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.
I agree with you. Art needs "soul" and using AI generated "art" lacks it.
As we are all aware LLMs aren't true intelligence and iff we ever create something like Data from Start Trek than I'd be interested in that "person"'s art.
Right now LLM generated are is just highly mutated copies of what exists. I have no interest in consuming it.
No one is banning or prohibiting AI generated music from being listened to hear, just they are saying that to be considered on a very specific chart, there need to be limits on the amount of AI used. Very weak overall, especially given the irrelevance of these kinds of charts today.
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.
> And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications.
This feeling of being heard and understood is a driver in cult growth. And in ordinary human bonding and mating. So this seeming AI benefit carries a risk of mass movement formation and downward ratcheting social cohesion and fertility.
I worry that the most apocalyptic aspect of AI may be artificial friendship.
Mine is a different issue - I've produced hundreds of specifications over the years and it's obvious that implementation teams don't read them at all before they are "approved" because I never get questions or comments until it's time to build.
Now, granted, I'm an experienced software developer in my own right, and I know that sometimes you aren't giving something full attention until you need to, but my experience is that it's different than that.
You are correct that in identifying the issue - but that's a separate one from what I intended. I cannot stand sycophantic LLMs and use methods to get rid of any anthropomorphizing they do. But I feel like I'm somewhat outside as a person whose life is far more analog than most.
I just hung some laundry outside. I'll be (manually) splitting some firewood later today. HN is my ONLY social media.
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
Say Bob pays a $5 subscription and listens exclusively to artist Foo, 100 song plays. Alice pays a $5 subscription and listens exclusively to artist Baz, but plays their songs a whopping 300 times.
If it was paid out per user, Foo and Baz would both get $5. But paying out based on overall listener numbers, Foo would get $2.50 and Baz would get $7.50.
Essentially, it's a zero sum game, and one artist getting a play takes away revenue from every other artist. Even if you exclusively listen to your favorite artists, the vast majority of your subscription money is going towards the top artists.
This is why Spotify is always pushing their own playlists, smart shuffle, and encouraging background listening with ambient / sleep playlists and such; the more they can shift listeners toward music they've produced themselves or have special license agreements with, the less they have to pay out to typical (i.e. smaller) artists using their platform.
10 other people pay their $5 but listen exclusively to artist B.
I would expect the artist cut of artist A to be the $5 (or their cut after Spotify), aka the artist I listen to.
However the 10 other platform users have more free time so each listen to twice as much music by artist B. So my 1 hour is dwarfed by their 20 hours, and my artist would only get $2.60 (or their cut after Spotify). Overall listener plays.
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.
> People defending strong copyrights think they are protecting the little guy, but in fact they are defending the few winner-takes-all creatives.
Copyrights do both, they protect all creatives, it’s not one or the other.
> Banning AI music many only protect the same people
How so? AI threatens publishers and copyrights holders the most. Don’t confuse big music with big tech, they’re not the same people. Maybe browse the list of AI lawsuits related to copyrights and note how many publishers there are https://ailawsuittracker.com/copyright/
Breaking the copyright system is very unlikely to leave independent artists unscathed, I believe AI is already doing significant damage to independent artists. Breaking big publishing system won’t help either, given the number of independent artists striving to break out and go big and land a publishing contract.
You could be right and my statement is speculative/provocative. But I'm far from sure that AI Music would hurt that many small musicians. Please keep in mind that we've seen this story before... Record albums (CDs, cassettes etc), Electronic music and even MIDI were at one point seen as a threat to small musicians but the market only grew as a result.
Is AI a bigger threat to musicians than, let's say, Spotify? That commoditized music to a degree we had never seen before. It would be fair to ask "does the world need ANY music to ever be made again?". To me, the answer is a clear YES, but the amount of music available on Spotify is so mind-boggling (I heard a "1 million new tracks a year" figure somewhere) that it already appears to be impossible for a professional musician to survive. Yet, they do. So there's something off in the assumption that AI will wipe out small musicians.
> It could paradoxically increase the value of human connection in music consumption.
My prediction/fear is that it will remove incentives to make music "manually", and thus lead to a decline in all aspects of the music industry, starting at spending, and then continue to teachers to instrument makers to artists. And that will make music a very elitist hobby, and stifle further development. We'll get stuck in LLM variations over All I want for Last Christmas.
Copyright payouts (especially from streaming) are a small fraction, often negligible, of the livelihood of a professional musician. Keep in mind that in a world with free models, anyone could create AI music without silicon valley's involvement. My assumption is that "bad" music would be replaced by AI, while "good" music would not because AI simply wouldn't be able to deliver the goods.
Now, if AI could literally replace every musician, that would obviously be bad. But I don't think that banning it would solve the problem. If society as a whole is so against AI music that banning it is politically popular, it's because they don't like AI music to begin with - nothing to fear, then.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
Well they banned AI vocals at all too, so you can spend 6 months composing a track, add AI vocals, and your entire song is banned. Really the entire genre of edm could often switch out whatever vocals they have...
I have zero idea how much this matters since I don't really think anyone views the charts to find their next song to listen to. If a song with AI vocals is good it (might) pop off, I don't think getting on the charts at that point would matter.
Which is fine, but you could just use it to fix your vocal track
I teach recording, mixing and mastering and I know it's tedious but all of it is very creative and there's art in the imperfections. Sanitizing it away may make it more appealing to the 'average' listener but you won't get actual fans that way.
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.
Predictable, and predictable that it will be eventually reversed once enough money enters the picture. The synthesizer was banned for a period of time in the 1970s, today you are not a serious composer without one.
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.
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.
I agree with you. Art needs "soul" and using AI generated "art" lacks it.
As we are all aware LLMs aren't true intelligence and iff we ever create something like Data from Start Trek than I'd be interested in that "person"'s art.
Right now LLM generated are is just highly mutated copies of what exists. I have no interest in consuming it.
Agreed. Nothing is more soulful than the last 30 years of top 40 pop. We must do everything we can to preserve this sublime artform.
/s/ The Big Three
It would be great to exclude the top 40 from the charts as well. Just call #41 #1. /s
But why do I have be prohibited from it just because you have an unintelligible feeling it's bad somehow?
No one is banning or prohibiting AI generated music from being listened to hear, just they are saying that to be considered on a very specific chart, there need to be limits on the amount of AI used. Very weak overall, especially given the irrelevance of these kinds of charts today.
They didn't say you would be.
Just label it, so those that want it can seek it out.
Having a music charts that doesn't include AI generated music does not stop AI generated music.
OP specifies that they would prefer opt-in to either side.
Did I say this somewhere?
> Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials.
This is great analogy when you consider the sheer deliciousness of pork and shellfish.
And some people like eating horse.
Really? My mom doesn't eat raw sushi or shellfish and pork, she is not Jewish or Islam. She doesn't think those tastes that good.
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 do find it useful, but if I have a choice, I don't need to.
I find cars useful, but I don't have a car.
Guns are useful too in certain context, I don't have a gun thankfully because I don't need to.
> And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications.
This feeling of being heard and understood is a driver in cult growth. And in ordinary human bonding and mating. So this seeming AI benefit carries a risk of mass movement formation and downward ratcheting social cohesion and fertility.
I worry that the most apocalyptic aspect of AI may be artificial friendship.
Of course, Mark Zuckerberg is eager to disrupt the meatbag friendship industry: https://futurism.com/zuckerberg-lonely-friends-create-ai
These guys are satirizing it quite well. https://www.thebeaverton.com/2025/06/zuckerberg-the-average-...
Mine is a different issue - I've produced hundreds of specifications over the years and it's obvious that implementation teams don't read them at all before they are "approved" because I never get questions or comments until it's time to build.
Now, granted, I'm an experienced software developer in my own right, and I know that sometimes you aren't giving something full attention until you need to, but my experience is that it's different than that.
You are correct that in identifying the issue - but that's a separate one from what I intended. I cannot stand sycophantic LLMs and use methods to get rid of any anthropomorphizing they do. But I feel like I'm somewhat outside as a person whose life is far more analog than most.
I just hung some laundry outside. I'll be (manually) splitting some firewood later today. HN is my ONLY social media.
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.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-10/most-played-song-in-a...
They should add labels for auto-tune as well, so I can filter it out more easily
Not going to happen, some have forgotten that "Music Business" is two words with distinct contexts. =3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFG5dk1GyRo
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.
No more Rihanna’s and Guy Sebastian etc”
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
Those are the same thing
They're similar, but subtly different.
Say Bob pays a $5 subscription and listens exclusively to artist Foo, 100 song plays. Alice pays a $5 subscription and listens exclusively to artist Baz, but plays their songs a whopping 300 times.
If it was paid out per user, Foo and Baz would both get $5. But paying out based on overall listener numbers, Foo would get $2.50 and Baz would get $7.50.
Essentially, it's a zero sum game, and one artist getting a play takes away revenue from every other artist. Even if you exclusively listen to your favorite artists, the vast majority of your subscription money is going towards the top artists.
This is why Spotify is always pushing their own playlists, smart shuffle, and encouraging background listening with ambient / sleep playlists and such; the more they can shift listeners toward music they've produced themselves or have special license agreements with, the less they have to pay out to typical (i.e. smaller) artists using their platform.
No they aren't.
I pay $5 and listen exclusively to artist A.
10 other people pay their $5 but listen exclusively to artist B.
I would expect the artist cut of artist A to be the $5 (or their cut after Spotify), aka the artist I listen to.
However the 10 other platform users have more free time so each listen to twice as much music by artist B. So my 1 hour is dwarfed by their 20 hours, and my artist would only get $2.60 (or their cut after Spotify). Overall listener plays.
> I am a musician but I, never in my life, have any idols whatsoever.
Let's hear this music then.... What's the guessing it's not very good.
Well, you'll be surprised. I am probably better than you. Taste is relative after all.
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.
> People defending strong copyrights think they are protecting the little guy, but in fact they are defending the few winner-takes-all creatives.
Copyrights do both, they protect all creatives, it’s not one or the other.
> Banning AI music many only protect the same people
How so? AI threatens publishers and copyrights holders the most. Don’t confuse big music with big tech, they’re not the same people. Maybe browse the list of AI lawsuits related to copyrights and note how many publishers there are https://ailawsuittracker.com/copyright/
Breaking the copyright system is very unlikely to leave independent artists unscathed, I believe AI is already doing significant damage to independent artists. Breaking big publishing system won’t help either, given the number of independent artists striving to break out and go big and land a publishing contract.
You could be right and my statement is speculative/provocative. But I'm far from sure that AI Music would hurt that many small musicians. Please keep in mind that we've seen this story before... Record albums (CDs, cassettes etc), Electronic music and even MIDI were at one point seen as a threat to small musicians but the market only grew as a result.
Is AI a bigger threat to musicians than, let's say, Spotify? That commoditized music to a degree we had never seen before. It would be fair to ask "does the world need ANY music to ever be made again?". To me, the answer is a clear YES, but the amount of music available on Spotify is so mind-boggling (I heard a "1 million new tracks a year" figure somewhere) that it already appears to be impossible for a professional musician to survive. Yet, they do. So there's something off in the assumption that AI will wipe out small musicians.
> It could paradoxically increase the value of human connection in music consumption.
My prediction/fear is that it will remove incentives to make music "manually", and thus lead to a decline in all aspects of the music industry, starting at spending, and then continue to teachers to instrument makers to artists. And that will make music a very elitist hobby, and stifle further development. We'll get stuck in LLM variations over All I want for Last Christmas.
I'd like to know more
Complete bullshit. Any musician can register for copyright payouts and all musicians involved in a production get something.
Instead, of course the money should go to Silicon Valley mafiosi and middlemen!
Copyright payouts (especially from streaming) are a small fraction, often negligible, of the livelihood of a professional musician. Keep in mind that in a world with free models, anyone could create AI music without silicon valley's involvement. My assumption is that "bad" music would be replaced by AI, while "good" music would not because AI simply wouldn't be able to deliver the goods.
Now, if AI could literally replace every musician, that would obviously be bad. But I don't think that banning it would solve the problem. If society as a whole is so against AI music that banning it is politically popular, it's because they don't like AI music to begin with - nothing to fear, then.
Yeah, we need Musk and Amodei steal all the output of filthy and lazy people like Rihanna and become trillionaires in the process!
Down with musicians! Equality now! Give Jensen Huang a cut also!
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?
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.
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.
This has to be a generally popular action... Surprised there's some people against it on hacker news but we are a slanted set of the population.
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.
Do you think people that use machines to generate music have the technical skills to be a cover artist? (I suppose you mean with real instruments)
The only people salivating at generative AI are those that do not have the skills to create without.
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.
Performance is not the same as original creation, so yes, I think that's very possible.
yikes ... assuming you hate MIDI too
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.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/25/world/australia/australia...
Is Australia a "banning lab" or something. (Disclaimer: I'm an Australian citizen)
This is Australia. It bans things. Harden the fuck up Australia!
- Chopper, probably
Police state Australia!
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
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...
Well they banned AI vocals at all too, so you can spend 6 months composing a track, add AI vocals, and your entire song is banned. Really the entire genre of edm could often switch out whatever vocals they have...
I have zero idea how much this matters since I don't really think anyone views the charts to find their next song to listen to. If a song with AI vocals is good it (might) pop off, I don't think getting on the charts at that point would matter.
> I'm not a good singer
Which is fine, but you could just use it to fix your vocal track
I teach recording, mixing and mastering and I know it's tedious but all of it is very creative and there's art in the imperfections. Sanitizing it away may make it more appealing to the 'average' listener but you won't get actual fans that way.
This is the right path.
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.
Predictable, and predictable that it will be eventually reversed once enough money enters the picture. The synthesizer was banned for a period of time in the 1970s, today you are not a serious composer without one.
"Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)" official charts, not Australia the country's official charts (which probably do not exist).
Wait, those guys still exist? Are they still suing 9 year olds with bittorrent?
Looked it up: yes. Yes they are.
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.
Oh, I don't disagree at all!
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.
Fun. Now do "why voting for an unelectable minor party can still change the world", I like that one.
No need for apologies, I saw no good reason to take your comment as combative or dismissive or anything!
Official music chart lol . What makes them official ? Mass media slop do not like ai slop fight for their money.
Behind every ai music there’s still an artist.
So completely unnecessary.
https://unwall.app/www.nytimes.com/2026/08/25/world/australi...
Thank you VERY MUCH for bringing unwall to my attention: never heard of it until I read your comment.
Now ban corporately produced music.
What? No more KPMG song? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCvKXgp-Awo
lol