We’re only scratching the surface of how artificial intelligence is likely to be utilized in art, and musicians are already experimenting with the technology. But when their AI-assisted composition is to be eligible for a Grammy, they’ll must ensure that their contribution is “meaningful,” the foundations now state.

An update to the famous awards’ eligibility criteria states that “[o]nly human creators are eligible to be submitted for consideration,” and that “[a] work that accommodates no human authorship will not be eligible in any Categories.”

AI will not be a kiss of death, though. In a smart and shrewdly open-ended exception to this prohibition, the Grammy authorities allow for any work wherein “the human authorship component of the work submitted have to be meaningful and greater than de minimis.” Moreover, the authorship must pertain to the category a song is submitted for (e.g., for “songwriting” the AI cannot have written the song).

What does this all mean? Say you used an AI-powered tool to generate a consistently shifting loop of some instruments you played. You layer this in with the drums, recorded instruments, and record the vocals you wrote on top. No problem here! The AI is essentially only a tool or effect, like all pedal or filter.

But what should you had the AI generate the lyrics from a prompt, then sing them within the kind of David Crosby? Then you might have Riffusion put together some beats and instrumentation. Last, layer in some unique generated tones you shifted from Brian Eno’s Reflection.

Now, whatever the quality of the result (and at a guess . . . not great), nobody would say that you simply had no creative hand within the resulting track. But were you the songwriter, the vocalist, the composer, or the instrumentalist? Not as those terms are commonly understood or credited. And definitely not in response to the parents setting the foundations over on the Grammys.

This policy of excluding pure AI works but allowing it for use as a tool might be one of the simplest ways forward for awards like this. We’ve seen already how malicious actors can flood publishers with AI-generated writing, hoping to grab a paid spot and even just notoriety. Deepfakes and AI-generated video are already beginning to creep onto streaming platforms. Music is likewise vulnerable to disruption by those that would abuse AI technology as a substitute of use it creatively.

Generative music, it have to be said, is greater than simply valid — it’s practically a genre of its own now. And the creation of a few of its most iconic works may very well be described as simplistic (even by their very own creators). Nevertheless it seems unlikely that the Grammys would reject Eno’s Music For Airports if it was submitted today, because it seems clear that there’s “meaningful” human authorship involved. But they wouldn’t allow three minutes of randomly chosen Generative.fm or Kriller tracks.

The policy is, as I said, correctly open-ended, allowing for the organization to exercise its judgment in what they define as “lacking significance or importance; so minor as to merit disregard.” Little doubt this definition can be in flux in years to come back as major artists embrace, reject, or grudgingly include AI-powered tools of their creative processes.