AI generated music, AI generated blogs etc, is really a stupid idea. Maybe some people want it, but I really don't. I really don't care if the music is great (it's not, I'm a musician). I really don't care if the writing is great or the content is great.
Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials.
What if AI cures cancer? Sure, let it cure cancer. I still don't want to read it. Some other people will read it. It still hasn't cured cancer yet though.
I do use AI in my day job as SWE, not by my own choice, but forced by the industry. It does good works, but if I have a choice, yeah I really don't need to, or want to.
I am just a peasant tossed back and fro by the rich, so I know my place, and keep my head down to do whatever necessary to live, but not more. I can choose what I am being kosher about.
I think it would be great if the world has 2 economies. AI and non AI economies. The more we can identify which one is AI and which one is not, the better the outcome for people like me.
The only point I would disagree is that I do find LLM's to be useful.
I am only "forced" to use them as a matter of staying economically competitive against my competition, but I do find it like having a second opinion or a way to force myself to express my thoughts.
And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications that I work really hard to produce ;)
I am not forced to use them in my job. In fact I would like to use them but my department kind of falls between two chairs so our "AI strategy" doesn't include me (even though I took Andrew Ng's course over a decade ago and has tried very hard to keep myself updated since... I'm pretty confident no one in this 1000+ person company has more AI experience than me)
I might have wanted to write all the code myself if I had infinite time, but I don't. And I want to code way more things than I have the time or mental stamina for. As it is I have to do it at home.
I approve of AI image and video generation but for music I can't get myself to feel the same way, except for novelty/meme songs maybe.
I think it's because it's so much sneakier, I'm usually focused on something else and listening to music and it takes me a minute to realize something's off.
AI images and videos at least, for now, I can recognize the majority of the time and they don't have that primal connection to my brain that music does.
This is in response to a possibly (?) AI generated cover of "Like a Prayer" topping Australian radio play charts in July and ARIA deciding it was illegitimate.
>But the track, released by Queensland-based DJ and producer Josh Fawaz, has angered some in the music industry who believe it was produced with artificial intelligence-powered audio engineering software.
> ABC News has contacted Fawaz multiple times this week to seek his response to the criticism, but he has not responded.[1]
I think Ben Lee's point in the NYTimes article is good:
> The Australian musician Ben Lee, who is known for hits like “Cigarettes Will Kill You” and “Catch My Disease,” said non-generative A.I. was used by artists in the process of music production, including for pitch correction and noise reduction. But generative A.I. and its impacts on the industry needed to be looked at more closely, he said.
> “I’m not the kind of person who is at all fundamentally opposed to technological changes in my industry,” he said. “It feels like healthy pushback is a really vital part of us looking responsibly at the way to integrate these technologies into our industries.”
I remember when autotune came out and people wanted to ban that too.
The rules seem pretty loose:
> For example, if a song’s lead vocal or key instrumental performance is generated by A.I., the track would be ineligible, ARIA said. But a human lead vocal with A.I. backing vocals would be allowed.
Comment on the video page of the song that sparked this:
“ No lol. We don’t need more over privileged musicians leading luxurious lives while the rest of us slave away. I’d rather support this if leads to less inequality.
1. Its the people who worship Rihanna and Guy Sebastian is the problem. If you don't like those people, don't need to buy their stuffs. I am a musician but I, never in my life, have any idols whatsoever. I don't buy their stuffs. I create my own. One wonder how can the entertainment industry survives anyway if everyone is like me. But thankfully not everyone is like me, the world goes around.
2. You can support local artist, not the big name ones.
3. You can still create your own music without AI, by you know, picking up musical instruments, paying your local guitar teachers to teach you so he can send his kids to college. To not do so is just laziness. Full. Stop.
I think many people believe their streaming use will only pay artists who they listen to, not realizing the streaming service actually pays artists based upon overall listener numbers (or possibly pre-negotiated amounts).
So, in the old days you would "support (a) local artist" by buying their album and now people probably think they are supporting them by listening to them on spotify/whatever but they really are not. Your streaming dollars are almost entirely going to Rihanna and every other big artist even if you don't listen to a single song by them.
> many people believe their streaming use will only pay artists who they listen to, not realizing the streaming service actually pays artists based upon overall listener numbers
This is actually an insightful comment. People defending strong copyrights think they are protecting the little guy, but in fact they are defending the few winner-takes-all creatives.
Banning AI music may only protect the very same people. Perhaps AI music will mostly hurt mass-market, ad-fueled artists while leaving the little guy who toils away in live bar and night club shows untouched. It could paradoxically increase the value of human connection in music consumption.
Are these the same Recording Industry Associations who are so good at predicting tech trends they took the opportunities the Internet gave them and decided to focus the efforts on suing torrenters?
Have generative AI create the music and then become a cover artist for AI generated music. No one will notice. Lots of musicians are cover artists because perhaps they are skilled in their playing instruments and or singing but have a hard time coming up with good music. So instead let AI come up with the music and just copy it and make it yours.
Dirty secret of the industry, lots of producers and musicians are using AI to "brainstorm" songs, then sampling from them or performing slightly shined up versions of them. Sort of like musical photobashing.
Generally people hate plagues. For instance I remember hating rock ballads in the early 90s. It all depends how much of a threat to civilization the thing is, currently, but later on in retrospect it becomes harmless and amusing.
I’m not clear exactly how much official charts matter anymore except to industry insiders. For better or worse, the real charts are now in the metrics of the streaming apps.
Probably the most aspiringly poncey of all the commonwealth nations, rich given that "cunt" is more popular in Australia than han any other English speaking nation
Will people stop listening to AI music just because associations ban it? Pop hits were essentially "human slop" - highly formulaic and catering to the least common denominator. I see no problem in people liking it, but I'm not sure if AI making the music is a huge problem. I won't listen to it anyway.
Interesting so far the majority of the comments here are for typing into a textbox (no talent needed) to create songs vs. hating AI Music.
I do use Suno to turn my real human songs into polished tracks. I'm not a good singer and in earshot ppl like my AI produced songs. Though, I go in waves of listening only to my AI stuff to being uninspired & not listening to it.
A weird thing happened to me on a recent date where i got AI Music catfished (https://ryanspahn.substack.com/p/new-trend-ai-music-catfishi...). My date was catfishing not their looks but their talents as a singer / even a musician. Weird, but maybe not so weird in a few years...
I mean, good, maybe if this is intended to preserve the value of human-produced art and/or to limit the scope of official charts. But I'm not sure how you actually prove this or thus justify any particular instance of enforcement.
There are many reasons you might want to outlaw or ban something even when there isn’t an easy way to detect it. Case in point: the existence of this law, even in the absence of enforceability, makes “using AI for a song intended for the charts” into an active and intentional act of deception by the artist. That is a moral threshold that will deter the most marginal of the bad actors, and supplement the willpower of the insufficently principled good actors.
Hah, my apologies - I jump at any chance I get to explain why nebulous, unenforceable, or even impossible laws can nevertheless have concrete and worthwhile benefits, it’s a favorite pet topic for me.
Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials.
What if AI cures cancer? Sure, let it cure cancer. I still don't want to read it. Some other people will read it. It still hasn't cured cancer yet though.
I do use AI in my day job as SWE, not by my own choice, but forced by the industry. It does good works, but if I have a choice, yeah I really don't need to, or want to.
I am just a peasant tossed back and fro by the rich, so I know my place, and keep my head down to do whatever necessary to live, but not more. I can choose what I am being kosher about.
I think it would be great if the world has 2 economies. AI and non AI economies. The more we can identify which one is AI and which one is not, the better the outcome for people like me.
I am only "forced" to use them as a matter of staying economically competitive against my competition, but I do find it like having a second opinion or a way to force myself to express my thoughts.
And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications that I work really hard to produce ;)
I might have wanted to write all the code myself if I had infinite time, but I don't. And I want to code way more things than I have the time or mental stamina for. As it is I have to do it at home.
This is great analogy when you consider the sheer deliciousness of pork and shellfish.
I think it's because it's so much sneakier, I'm usually focused on something else and listening to music and it takes me a minute to realize something's off.
AI images and videos at least, for now, I can recognize the majority of the time and they don't have that primal connection to my brain that music does.
>But the track, released by Queensland-based DJ and producer Josh Fawaz, has angered some in the music industry who believe it was produced with artificial intelligence-powered audio engineering software.
> ABC News has contacted Fawaz multiple times this week to seek his response to the criticism, but he has not responded.[1]
I think Ben Lee's point in the NYTimes article is good:
> The Australian musician Ben Lee, who is known for hits like “Cigarettes Will Kill You” and “Catch My Disease,” said non-generative A.I. was used by artists in the process of music production, including for pitch correction and noise reduction. But generative A.I. and its impacts on the industry needed to be looked at more closely, he said.
> “I’m not the kind of person who is at all fundamentally opposed to technological changes in my industry,” he said. “It feels like healthy pushback is a really vital part of us looking responsibly at the way to integrate these technologies into our industries.”
I remember when autotune came out and people wanted to ban that too.
The rules seem pretty loose:
> For example, if a song’s lead vocal or key instrumental performance is generated by A.I., the track would be ineligible, ARIA said. But a human lead vocal with A.I. backing vocals would be allowed.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-10/most-played-song-in-a...
“ No lol. We don’t need more over privileged musicians leading luxurious lives while the rest of us slave away. I’d rather support this if leads to less inequality.
No more Rihanna’s and Guy Sebastian etc”
2. You can support local artist, not the big name ones.
3. You can still create your own music without AI, by you know, picking up musical instruments, paying your local guitar teachers to teach you so he can send his kids to college. To not do so is just laziness. Full. Stop.
So, in the old days you would "support (a) local artist" by buying their album and now people probably think they are supporting them by listening to them on spotify/whatever but they really are not. Your streaming dollars are almost entirely going to Rihanna and every other big artist even if you don't listen to a single song by them.
Those are the same thing
Let's hear this music then.... What's the guessing it's not very good.
Banning AI music may only protect the very same people. Perhaps AI music will mostly hurt mass-market, ad-fueled artists while leaving the little guy who toils away in live bar and night club shows untouched. It could paradoxically increase the value of human connection in music consumption.
Instead, of course the money should go to Silicon Valley mafiosi and middlemen!
Down with musicians! Equality now! Give Jensen Huang a cut also!
The only people salivating at generative AI are those that do not have the skills to create without.
Looked it up: yes. Yes they are.
I do use Suno to turn my real human songs into polished tracks. I'm not a good singer and in earshot ppl like my AI produced songs. Though, I go in waves of listening only to my AI stuff to being uninspired & not listening to it.
A weird thing happened to me on a recent date where i got AI Music catfished (https://ryanspahn.substack.com/p/new-trend-ai-music-catfishi...). My date was catfishing not their looks but their talents as a singer / even a musician. Weird, but maybe not so weird in a few years...