Some time ago, I was at a bar watching a basketball game by myself. I was just out enjoying the night, when a gentleman approached me.
Previously in the night, I had talked to a group of alumni who were back in town for some drinks. One of the ladies in the group asked me my major, which in my case is majors. I am an Early Childhood and a Special Education major. She then said something like that's great, but never limit yourself to what is on your degree. Not a really new concept to me, but it was encouraging.
Now fast forward to the gentleman. I told him my major after he asked. Then, he asked me what I do to make money. I told him I work UPS; it is my winter break job (I didn't tell him that it was a seasonal job). He replied with, if he was me, he would forget teaching and go for the higher paying job or UPS. He had some drinks in him, and he bought me some, so I didn't want to argue with him. However, I will explain my choice in majors.
I understand there are more lucrative opportunities for me to make a profession. Believe me, I think about it often. But, I didn't pick them for money, clearly. I picked them because I saw them as majors that really make a difference. Summers off never hurt, but that isn't why I picked them. I selected them because every child deserves a proper education, and I want them to see the potential I see in them. Actually, not see it, I want them to meet it or even exceed it. In order to do that, the children need a top-notch education.
I'm not a top-notch teacher, yet, but I'm training to learn how to implement effective teaching strategies so I can be a top-notch teacher. So, I picked on of the best places to learn the craft from.
Remember, I'm well aware I can make money doing something new. But, I want a teacher to do their job right because there is more than just a job at stake. There are many futures at risk. If I want to see the job done right, if I want to make a difference, I'm doing it myself, same as any other teacher out there.
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?
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.]()
