In recent weeks, America has encountered many tragic
school shootings. Since September, there have been five school shootings on
record. And because of these horrific incidents, we want to blame the guns and
we want to blame the gun manufacturers for the crimes committed and hold them
responsible. While there may indeed be flaws in the laws of gun control, I
believe we are missing the point of where our focus needs to be in order to put
a stop to most gun violence: mental health. Why is mental health such a
difficult subject to talk about? Why do we continue to push it under the rug
and act as if it is not a problem? We want to blame guns when we should really
be blaming ourselves. It is not the gun that has committed the crime, the gun
cannot pull its own trigger, the brain behind the machine is what commits the
action. This is where we must put our main focus. Many are embarrassed to claim
that they or someone they love suffers from mental health issues because they
want to hide it, act as if they are “normal.” However, there is nothing that
claims just because your brain functions differently than someone else’s means
you are no longer considered “normal.” This is not a topic to be embarrassed about,
it is a topic to be aware of and help those who might need assistance in such
an area. Mental health issues are a growing epidemic in our nation because we
refuse to admit we have a problem with it. Now is the time to stand up and
become aware of the growing problem our country faces with mental health. It is
time to become aware of the signs, admit that there is an issue and seek help
to stop the growth of such a fixable problem. This is a call to action to not
focus all our time and efforts on strict gun control, but to focus on people,
focus on the mind behind the action. I am not particularly concerned about the
actions of the firearm because without the mind behind it, no action can be
taken. This is a call to talk to your legislators, raise awareness and wage war
against the growing problem our nation faces with mental health.
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
