, that's about right, but it's not a yes/no proposition.  The intent of the artist can add to a listener's appreciation of the art work and it can also be completely irrelevant.  Can a person enjoy the music of Charlie Parker without knowing anything about the chords and scales he's using?  Can you enjoy Max Roach or Sonny Rollins without understanding the Civil Rights Movement?  Can you listen to Bach and not be a monotheist? 

A freight train is rolling on the tracks and the engineer in accordance with Federal train regulations sounds the train horn as he approaches a road crossing.  As Warren Zevon put it, "listen to the train whistle whine".  In and of itself it's music and the train whistle has inspired people to create even more music.  It's a wonderment!

I can foresee a time when humans won't make  qualitative judgements vis a vis human vs. AI. Over time the lines will blur as to human vs. AI content, we won't be able to differentiate between the two. The vast majority of human interactions are relatively mundane, the expectation there is some essence of humanity we can intuitively sniff out isn't a consideration in most of this interaction, we are operating at a reflexive, ephemeral level. It is at this level AI will slowly infiltrate our perceptions and/or need to differentiate AI from human. Once it reaches this level (already in beginning stages) we will then be less sensitive to the need to differentiate at more complex, intimate levels of interaction. In the future AI will be able to replicate human expression far more than we can know at this point in time. The question becomes, will we know or care whether we are interacting with AI or another human?  And If we as humans could have sustainable, intimate interactions/relationships with AI, what would be the need for other humans?  Bottom line, could AI make humans obsolete? AI involvement with music is the least of our worries?

I can foresee a time when humans won't make  qualitative judgements vis a vis human vs. AI. Over time the lines will blur as to human vs. AI content, we won't be able to differentiate between the two. 

Given the way we are already prone to dehumanize others about more important things today, I have to agree that most people will run, not walk, to replace human artists with machines that pleasure them without getting tired. They will accept the AI text from their spouse, friend, or child and think, "Who cares if it's really them? As long as I'm hearing what I want, nothing more satisfying can be imagined or desired." That's the point at which jumping off bridges will be very popular, too.