"Mirror Mirror on the wall; who's the fairest of them all?" Sometimes I wish that this thought didn't run through so many heads. However, it's obvious that so many young girls care about being "the fairest" out of every girl they know. They may think that they have to be the prettiest girl in the world to succeed or get attention. This leads to young girls developing many insecurities; they may see pictures in magazines or on TV and see other girls have different features that are "prettier" than their own, and that hurts their self-esteem. Do you know how upsetting it is for a little girl to believe that she's not pretty? It's more than a bit disappointing. Besides, young girls have so many more redeeming qualities than just their physical appearance, such as kindness, intelligence, compassion, dedication, and courage. Honestly, in this day and age, younger girls are more likely to be drawn towards the goal of being "fairest of them all" rather than to be caring and sweet. However pretty face will not help a woman succeed in life, hard work will. We should strive to teach our girls that there is more to them than a pretty face. They can be strong, independent, motivated young ladies rather than timid, frail, little girls. Remind them that looks aren't everything. They are capable of anything they put their minds to, and we shouldn't let vanity hold them back from their full potential. Nor should they ever feel that they aren't good enough just because they don't look like a model. So shatter the mirror of insecurity; teach these young girls to be strong.
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 Health and Wellness
![Cristina Yang and Meredith Grey in scrubs sit against a wall, smiling and enjoying a break.]()
![Woman in field with a red heart-shaped balloon under a colorful sky.]()
