Everybody is drinking water but not everyone is surfing.

This has nothing to do with the topic tho, but it also could..for exsample if you´re good at drinking water it does not mean you can surf, but also not every surfer is good at doing plumbing, and so on and so on...too wide of a topic that will at some point just stop and nobody will be any smarter.

Maybe 70% of the posters here will change their mind in a week or two and what then..?

It also sucks being good at several things and than you have people who "knew" in their 10´s what do they wanted to do, heart will get you further than having IQ without purpose other than battling on forums.

Word "matter" is more than just a word, if something matters than it also has a lot of grip on you life, wrong things included.
Maybe we should start running Labels and pulling people away from mainstream, i´m just mumbling at this point.

 

Back on topic, I support the initiative for tagging music that is made with AI and initiative that every AI music creation platform implement watermarking, so it's just an easy check for platform's who choose to go with AI tag's. That would restore the balance and accommodate those users who want easy way to avoid AI stuff. Also reach of those blatant AI generated music would probably drop, which could impact overall volume of that output.

Sure, people can run AI locally and re-create stuff AI did, have no issue with that, it would be really extreme to demand ban of AI, but some regulations wouldn't hurt really and again applaud these kind of initiatives. Better then platforms flexing how many more content they got in order to lure more customers.

So for little that is worth, I'm gonna support first platform who decides on this kind of transparency, right now I'm not using any service for music listening and if someone steps up, I would be happy to contribute with shelling out for subscription and even releasing my own shitty music exclusively on their platform.

 

Who cares if people can't the difference between crap human music and AI music, they're asking the wrong question

 

Technological progress is unstoppable, but it has always brought people jobs and prosperity, and technology has noticeably made life easier. Of course, there have been flops, like Video 2000; VHS became the dominant format; and some companies went bankrupt because competitors produced better and cheaper products.

So, one should always keep an eye on the competition. Currently, America and China are fighting for dominance. This competitive situation often leads to products being launched that aren't even finished or fully developed; everyone wants to be first. All manufacturers vie for consumers' attention, investing vast sums in advertising, television, and print media, which we are uncritically bombarded with every day. After all, the manufacturers pay the advertisers.

History has repeatedly shown that life and society have always changed with new products: first the PC, then laptops and smartphones. Everyone can make calls to everyone else anytime, anywhere, provided the infrastructure—that is, cell towers—is available. This would mean jobs for industry, tax revenue for the state, and new laws.

Finally, AI. They'll push it through because they've always done it that way; as with any new technology, there are winners and losers. Certainly, not all business models will survive with AI, and only the best will be able to hold their own in the long run. While music is a cultural asset, musicians aren't considered essential by society, which is why they simply aren't supported enough.

Since AI will be cheaper, and money is becoming increasingly scarce, with global debt rising rapidly, AI will be used to save costs wherever possible. Secure all your old musical cultural assets now—AI-free, of course—because the future will be a mixture of AI, copy and paste, or simply copied from the originals. The generations after us are already growing up with AI and certainly won't bother to work hard, because humans are creatures of habit and always take the easy way out.

Perhaps there will come a time when critical thinkers want to return to the analog world to connect with real people and make music together. Maybe we will eventually see a new movement that focuses more on analog life, because the disastrous side effects of AI and the constant digital connectivity and dependence on tech companies are not good for us.

 

yep, my perspective is similar. business models are not so important (even if it is your own), arts itself will always survive, and maybe there will be an anti movemement.

i am just not so positive about the consumer side. when half the consumers say they want to avoid AI content, this is mostly ideologically reasoned, and that can change very quick when the tides change. or for example the monolitihic streaming god in their pocket could just lie to them and sell them AI content which claims to be non-AI. we already see that developement with "news" today.

 

i have listened to some ai music mostly on youtube and i can tell you... the music sucks

 

98% of all people can't tell a piano sound from a violin. 99% recognize what they hear as guitar if they see a guitarist posing. The average people have no clue about music. And why should they? It's a pure emotional thing. So if AI makes music, an idiot musician or a gifted musician ... where is the difference and should there be a difference? This whole show business and the whole music-makes-money-thing on all levels is an aberration. And a wet dream for so many musicians. What proves my point: musicians are mostly idiots. And why should the listeners care?

 

It depends on the enforcement of copyright law. Rights must be enforced, even by large corporations. I think only large corporations and the state can sue, because small businesses and individuals don't have the money for years of litigation. The EU says a AI labeling requirement will be introduced! I'm curious to see how it's implemented.

Code of Practice on marking and labelling of AI-generated content

This Code of Practice aims to support compliance with the AI Act transparency obligations related to marking and labelling of AI-generated content.

Marking and labelling of AI-generated content

The obligations under Article 50 of the AI Act (transparency obligations for providers and deployers of generative AI systems) aim to ensure transparency of AI-generated or manipulated content, such as deep fakes. The article addresses risks of deception and manipulation, fostering the integrity of the information ecosystem. These transparency obligations will complement other rules like those for high-risk AI systems or general-purpose AI models.

To assist with compliance with these transparency obligations, the AI Office has kick started the process of drawing up a code of practice on transparency of AI-generated content. The Code will be drafted by independent experts appointed by the AI Office in an inclusive process. Eligible stakeholders will be involved contribute to the drafting of the Code. If approved by the Commission, the final Code will serve as a voluntary tool for providers and deployers of generative AI systems to demonstrate compliance with their respective obligations under Article 50(2) and (4) AI Act. These obligations pertain to marking and detection of AI generated content and labeling of deep fakes and certain AI generated publications.

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice-ai-generated-content

 

Last edited: Jan 11, 2026

i am active in this field in the area of consulting around the european parliament and i do not see a chance to turn around the tendency that copyright will more and more be used against the actual rightholders.

and the EU and china are the last hope for the creatives, in countries like US and russia you can forget it completely.

exactly, at least they try - but we will see how the details will look like and how the regulations will look like when the frist big companies exploit the inevitable loopholes in the legislation.

if it will work like it currently works for food "quality" certificates, it will be contraproductive, but that doesnt mean i would have a better idea than hoping for proper legislation.

for manfred weber, the creative class consists of SONY and Springer, he has no clue what type of people in the society actually innovate and do the work. plus i can not bribe him.

 

97% of all musicians do not pay for their software and 97% of the software developers do not pay for their music.

we are always part of the problem, it is not caused by google and politicians alone.

 

Here's a template for resistance: Make buttons, print posters, pass it on...!

 

p.s. I used AI to generate these.

 

I recall a cover from one of those old pulp sci-fi magazines from the 40-50's era I had. Story was called 'revolt of the pedestrians'. Illustration showed a man standing in a street surrounded by all others (rest of society implied) sitting in a personal sized motorized conveyance. AI made this image come to mind. I see vids on uboobtoob with fed up teachers. A student says something like, "why do I need to learn, AI can do it for me."
Where is the line drawn. Was mult-track tape capability a cheat from previously having to record a song in one pass. Is drum software cheating. Are pre-made loops cheating. Synth presets. Composition/theory tools like Scaler and others. Yeah, but I'd say as a very small percentage with people still doing 95% of the 'thinking'. AI is different though in that it can do ALL the thinking for you. You're the one now relegated to 5% helper input.... that is if you even want to bother at all.

Like you can put a wall separating all of history before the internet and after, another is going to be all that was pre AI and post AI. The transitioning is going to be murder. Human brain and social/governmental/economic systems won't be able handle it.

To paraphrase some old soviet commie, "People will gladly buy the rope with which they will hang themselves." lol

 

Last edited: Jan 16, 2026 at 3:30 PM

Exodus: Panhellenic movement against digital totalitarianism
https://eksodos-gr.translate.goog/i...l=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Exodus: Panhellenische Bewegung gegen den digitalen Totalitarismus
https://eksodos.gr/index.php/el/kin...-gegen-den-digitalen-totalitarismus-ausstieg2

 

Last edited: Jan 16, 2026 at 5:04 PM

interesting parallel. Speaking of communism I actually had a thought the other day, with regards to how AI is supposed to make life better for everyone with its work capacity.
It started to remind me of the Windmill in "Animal Farm" once its done shorter work weeks, plenty of food for all, electricity forever.....only it was all propaganda. The windmill only brought them more work and worse conditions.

In terms of music I have always lived by the principal there are no rules in music.
So cheating becomes irrelevant. If its a good song at the end of the day how we got there is of little importance.

 

Except that people that use AI products don't care whether the product is good, one of the supermarket chains in my country uses AI generated crap, so they don't pay for radio license and it's beyond terrible in terms of lyrics and music. Saturating the market with trash and people being content with it is bad - even if you generate a good AI song or real song, almost noone would care

 

That always works wonderfully until the customers complain or stop coming. A baker near us introduced a payment
method using only smartphones; it took seven days, some customers stayed away, and he reintroduced cash payments.

 

i mean thats a pretty bleak outlook. Because the answer to that is simple.
I said if its a good song. I didnt say if OTHER People thought it was a good song.
I make music for me. If other ppl like it , swell, but its for my enjoyment, therapy that I make music.

 

Well, that on global scale means that the only professional musicians that can be "influencers" will look like they belong to a circus show, not to musical scene. And that's only until there are any human consumers. Making music becoming worthless as a whole is stupid, imo. The whole AI shit has no reasonable endgame since humans are not needed even as consumers in the end. I have seen predictions that companies will start selling to AI bots once humans can't afford to be on the market. 2-3 automated megacorporations producing and selling crap to each other, no other players on the market. Even sci-fi books are more optimistic than what is about to happen.

 

Last edited: Jan 16, 2026 at 7:11 PM

I think many people are still learning to understand what AI is and what it will be used for. Unfortunately, we always have a large silent majority that does nothing at all. I think that young people, in particular, will eventually grow older and turn to other, older pieces of music and bands.

They yearn for genuine feelings and human-generated music. There will be a large number of people who are absorbed and devoured by AI; they will be the lost ones, whose brains are impaired. A new clinical picture will then be defined: perhaps AI-damaged!