Comment by UncleMeat
20 hours ago
AI creation kills cultural sharing.
People who create AI music are largely not sharing it with others for any reason other than to create a revenue stream. They are also not consuming new AI music to be able to develop influences and synthesize new ideas. The system builds brick walls where there was once osmosis.
How can art evolve under these conditions?
I'm not sure either Linkin Park or my friend's garage band are in any way affected by AI generated music.
How do you imagine that happening?
I agree that people who refuse to listen to AI music or create AI music will still continue on the same path as before in terms of the evolution of music.
But AI music can make it even harder for people to eke out a living as musicians, since they are competing with something that costs far less to make. And some people who would otherwise learn how to create music themselves will instead choose not to learn this skill because it is easier to use AI.
The net effect is a diminished culture.
Why are some crafts more sacred than others?
Because some crafts are more sacred than others. Making a painting is more sacred than smearing my shit in the Barns and Nobel bathroom stall, although arguably less fun.
Who decides that? We do, collectively. Why do we have that power? Because we define art. Why do only humans have this power? Because art is an innately human thing, so we get to decide.
I find one of the most unsettling things about 2025-2026 is how little people seem to agree with this point you're making. It's like this hyper-reductive thinking where it's all just "if the the outcome is the same, so what!?" has just metastasized and everyone is false-equivalence-ing their way into hell It makes me want to scream. like, beauty is not arbitrary, not everything can be homogenized into content paté, that does not make the world better. I'm sure really smart people will argue i'm wrong for some reason but it just makes me feel so sad
I don't know what you mean by this. The same effect can be felt in other forms of art.
>They are also not consuming new AI music to be able to develop influences and synthesize new ideas.
If not they most definitely are listening to other music that influences them. If you have proof that such a producer listens to 0 music feel free to share it.
They're describing the "music" that's churned out almost entirely hands off to siphon royalties. Even the creator isn't listening to 100% of what they're uploading, it's spam that can be produced in massive quantities and can overwhelm a platform if left unchecked (as the article describes, AI music is 1-3% of actual listens by users but 44% of uploads).
Actual artists who need years to create a few hours of handcrafted content don't have a chance in an environment where hundreds of hours of slop can be generated in less than a day for a few hundred bucks. Platforms like Deezer recognize they need to address that imbalance somehow or they'll eventually lose their high quality contributors in a vicious cycle if it becomes impossible to compete.