We use these two terms, vigorously, via text without even noticing that they are part of our everyday life. Most of us put these in every text that we send and most of the time we are not even laughing, but they are used as fillers. I am guilty of this, and I really have no explanation as to why I put them at the end of my text. "Haha" and "lol" have become so second nature that, often times, we do not even realize they are even placed in our text. For most of us, our phones should just add them to the text template.
There is no way someone is laughing at every text that they send or received, so why these two terms have become the basis of every text is puzzling. Sometimes, the matter that people are talking about can be serious, but they will still use, "haha," to end the text when it has nothing to do with the the topic of the conversation. We seem to use these because it is what other people want to see, and if you do not place these somewhere in your text then, essentially, you are going against the social norm.
You dictate your tone and style of text according to the person you are texting. If you see that they use good grammar and stay away from slang then, most likely, you are going to clean up your grammar in order to stay on par with the person you are texting. The same goes for using terms of laughter because if you start texting someone new, and they refrain from using "lol," then you will quickly adjust the way you text so you do not seem different from the person you are texting.
I encourage you to take a look back at your most recent texts and see how many times you have used, "haha" and "lol." For some, it will be shocking because most of the time you had no clue that you used it so much. This goes for most things we do in our daily life. If you take some time, and slow down, some of things minimal things we do will come to light. You will realize how the smallest things make the biggest impact in our lives.
Recommended for you
The Illusion of Creativity
AI-generated music is often marketed as “artistic” or “educational.” But what does it really teach?
- That style can be replicated without understanding.
- That emotion can be simulated without feeling.
- That effort can be bypassed with a prompt.
For young creators, this sets a dangerous precedent. Why learn to play guitar when an algorithm can do it faster? Why study harmony when AI can generate chord progressions in seconds? The risk isn’t just laziness — it’s the loss of depth, discipline, and the tactile joy of creation.
I have listened to several AI-generated music covers. My initial reaction was one of considerable impressiveness, particularly regarding the reimagining of classic pop hits in diverse genres with novel arrangements. Here is one good example a-ha — Take On Me
However, after engaging with several such Ai generated song covers, a sense of emotional detachment emerged, attributable to the perceived absence of human artistry and genuine sentiment, resulting in a technically flawless yet ultimately soulless auditory experience.
Copyright in Crisis
What does the copyright law say about AI generated music, especially in field of music covers. Who is liable for copyright in this case, AI developers, people who used AI to generate music or people who published it on music platforms?
Recent lawsuits show that the music industry is pushing back hard:
- Universal, Sony, and Warner sued AI music platforms Suno and Udio in 2024 for allegedly training their models on copyrighted songs without permission Ars Technica The Lyon Firm.
- They’re seeking up to $150,000 per infringed song, arguing that the AI outputs resemble famous tracks and voices (e.g., Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson).
- These lawsuits target the developers of the AI tools — but they raise broader questions:The legal gray area is training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use Sites at USC.
But who’s liable?
Role | Legal Risk | Why |
AI Developers | ✅ High | For training on copyrighted material without licenses. |
Users | ⚠️ Moderate | If they intentionally recreate protected works. |
Publishers/Platforms | ✅ High | For distributing infringing content. |
The grey area lies in training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use. Meanwhile, AI-generated works themselves aren’t eligible for copyright unless a human provides substantial creative input — leaving them in legal limbo.
The Educational Mirage
Some argue that AI music helps people learn genres, production styles, or vocal techniques. But this “education” often lacks context. It’s like learning to paint by watching a printer — technically impressive, but creatively hollow.
True musical education involves:
- Struggle and iteration: Learning through mistakes.
- Emotional connection: Expressing what words can’t.
- Cultural lineage: Understanding the roots of sound.
AI shortcuts bypass all of this. And in doing so, they risk flattening the rich terrain of human creativity into a sterile landscape of algorithmic mimicry.
Why This Fight Matters
This isn’t just about music. It’s about the future of art, storytelling, and human expression. If we allow machines to dominate creative spaces, we risk turning culture into content — optimized, monetized, and devoid of soul.
We must ask: Do we want a world where art is made by machines, or one where machines help humans make better art?
5 Key Takeaways
- AI-generated music blurs the line between innovation and erosion in the creative arts
- AI-generated music raises questions about copyright, culture, education, and artistic expression
- AI-generated music can replicate style without understanding, simulate emotion without feeling, and bypass effort with a prompt
- AI-generated music sets a dangerous precedent for young creators by potentially leading to a loss of depth, discipline, and joy of creation
Trending Topics
Trending Stories
Best of Entertainment![Cristina Yang and Meredith Grey in scrubs sit against a wall, smiling and enjoying a break.]()
![Towson University]()
![Woman in field with a red heart-shaped balloon under a colorful sky.]()
