- Just sayin', Klay Thompson’s 60 point performance leaves him in the company of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Carmelo Anthony as the only other players to finish with 60 plus in the past decade.
- Just sayin', Klay Thompson only dribbled 11 times on his 21 field goals during his 60 point performance.
- Just sayin', Russel Westbrook’s 7 consecutive Triple Doubles are the most in the NBA since Michael Jordan had seven straight in 1989.
- Just sayin', averaging 31.0 pointer par game, 11.3 assists per game, and 10.9 rebound per game, Russel Westbrook is averaging a triple double on the season as of December 9th.
- Just sayin', a record breaking 113 international players have suited up and took to the court this NBA season.
- Just sayin', J.J Redick has continued to build on his last season's true shooting percentage of 63.2%, and is on pace to join the ranks of Curry, Durant, Larry Bird, Mark Price, Reggie Miller, Steve Nash, Jose Calderon, and Dirk Nowitzki in the illustrious 50-40-90 club.
- Just sayin', LeBron James only trails Michael Jordan’s record for points scored in the playoffs by 415 points, putting the King in good position to steal his Airness’s record this post season.
Welcome back
Sign in to comment to your favorite stories, participate in your community and interact with your friends
or
LOG IN WITH FACEBOOKNo account? Create one
Recommended for you
This article has not been reviewed by Odyssey HQ and solely reflects the ideas and opinions of the creator.
StableDiffusion
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 Sports
![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.]()
