First, let’s get this out of the way for clarity: **I don’t think it AI-generated music (or any art form for that matter) is good for the world.** I understand the short-term, cost-cutting value it creates for commercial applications – even if the end beneficiaries of this are corporate executives and their shareholders, I do _understand_ it from a purely capitalistic perspective. The long-term economic and cultural effect of removing humans from the creation of art, and therefore eliminating (or at least massively shrinking) an entire sector of the economy, and the (likely) decrease in interest in the various forms of craft, will be far more detrimental to the human race — at least until/unless there is a resurgence in interest for human-created art forms – than those short-term gains largely realized by the corporate elite. I also understand why some musicians think of it as an unlock, even if I disagree with the ethics of it. Regardless of whether you think the output of a generative AI music tool constitutes “art” or not, it makes clear that those art forms are now primarily serving the goals of capitalism - that is, art and music are now primarily made for the purpose of marketing collateral, not as creative expression or a means to create _new_ ideas. Anyone making music must consider the reality of how the economy and culture of the world realistically shifts with the introduction of generative AI as the most economically efficient way of creating what we - cutely - still call “art”. But I have grown tired of arguing with people online about this. I can’t argue anymore. I’m too tired. Because it’s a very hard argument to hold to. I can’t really argue the above because it comes down to belief of a future that hasn’t directly affected some people (myself included), and is partly hypothetical. Otherwise, one can argue about the _ethics_ of it, and it’s clear that many (disclaimer: not all) vocal AI supporters are unable or unwilling to have good-faith arguments about a disagreement in ethics or philosophy around AI, or even discuss this topic with any degree of nuance. It’s not even worth arguing about the economics of it, because for every professional musician whose income streams were all but eliminated by generative AI, there are 3 other people making bad-faith arguments positioning generative AI as a gain for the disabled and impoverished without considering the harm it also causes for those groups.1 It’s becoming clear that _some version_ of AI is inevitable. Even if we’re in a bubble currently, and OpenAI’s value plummets and Sam Altman is imprisoned for mass fraud, the technology will continue to exist. And it will be incredibly useful in some contexts, even! It’s already proving invaluable in scientific research, helping to predict diseases years before they happen or unlock new potential mRNA vaccines. I know plenty of software engineers who are using AI to speed up and multi-thread their work without feeling like their jobs are at risk at all. I use Claude at work _right now_ to workshop product strategy before sharing with my team, or to prototype ideas without bothering designers & engineers who are working on far more complex challenges making use of their skillset. There are major societal problems to solve. It’s not even worth my time to lay them all out. But they’re there. As it relates to music, I’ve also come to two specific realizations recently: 1. I already knew that AI makes clear just how predictable and derivative most music that’s released is. But it’s telling just how low the percentage of people who can tell between a derivative song in a popular genre made by AI versus a human. Therefore, AI makes music creation in the popular genres a race to the bottom when it comes to commercial value. I shared the idea of challenging myself to “be weird as well” as a way to subvert this. 2. While _I_ think music _should_ have market value, it’s clear I’m not in the majority, thanks to the proliferation of music streaming2. AI reinforces the commodification and devaluing of music to an extreme because it makes _what people think music is_ (ie. commercial background entertainment, not scarce expressions of the human condition) massively abundant. I can’t pretend that my music (as artistic practice) is conducive to capitalistic commerce in this reality, so I can’t think of it like that anymore. Therefore: **I proudly treat my music purely as a creative practice moving forward. its goal is no longer to grow financially or in popularity, but to simply garner support for continuing the practice.** Survival of a thing I care deeply about. Not growth. I’ll still do it even if nobody listens or supports financially, because I have to. But this changes the principles that guide my actions: * My “marketing” (social posts, announcements, etc.) no longer need to be in direct or indirect pursuit of gaining listeners or making a particular amount of money. I just opt to share stuff now, at face value, take it or leave it. * A major reason why I made all my stuff free/pay-what-you-want is _because_ of all this. I cannot force people to assume a market value for something whose value is extremely high for me and extremely variable for the audience. * My music never was intended to cater to an audience, but I increasingly feel myself wanting to resist the idea of catering to the small audience I do have. The first two just played out in practice today, which was a Bandcamp Friday. I released some stuff, but I did not feel the need to release _specifically on or for_ Bandcamp Friday, so I released some other stuff a few weeks ago. This is all stuff I’ve been sitting on, thinking they would make for good “marketing moments”, but with this new framing of why I do music, **I don’t feel urgency around anything other than making things and sharing them**. I also made it all pay-what-you-want, so while today is the best day for fans to financially support artists, you also aren’t mandated to pay me to own a copy of my musical output. I found myself catering a couple of times during the production of _INFINITE NORMAL_ and caught myself – now I feel an urge to lean into my neoclassical / avant-garde inklings from my time in music school and make something truly abstract and expressive, rather than sticking to a genre. I deeply appreciate all the people who’ve shown support for my music practice. That’s all it needs to be for me to feel fulfilled, and thanks to generative AI I am increasingly convinced that’s the only thing it _can_ be for me over the long haul. I think it’s worth other artists considering this mindset. The existence of music “industry” warps our idea of what success is. I now am clearer on mine. * * * 1. I take issue with these arguments for a simple reason: Making music/art, and learning how to make music/art, was _already_ incredibly accessible before the widespread adoption of generative AI. YouTube is free and millions of art lessons are available there. Garageband is free. You can create digital art in the Notes app on your phone. Good versions of drawing/painting/etc. apps are cheaper than the ChatGPT Plus monthly membership. Most of these solutions are also accessibility-friendly thanks to Apple’s efforts to improve accessibility in their own devices. I understand that generative AI can be a big unlock, but it’s a bad-faith argument to say that _nothing_ before AI was conducive to artistic creation for folks with disabilities.↩︎ 2. As an Apple Music subscriber, I am also guilty of this, which is why I have a romantic desire to cut ties with streaming. I am working on this.↩︎

This is the scariest chart you’ll see today.