Looming on the horizon has been a simulation of human intelligence that can outsmart, outpace, and outwork every one of us. Without the general population’s ability or willingness to understand and harness such technology, the necessity of a human presence will diminish. This is the popular fear. But what of the arts? What happens when Artificial Intelligence is allowed to meddle in a means of conveyance driven by human emotion? Well, we humans get awfully emotional about that. The nay-sayers claim that the loss of integrity is shameful and the larceny of authenticity is criminal. Regardless, in our lifetime we have witnessed the last moments of knowing something is real. And the inability to decipher or create something real that contends with AI will cause an inevitable shift in the market.
Data entry, customer support, and quality inspection… these are the benign casualties that were welcomed in the early days of AI. And to be fair, its presence created jobs like AI trainers, prompt engineers, machine learning engineers, AI ethicists, and data scientists. This phenom is not the first of its kind. Divisive sentiment was no stranger during the birth of the PC or during the digital imaging explosion. Computers eliminated the necessity for filing clerks, Typists, bookkeepers and draftsmen while creating occupations such as software developers, IT support specialists, system administrators, and cybersecurity professionals. Digital imaging did much the same with the elimination of physical elements and the introduction of jobs like digital photographers, photo editors, and imaging software developers. Ahh, but beyond lowering costs and improving resolution, digital imaging fronted a furtive fallacy, editing. It marked the intrusion of technology into the creative arts. As Marvin Gaye once said, “People say, believe half of what you see, son, and none of what you hear”. So, if we haven’t believed images since the early 90’s, where do you think AI’s presence in music will take us?
Overall, AI seemingly touts several advantages. It can reduce time, effort, and skill, inspire new direction, and contribute interesting representations. It can also standardize practices while removing centralized control. But if you go back and re-read those “advantages” through the eyes of the creative, all but the last fail to appeal. In fact, they degrade the very principles on which the creative arts stand. The disingenuous nature of art not born of the human mind forces a societal disconnect. Technology outpaces our comprehension and ability exponentially. In doing so, it furthers itself from the human psyche and the emotions that drive artistic expression. Music, in particular, reserves its impact in the ability of the listener to feel connected to the artist. If the intelligence of which we speak is artificial, then so are these connections. While AI may skyrocket an artists’ visibility and/ or image, it will not positively affect their impact for these reasons. It will erode trust.
You may ask what my thoughts are on all of this. And I will begin my answer by asking several questions. What are we doing? What effect will this have on empathy, creativity of humankind, the ability of the market to serve human interests; the way we think, what we think about, how we feel, or how we relate? If we cannot trust the source, and the source is not one of us, does it truly hold significance in the world of art? I believe that refusing something based on principle is not always a pragmatic approach. It is often the opposite. And I am guilty of this. I believe within the battle of altruists versus a paradigm shift, fate seldom sides with the former. Perhaps authenticity will become the underground. I believe arguing against AI on the basis of job elimination, overall, is a moot point. That paradigm shift will occur, and in its wake a slew of new jobs will be created. Besides, too many of us are guilty of ego identification. We identify with our jobs, our possessions, and our nationalities which are merely temporary aspects of the broader self and distinct from true awareness. But, and this is a big but, when it comes to the arts, the argument moves to the forefront.
Who are the bad actors in all of this? For the principles of greater good, I would say it’s anyone who distributes AI content to an unknowing public. As it stands now, there are no standards or laws I know of that mandate labeling AI content as such. And therein lies the true issue. Artificial under the guise of genuine is deception. There are federal and state statues that protect consumers like the Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5: Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. This prohibits misleading business conduct and is enforced by agencies like the FTC and State Attorneys General. There are also intellectual property rights that combat counterfeits. These laws, along with the FTCA, allow for both government enforcement and private lawsuits (including class actions) against fraudulent or deceptive practices. But so much of these materials are archaic and left to interpretation. These should be expanded upon to include AI specifically, and implement consequences similar to that of the original Copyright Law and subsequent amendments compiled in Title 17. This includes penalties ranging from significant financial damages in civil cases to criminal charges (fines, imprisonment) for willful infringement for commercial gain.
Current laws pertaining to AI only protect the artists and their works, not the consumer, and are still in their infancy. Herein lies the mind-blowing conundrum. In order for copyright law to include language that protects the consumer from AI music, AI music would then have to be recognized by copyright law. And in order for that to happen, AI music would then have to be able to be copywritten. Under the Copyright Office Guidance,the U.S. Copyright Office has stated that works created entirely by AI without human involvement are not eligible for copyright. Only addressing works created entirely by AI, in my eyes, is deliberately turning a blind eye to the current soundscape. If they allowed it to be copywritten and included questions that identified what portions of the music were AI, then a special copyright could be placed on the work. In doing so, the work would be identifiable by the public and distributing platforms as AI music. With what is currently in place, we can’t make an informed decision. If we could, grass roots efforts and overall preferences might turn the tide. Protecting the people and allowing us to decide inherently protects the artist. So, I feel as though this should be provided for both in the FTCA and the Copyright Law.
If only there were a way to distinguish between AI music and human music, we could all decide for ourselves reasonably and without further context. Four days ago (Jan 13, 2026), Bandcamp introduced a ban on AI music. The platform proclaimed, “We believe that the human connection found through music is a vital part of our society and culture, and that music is much more than a product to be consumed. It’s the result of a human cultural dialog stretching back before the written word”. But their means of enforcement depend upon user flagging and a nonspecific team review. While this may seem a false sense of hope, it can be interpreted as a groundbreaking social message. Perhaps what follows will be the turning of AI on itself in the creation of tools that seek out its presence in published music. I believe we should agree upon an inaudible frequency and make its attachment a mandated feature in every AI audio generator. This would circumvent any dishonest copyright applicants that willfully answered my proposed copyright application questions falsely. With or without the help of our government, we could accomplish so much if we would all come together. I’ll leave you with a final question. If the mission of music is to promote unity and bring about a true awareness of self, what better resonator of this sentiment can there be than a human?
Author: David Trahan
Elevate your health and well-being. Shop Realmushrooms.com and support this site! Here’s 20% off just for our readers.
https://shop.realmushrooms.com?ref=1494
Donate to this site:
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=83ZWJWHNRAYNU
