I mean, good, maybe if this is intended to preserve the value of human-produced art and/or to limit the scope of official charts. But I'm not sure how you actually prove this or thus justify any particular instance of enforcement.
There are many reasons you might want to outlaw or ban something even when there isn’t an easy way to detect it. Case in point: the existence of this law, even in the absence of enforceability, makes “using AI for a song intended for the charts” into an active and intentional act of deception by the artist. That is a moral threshold that will deter the most marginal of the bad actors, and supplement the willpower of the insufficently principled good actors.
Probably the most aspiringly poncey of all the commonwealth nations, rich given that "cunt" is more popular in Australia than han any other English speaking nation
I’m not clear exactly how much official charts matter anymore except to industry insiders. For better or worse, the real charts are now in the metrics of the streaming apps.
Are these the same Recording Industry Associations who are so good at predicting tech trends they took the opportunities the Internet gave them and decided to focus the efforts on suing torrenters?
This is in response to a possibly (?) AI generated cover of "Like a Prayer" topping Australian radio play charts in July and ARIA deciding it was illegitimate.
>But the track, released by Queensland-based DJ and producer Josh Fawaz, has angered some in the music industry who believe it was produced with artificial intelligence-powered audio engineering software.
> ABC News has contacted Fawaz multiple times this week to seek his response to the criticism, but he has not responded.[1]
I think Ben Lee's point in the NYTimes article is good:
> The Australian musician Ben Lee, who is known for hits like “Cigarettes Will Kill You” and “Catch My Disease,” said non-generative A.I. was used by artists in the process of music production, including for pitch correction and noise reduction. But generative A.I. and its impacts on the industry needed to be looked at more closely, he said.
> “I’m not the kind of person who is at all fundamentally opposed to technological changes in my industry,” he said. “It feels like healthy pushback is a really vital part of us looking responsibly at the way to integrate these technologies into our industries.”
I remember when autotune came out and people wanted to ban that too.
The rules seem pretty loose:
> For example, if a song’s lead vocal or key instrumental performance is generated by A.I., the track would be ineligible, ARIA said. But a human lead vocal with A.I. backing vocals would be allowed.
Virtually all modern music uses pitch correction in some way, often very subtly. The human voice is not perfect, and it's very common for even incredibly skilled vocalists to, say, drift slightly flat on a long held note. Or have one note a fraction of a tone off in a tight run.
Typically it's done just to save time. The singer could do takes over and over until it's perfect, but usually if a take is 99% there, you just slightly correct it.
You can tell this is the case if you listen to live recordings, although live pitch correction also exists. Vocalists aren't perfect, even Broadway vocalists and professional opera vocalists will occasionally have pitches slightly off. The human voice is an instrument, but it's not a piano.
Isn’t autotune something that you give an input and params and get the same output every time? I don’t think it’s generative in the sense that people mean when they say generative AI.
If I’m right, is that different from a paint splatter brush in Photoshop? It “literally generates” a splatter without you having to place every drop.
Generative AI like LLMs and image diffusion models are perfectly capable of being deterministic. I have seen it repeated a lot that they aren't and that simply isn't true.
edit: to answer the second part, photoshop brushes are absolutely generative but I'm not sure they are AI.
Can you really not think of a generative AI service or a well known model from the top of your head? Ask someone in your circle (who's into this scene) what they consider to be generative AI.
Have generative AI create the music and then become a cover artist for AI generated music. No one will notice. Lots of musicians are cover artists because perhaps they are skilled in their playing instruments and or singing but have a hard time coming up with good music. So instead let AI come up with the music and just copy it and make it yours.
Dirty secret of the industry, lots of producers and musicians are using AI to "brainstorm" songs, then sampling from them or performing slightly shined up versions of them. Sort of like musical photobashing.
Comment on the video page of the song that sparked this:
“ No lol. We don’t need more over privileged musicians leading luxurious lives while the rest of us slave away. I’d rather support this if leads to less inequality.
AI generated music, AI generated blogs etc, is really a stupid idea. Maybe some people want it, but I really don't. I really don't care if the music is great (it's not, I'm a musician). I really don't care if the writing is great or the content is great.
Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials.
What if AI cures cancer? Sure, let it cure cancer. I still don't want to read it. Some other people will read it. It still hasn't cured cancer yet though.
I do use AI in my day job as SWE, not by my own choice, but forced by the industry. It does good works, but if I have a choice, yeah I really don't need to, or want to.
I am just a peasant tossed back and fro by the rich, so I know my place, and keep my head down to do whatever necessary to live, but not more. I can choose what I am being kosher about.
I think it would be great if the world has 2 economies. AI and non AI economies. The more we can identify which one is AI and which one is not, the better the outcome for people like me.
No one is banning or prohibiting AI generated music from being listened to hear, just they are saying that to be considered on a very specific chart, there need to be limits on the amount of AI used. Very weak overall, especially given the irrelevance of these kinds of charts today.
Because the only way the economics of the underlying technology remain sustainable is that this stuff is everywhere anywhere all the time, regardless of underlying ethics or how many livelihoods it claims as it spreads.
Because the chief business model of this industry is so obviously the "drug dealer" strategy: give 'em their first hits for free and their next few hits for cheap so that they won't even blink while giving the company $200/month to basically rent their own brain back. (lol Imagine JetBrains in 2019 rolled out a super souped-up IDE for $200/month. They'd go bankrupt from the embarrassment alone. Shoot, imagine Hacker News users in 2019 talking about how they pay $200/month to do their own job. SO MANY PEOPLE would cry "MLM!!!!!")
Personally, when I see AI-generated artwork of any kind, I can't help but think of some person with hiring authority thinking of how many designers they can cut because "hey this doesn't look bad!"
The charts in question are compiled by the Australian Recording Industry Association. It makes economical sense that they would not want something that bypasses the music industry completely on their charts.
The only point I would disagree is that I do find LLM's to be useful.
I am only "forced" to use them as a matter of staying economically competitive against my competition, but I do find it like having a second opinion or a way to force myself to express my thoughts.
And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications that I work really hard to produce ;)
> And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications.
This feeling of being heard and understood is a driver in cult growth. And in ordinary human bonding and mating. So this seeming AI benefit carries a risk of mass movement formation and downward ratcheting social cohesion and fertility.
I worry that the most apocalyptic aspect of AI may be artificial friendship.
Mine is a different issue - I've produced hundreds of specifications over the years and it's obvious that implementation teams don't read them at all before they are "approved" because I never get questions or comments until it's time to build.
Now, granted, I'm an experienced software developer in my own right, and I know that sometimes you aren't giving something full attention until you need to, but my experience is that it's different than that.
You are correct that in identifying the issue - but that's a separate one from what I intended. I cannot stand sycophantic LLMs and use methods to get rid of any anthropomorphizing they do. But I feel like I'm somewhat outside as a person whose life is far more analog than most.
I just hung some laundry outside. I'll be (manually) splitting some firewood later today. HN is my ONLY social media.
I agree with you. Art needs "soul" and using AI generated "art" lacks it.
As we are all aware LLMs aren't true intelligence and iff we ever create something like Data from Start Trek than I'd be interested in that "person"'s art.
Right now LLM generated are is just highly mutated copies of what exists. I have no interest in consuming it.
This is as much protectionism by the music industry as it is a humanitarian ideal. They banned AI works from the top40 cause without it in the next few years, all generic pop music will be AI generated, marketed at teenagers by AI persona influencers on youtube/tiktok. I genuinely see a future where people pay $100 to go to a "concert" to communally watch an anime girl "sing and dance" on a giant screen, as a mainstream activity. Probably this will happen anyway, Im a millenial but I seriously doubt people 16 and under care at all about lists like top 40.
Band in a Box came out for the Atari ST decades ago, which you could call AI generated music. So AI generated music has been around forever.
Also there is a huge difference between being a musician and being a composer. Bragging that you are a musician means nothing. Most musicians are terrible composers.
To be fair, I think more people are concerned with the signal to noise ratio. Thousands of one-click songs based on vague text descriptions being cranked out of Suno on a daily basis.
I don't know anybody releasing songs with BIAB, and if they are, they're possibly using it to thicken chord progressions. Early editions of BIAB didn't have some of the new solo melodist stuff.
Will people stop listening to AI music just because associations ban it? Pop hits were essentially "human slop" - highly formulaic and catering to the least common denominator. I see no problem in people liking it, but I'm not sure if AI making the music is a huge problem. I won't listen to it anyway.
Interesting so far the majority of the comments here are for typing into a textbox (no talent needed) to create songs vs. hating AI Music.
I do use Suno to turn my real human songs into polished tracks. I'm not a good singer and in earshot ppl like my AI produced songs. Though, I go in waves of listening only to my AI stuff to being uninspired & not listening to it.
A weird thing happened to me on a recent date where i got AI Music catfished (https://ryanspahn.substack.com/p/new-trend-ai-music-catfishi...). My date was catfishing not their looks but their talents as a singer / even a musician. Weird, but maybe not so weird in a few years...
Well they banned AI vocals at all too, so you can spend 6 months composing a track, add AI vocals, and your entire song is banned. Really the entire genre of edm could often switch out whatever vocals they have...
I have zero idea how much this matters since I don't really think anyone views the charts to find their next song to listen to. If a song with AI vocals is good it (might) pop off, I don't think getting on the charts at that point would matter.
Which is fine, but you could just use it to fix your vocal track
I teach recording, mixing and mastering and I know it's tedious but all of it is very creative and there's art in the imperfections. Sanitizing it away may make it more appealing to the 'average' listener but you won't get actual fans that way.
Agreed. I wrote an article on my blog where I took some of my old compositions (from many years ago) and put them through the cover feature on Suno. Provided you crank up audio influence, it sticks almost note for note to the original melody and chord progressino.
Indeed, when the mood hits me I will pick up my guitar and sing one of my songs into voice memo. I then upload via the cover feature in Suno.
I've written songs since high school, so having AI turn my old vocal guitar and or keyboard demos into full tracks was a fun trip down memory lane. After a few months, though, the novelty wore off and AI music started feeling totally uninspiring, even my own stuff. I canceled my Suno subscription as AI is killing my and possibly our web design/development careers. Back in school for healthcare stuff now after a 17 yr career in tech.
I approve of AI image and video generation but for music I can't get myself to feel the same way, except for novelty/meme songs maybe.
I think it's because it's so much sneakier, I'm usually focused on something else and listening to music and it takes me a minute to realize something's off.
AI images and videos at least, for now, I can recognize the majority of the time and they don't have that primal connection to my brain that music does.
Predictable, and predictable that it will be eventually reversed once enough money enters the picture. The synthesizer was banned for a period of time in the 1970s, today you are not a serious composer without one.
70 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 4.4 ms ] threadLooked it up: yes. Yes they are.
- Chopper, probably
>But the track, released by Queensland-based DJ and producer Josh Fawaz, has angered some in the music industry who believe it was produced with artificial intelligence-powered audio engineering software.
> ABC News has contacted Fawaz multiple times this week to seek his response to the criticism, but he has not responded.[1]
I think Ben Lee's point in the NYTimes article is good:
> The Australian musician Ben Lee, who is known for hits like “Cigarettes Will Kill You” and “Catch My Disease,” said non-generative A.I. was used by artists in the process of music production, including for pitch correction and noise reduction. But generative A.I. and its impacts on the industry needed to be looked at more closely, he said.
> “I’m not the kind of person who is at all fundamentally opposed to technological changes in my industry,” he said. “It feels like healthy pushback is a really vital part of us looking responsibly at the way to integrate these technologies into our industries.”
I remember when autotune came out and people wanted to ban that too.
The rules seem pretty loose:
> For example, if a song’s lead vocal or key instrumental performance is generated by A.I., the track would be ineligible, ARIA said. But a human lead vocal with A.I. backing vocals would be allowed.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-10/most-played-song-in-a...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFG5dk1GyRo
Typically it's done just to save time. The singer could do takes over and over until it's perfect, but usually if a take is 99% there, you just slightly correct it.
You can tell this is the case if you listen to live recordings, although live pitch correction also exists. Vocalists aren't perfect, even Broadway vocalists and professional opera vocalists will occasionally have pitches slightly off. The human voice is an instrument, but it's not a piano.
If I’m right, is that different from a paint splatter brush in Photoshop? It “literally generates” a splatter without you having to place every drop.
edit: to answer the second part, photoshop brushes are absolutely generative but I'm not sure they are AI.
As best as I can tell "Generative AI" is a common shorthand for "AI I don't like"
The only people salivating at generative AI are those that do not have the skills to create without.
“ No lol. We don’t need more over privileged musicians leading luxurious lives while the rest of us slave away. I’d rather support this if leads to less inequality.
No more Rihanna’s and Guy Sebastian etc”
Its like being kosher. Some people choose to not eat non kosher food. I choose not to consume AI generated materials.
What if AI cures cancer? Sure, let it cure cancer. I still don't want to read it. Some other people will read it. It still hasn't cured cancer yet though.
I do use AI in my day job as SWE, not by my own choice, but forced by the industry. It does good works, but if I have a choice, yeah I really don't need to, or want to.
I am just a peasant tossed back and fro by the rich, so I know my place, and keep my head down to do whatever necessary to live, but not more. I can choose what I am being kosher about.
I think it would be great if the world has 2 economies. AI and non AI economies. The more we can identify which one is AI and which one is not, the better the outcome for people like me.
Just label it, so those that want it can seek it out.
Having a music charts that doesn't include AI generated music does not stop AI generated music.
Because the chief business model of this industry is so obviously the "drug dealer" strategy: give 'em their first hits for free and their next few hits for cheap so that they won't even blink while giving the company $200/month to basically rent their own brain back. (lol Imagine JetBrains in 2019 rolled out a super souped-up IDE for $200/month. They'd go bankrupt from the embarrassment alone. Shoot, imagine Hacker News users in 2019 talking about how they pay $200/month to do their own job. SO MANY PEOPLE would cry "MLM!!!!!")
Personally, when I see AI-generated artwork of any kind, I can't help but think of some person with hiring authority thinking of how many designers they can cut because "hey this doesn't look bad!"
I am only "forced" to use them as a matter of staying economically competitive against my competition, but I do find it like having a second opinion or a way to force myself to express my thoughts.
And, finally, it's good that someone (something) actually reads the specifications that I work really hard to produce ;)
This feeling of being heard and understood is a driver in cult growth. And in ordinary human bonding and mating. So this seeming AI benefit carries a risk of mass movement formation and downward ratcheting social cohesion and fertility.
I worry that the most apocalyptic aspect of AI may be artificial friendship.
Now, granted, I'm an experienced software developer in my own right, and I know that sometimes you aren't giving something full attention until you need to, but my experience is that it's different than that.
You are correct that in identifying the issue - but that's a separate one from what I intended. I cannot stand sycophantic LLMs and use methods to get rid of any anthropomorphizing they do. But I feel like I'm somewhat outside as a person whose life is far more analog than most.
I just hung some laundry outside. I'll be (manually) splitting some firewood later today. HN is my ONLY social media.
These guys are satirizing it quite well. https://www.thebeaverton.com/2025/06/zuckerberg-the-average-...
I find cars useful, but I don't have a car.
Guns are useful too in certain context, I don't have a gun thankfully because I don't need to.
This is great analogy when you consider the sheer deliciousness of pork and shellfish.
Because Oxford defines it as
> an unspecified amount or number of
How do you have more than an unspecified amount?
As we are all aware LLMs aren't true intelligence and iff we ever create something like Data from Start Trek than I'd be interested in that "person"'s art.
Right now LLM generated are is just highly mutated copies of what exists. I have no interest in consuming it.
/s/ The Big Three
Also there is a huge difference between being a musician and being a composer. Bragging that you are a musician means nothing. Most musicians are terrible composers.
I don't know anybody releasing songs with BIAB, and if they are, they're possibly using it to thicken chord progressions. Early editions of BIAB didn't have some of the new solo melodist stuff.
I do use Suno to turn my real human songs into polished tracks. I'm not a good singer and in earshot ppl like my AI produced songs. Though, I go in waves of listening only to my AI stuff to being uninspired & not listening to it.
A weird thing happened to me on a recent date where i got AI Music catfished (https://ryanspahn.substack.com/p/new-trend-ai-music-catfishi...). My date was catfishing not their looks but their talents as a singer / even a musician. Weird, but maybe not so weird in a few years...
I have zero idea how much this matters since I don't really think anyone views the charts to find their next song to listen to. If a song with AI vocals is good it (might) pop off, I don't think getting on the charts at that point would matter.
Which is fine, but you could just use it to fix your vocal track
I teach recording, mixing and mastering and I know it's tedious but all of it is very creative and there's art in the imperfections. Sanitizing it away may make it more appealing to the 'average' listener but you won't get actual fans that way.
It's basically BIAB on steroids.
I've written songs since high school, so having AI turn my old vocal guitar and or keyboard demos into full tracks was a fun trip down memory lane. After a few months, though, the novelty wore off and AI music started feeling totally uninspiring, even my own stuff. I canceled my Suno subscription as AI is killing my and possibly our web design/development careers. Back in school for healthcare stuff now after a 17 yr career in tech.
I think it's because it's so much sneakier, I'm usually focused on something else and listening to music and it takes me a minute to realize something's off.
AI images and videos at least, for now, I can recognize the majority of the time and they don't have that primal connection to my brain that music does.
Behind every ai music there’s still an artist.