Not ‘OK Computer’: OpenAI is reportedly developing a generative AI that creates music

While details of the tool are currently unknown, including a launch date, AI music has been causing issues in the music industry, with many artists frustrated with the amount of AI-generated artists and music popping up, clouding an already difficult and underpaid space.

Earlier this year, an AI-generated band called The Velvet Sundown appeared on Spotify, releasing two albums and generating thousands of listens before revealing it was AI-generated. The band currently has 248,300 monthly listeners, with its largest track, Dust on the Wind, racking up over 3.4 million listens.

Australian icon Nick Cave said AI-generated music saps the soul out of the craft of songwriting.

“There are all sorts of temptations in this world that will eat away at your creative spirit, but none more fiendish than that boundless machine of artistic demoralisation, ChatGPT,” he said, as seen by The Australian Financial Review.

“[A] ‘songwriter’ using ChatGPT to write ‘his’ lyrics is participating in [the] erosion of the world’s soul and the spirit of humanity itself and, to put it politely, should f---ing desist if he wants to continue calling himself a songwriter.”

The Cyber Daily opinion: AI’s invasion of human creativity is one of the greatest threats it generates

VIEW ALL

Songwriting and recording music is a time-consuming and expensive, but very human experience.

Whether writing about love, death, emotion or even just personal, goofy experiences, the messages that music shares are inherently human, and an ideal medium of expression for those who, ironically, cannot otherwise find the words.

As a musician myself, I admittedly have an ingrained bias against AI generating any form of art or human expression. But writing music is a deeply personal thing, as is listening to it.

Think of your favourite track, whether it be upbeat and happy, or melancholic and hard-hitting, it invokes an emotion in you. It’s relatable even without lyrics, because it makes you feel something. It’s communication.

Electronic music is the same; it makes you dance, something the creator intended.

When you put a generative AI created by a multibillion-dollar corporation in charge of creating such a human thing, you strip that authentic message from it.

Even worse, as it seems to already be doing in so many other industries, AI takes opportunities away from hardworking musicians with dreams and a human message to share.

There aren’t many spaces for success in the music industry already, and a future where music is entirely AI-generated because it’s cheaper, faster and easier on a whole to make is going to flood the market.

The other issue relates to copyright. Currently, AI-generated works do not qualify for copyright. However, the works these bots train themselves on do. Yet the owners of these technologies believe that using those works to train AI is considered “fair use” and thus does not require compensation.

All of a sudden, a major movie or advertisement that would otherwise use a song by The Beatles, for example, instead uses a copyright-free replica generated by OpenAI or another company, halting any chance for artists to collect royalties on their work.

I’m not alone in this opinion; artists like Sir Elton John, Dua Lipa, Paul McCartney, Ed Sheeran, Florence Welch, Coldplay and more have already stood up against AI companies and governments looking to enact legislation allowing the technology to use existing music in this way.

In May, the UK government proposed a bill that would loosen copyright laws and allow AI developers to use whatever content they have lawful access to, in an effort to make the UK a global AI leader.

As part of the plan, creators would have been required to actively opt out to prevent AI firms from training their models on their content.

Speaking with the BBC, Elton John said he feels “betrayed” by the current government and prime minister, whom he has otherwise been a supporter of.

“The government are just being absolute losers, and I’m very angry about it,” he said.

“The danger is for young artists, they haven’t got the resources to keep checking or fight big tech. It’s criminal, and I feel incredibly betrayed.

“A machine ... doesn’t have a soul, doesn’t have a heart, it doesn’t have human feeling, it doesn’t have passion. Human beings, when they create something, are doing it ... to bring pleasure to lots of people.”

In a joint letter with 400 artists, Paul McCartney also slammed the government.

“We’re the people, you’re the government. You’re supposed to protect us. That’s your job,” McCartney said.

“So if you’re putting through a bill, make sure you protect the creative thinkers, the creative artists, or you’re not gonna have them. If there’s such a thing as a government, it’s their responsibility – I would think – to protect young people to try and enhance that whole thing so it works. So that these people have got job and can enhance the world with wonderful art.”

Government says government knows best

Despite the push, the UK passed the Data (Use and Access) Bill.

Most of the bill will be laid out in future legislation and thus will not take effect until at least 2026, as the government is adamant that regulating AI practices should not be dealt with in the bill, but instead with an AI bill, which may not appear until next year.

“The deadlock has now cleared – but it leaves a regulatory gap. The government has made clear it will not be drawn into regulating AI training practices via fragmented amendments. Instead, it remains committed to introducing a ‘comprehensive’ AI bill in the next parliamentary session – though that could be as late as 2026,” said the managing associate in the commercial disputes team at Addleshaw Goddard, Rebecca Newman.

“This outcome leaves the question of whether AI developers must ensure their models are trained in accordance with UK copyright law unresolved – but given the ongoing Getty trial, the answer will likely be shaped first by the courts, not Parliament.”

Weaponising art by removing the art part

Returning to the prospect of AI-generated music flooding the market, music is also a creative medium with the power to sway opinion.

While it’s almost certain this OpenAI tool will be available to the public, having a tool with the capability to churn out algorithmically catchy tunes is an ideal propaganda tool.

An AI artist has no set opinion and mimics the opinion of those who provide the prompts.

We already know AI propaganda is not a distant concept. US President Donald Trump frequently reposts AI-generated videos, most recently a video of him flying a fighter jet and dumping what appears to be excrement on protestors portrayed to be at the ’No Kings’ protest.

A tool, therefore, that can generate music is nothing but dangerous, to musicians, to producers, to songwriters, to agents, to the public, and of course, to humanity.