That was the promise of computerization. It was going to give society all this free time to enjoy life while doing much of the work for us. How it actually turned out of course, was enslavement to the technology. The ol' bait and switch routine by those who will benefit monetarily from whatever it is they want to sell to the public by the usual proven manipulation techniques.

When you say there is no rules in music, that has always meant by the maxim, "learning the rules (theory) in order to break them." It can also apply to someone who is ignorant of theory but yet creates music, that enough people find satisfying, then the theorists/analysis will come in and explain it in terms of traditional theory, and in turn be added to the theoretical base and become another rule.

OTOH, you seem to be actually talking about breaking ethical rules, not music. That's all well and good. Everyone has their zone of what they're comfortable doing on the ethical behavior spectrum.
What you sound like to me, imo, maybe misreading, is akin to a student going thru their entire education having AI do the work. A hypothetical right now, but almost there. Like a student saying, who cares how I get my diploma, as long as I get it.

In higher education, there was always 'the sciences and the humanities' courses. It's one thing using AI to cure cancer, design a warp drive, grow abundant food in a desert, how to achieve sustained fusion reaction, etc etc etc. But using AI in the creative arena as a 100%, even 50% replacement? It should be a no no.That's the humanities, that's all about emotion.

100% AI generated artwork has it's place, because it can make interesting shit to look at or even listen to. But it needs to be labeled as such. However, someone simply asking a prompt to generate something and then claim it's theirs is total bullshit

 

Last edited: Jan 16, 2026 at 7:44 PM