There has been a mass shooting with more casualties than what happened at Pulse, during the #Orlandoshooting. It's called #WoundedKnee.
The Wounded Knee massacre in 1890, on the Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, resulted in the deaths of at least 175 men, women and children, and 90 were injured. Lakota survivors lamented the loss of loved ones and culture, while survivors of the U.S. Army's 7th Cavalry Regiment had a mixed reaction of blood lust and lamentation.
Eyewitness accounts reveal that gun confiscation was attempted by the regiment, which started the shooting. Some might argue that since this was an act during [unjust] war that it doesn't count as a mass shooting. Some argue that it does.
Whether it does or not, there are a lot of motifs between the two shootings. Like gun control and social prejudice. At Wounded Knee the belligerent force tried to confiscate guns from the minority victims before slaughtering them, while at Orlando the belligerent force slaughtered minority victims in a gun-free zone.
Taking away peoples' guns often result in both lack of defense and the black market. Prohibition allows the black market to flourish while leaving law-abiding people defenseless in that market. Today, areas with the most gun violence are also areas with strict gun control, like the state of Florida.
Being prejudiced in a society with social engineering often result in militant resentment. Whether that manifests itself in racism or homophobia, as in both cases. Just like governments cannot force society to accept Native Americans, they cannot force acceptance of gays. But what they could do is protect property rights, such as allowing property owners to decide their own gun policy, but they refuse to. Or allowing them to refuse service to whoever they choose to, such as racists and homophobics.
Another motif between the two shootings was that the belligerents were government forces. The Army was responsible for Wounded Knee, while a former cop and government-sanctioned guard was responsible for Orlando.
Mateen was seeking to be a cop, Mateen earned an associate degree in Criminal Justice Technology from Indian River State College in 2006, and was employed as a prison guard for the Florida Department of Corrections for half a year. Since being fired, he worked as a security guard for British security firm G4S Secure Solutions in Jupiter, Florida.
Supposedly he had connections to Hezbollah, which is opposed to both the groups Mateen claimed to have been committing this atrocity in the name of - ISIS and Al-Nusra Front, both of which are also opposed to each other.
This confusion has led to suspicions that Mateen was mentally ill. His family and members of his mosque describe him as quiet and soft-spoken. The mosque he attended did not preach violence against gays. His father claims his son was homophobic, while some Pulse patrons have said he was a regular. The question is was he a self-loathing gay man or a homophobic who planned a shooting?
#Guncontrol does not work. #Socialengineering does not work. #Government does not work.
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
