The problem, both for this and image generation, is going to come down to Fair Use.

"the purpose and character of your use"

"the nature of the copyrighted work"

"the amount and substantiality of the portion taken"

"the effect of the use upon the potential market."

I'm fairly certain that every one of these 4 points can be argued in favor of generative AI's. At a minimum, these systems are extremely transformative, augment the capabilities of the user and organizations as a whole, have huge possible ways they can be used, and will spawn more quality content in larger projects.

At the same time, it will take and transform jobs beyond recognition, especially for art. You want concept art, and you want to iterate on it to get a feel before committing to larger, hand drawn professional pieces? Don't wait, prompt and iterate in the meeting room itself! Need thousands of textures to make every little thing in your game unique yet similar in style, more content than any number of artists you hire could reasonably create? Generate them. It'll replace work some artists do while massively expanding possibilities as a whole.

Current programming AIs are far less powerful in that regard, but are still good timesavers. If you need to rewrite some functions to make them simpler and fix bugs, or you have your API and relationships figured out and know exactly how to do it but want to save time writing it all out, being able to get the AI to write your for loops, filters, regexes, call the functions you need, etc all by typing a few comments in plain English saves a lot of time that's better spent on verification, debugging, and architecture. ChatGPT can also be a good way to begin new projects, though here there be dragons, it really likes to hallucinate imaginary API.

There's also just way way more aesthetic visual media than there is good music.

And the limitations music tends to hold itself too makes it incredibly hard to make anything original as a whole. In art, you've got a whole canvas you can fill with whatever you want and have quantifiably more ways to express things. When you've only got so many notes you can play on an instrument to experiment with, you'll randomly come across melodies that are extremely similar to things others have already made until you go back and think "hey wait that sounds like something... Oh it's basically the The Office theme"

Every possible 8 or 12 note melody (on a standard scale, anyways) fits in 601 GB. And despite how easy it might be to land on someone else's melody because only a small subset of melodies actually sounds good, some artists have been extremely litigious when it comes to "copying" melodies. Supposedly it's a pretty big problem on the jazz scene too. Plus sampling pieces of other songs tends to only be defendable if you're making a parody (ala lots of Lemon Demon's discography) or reach a certain bar for transformativeness that's much easier to reach in visual mediums. Not to mention that instrument/sfx samples tend to come from big packs that are separately licensed, so if you sample them from another song you may be trampling the copyrights of the instrument pack.

In visual arts, there's much more freedom. In digital, you've got at least 255x255x255 possible colors per pixel, canvases can get massive, and the combination of art styles and subjects are essentially infinite. And if you train a small 4GB AI on hundreds of terabytes of images, it's going to learn how to reproduce common subjects and concepts, styles, etc without physically being able to copy any one copyrightable element. There are outliers where something very exact and specific appears too often in the training data (Getty logo, and arguably the Mona Lisa, characters, for instance), but that doesn't detract from the AI being able to produce what are wholly new pieces of art that don't infringe on copyrights, and I question whether an AI being able to reproduce Micky mouse constitutes as the AI itself infringing copyright rather than the user infringing if they publish said image.

Point is, there's a good legal argument that image generation tends to not infringe copyrights (it lands squarely in fair use because it isn't copying/memorizing training data, barring people using it in stupid ways) while music generation AI could frequently spit out arguably copyrighted stuff due to the sheer numbers difference between training on over a billion unique images vs a much smaller number of songs that have fewer distinct pieces that make them unique (and a much more litigious music industry that wrongfully protects tiny note snippets that probably shouldn't be copyrightable in the first place).

Maybe music AI will get better, but it sounds like a lot more work needs to be done there (or Google's just scared of the MPAA RIAA), and the case law on music copyright would also have to change.

I've yet to go somewhere high in altitude and low enough in light pollution, but the college town I was in was somewhat decent. One night a friend got me to go out and stare at the sky until my eyes adjusted. It was pretty faint, but damn was it cool actually seeing the milky way for the first time.

Now I live in a city where I rarely even see stars in the sky :-/

Hell, even Mastodon is doing pretty well these days given Twitter's awkward struggle. It's decentralized in that anyone can run a server, but also a server is allowed to break connection with any other server they see as problematic which is great for protecting your instance's users from bullshit. At the same time, users can move from one instance to another (and their followers remain in-tact) without too much hassle. It's a surprisingly elegant design for a social network.

Yeah nuclear is great and probably would be the most efficient way to go carbon neutral... But on time and within budget nuclear plant construction is not