from a Facebook post:

People are worried that AI music will kill real musicians.

Which is funny, because they said records would kill live performers.

Then film was supposed to kill theatre.

Then television was supposed to kill cinema.

Then cartoons were supposed to replace actors.

Then photography was supposed to kill painting.

Then synthesizers were supposed to kill “real music.”

Then drum machines were cheating.

Then sampling was theft.

Then Auto-Tune was fraud.

Then home studios were the end of professionalism.

Then streaming was the end of albums.

Then bedroom producers were the end of bands.

And now it’s AI.

Every new tool arrives wearing the same accusation: “This isn’t real.”

People said guitars plugged into amplifiers weren’t real music.

People said distortion wasn’t real tone.

People said effects pedals meant you couldn’t really play.

People said multitracking meant you couldn’t really sing.

People said sequencers meant you couldn’t really compose.

People said laptops meant you couldn’t really produce.

And yet somehow music kept happening.

The truth is: tools change who gets access.

Records let people hear music without going to a hall.

Film let stories travel across continents.

Synths let one person become an orchestra.

Drum machines let rhythm exist without a drummer in the room.

Home studios let songs exist without permission.

Streaming let listeners become their own radio stations.

AI is just the latest tool in a very long line of tools that scared somebody before they inspired somebody else.

It won’t replace musicians.

It will annoy some musicians.

It will help some musicians.

It will expose lazy musicians.

It will empower weird musicians.

It will absolutely be misused.

And eventually it will become normal.

Because art has never been about the tool.

It’s always been about the person holding it.

Every generation says, “Music was better in our day.”

Every generation is wrong.

@FreakyFwoof I'm struggling to answer this question: did any of those other tools perpetuate a massive amount of plagiarism and copyright infringement?

It's a complicated question, for sure.... but I just don't see "AI" as just another tool.

@mmdolbow Napster.

@FreakyFwoof you didn't mention Napster in your OP, but *yes*, great example of that phenomenon. And, in that case, the industry used copyright law to shut it down.

Of course, it wasn't the *mp3 technology* that was the problem, but the way Napster *used* that technology.

I'd love to see a similar reckoning happen for "AI". I'm not holding my breath.

@mmdolbow wasn't my post, but it's true none the less. I just got sent it.
@FreakyFwoof whoops - my bad - I read too fast!