“We’re taught that in life, we should try to look on the bright side, to be optimistic. Not in this case. In this case, look on the dark side. Assume rejection first. Assume you’re the rule, not the exception.”
The first time I really fell in love was nothing short of magical. It was a "move mountains" kind of relationship where we were both just trying to out-love each other. We were long-distance, age-gapped, and in completely different hemispheres of life when we started dating but we wanted it badly enough that we both worked to make sure it thrived under the conditions. And it did for over two years. We broke up once when it got too hard and I never thought we would end up together again but six months later, we did. For the first time in my life, I was someone's exception.
The entire concept of being a rule and being an exception was pretty new to me at the time. The movie "He's Just Not That Into You" came out in the first year of our relationship but I didn't really think about it until now. The next time a boyfriend and I broke up almost two years later, I waited around because I was CONVINCED we would get back together just as I had in my previous relationship. But he moved on. I made the mistake of believing I was the exception again but I wasn't – I was the rule.
What I've realized is that you have to walk into every dating scenario understanding that before a single word is said or a single feeling is felt , YOU are the rule. You are "2+2=4" and that's never going to change. If he cheats on you, you leave him. Even though it could work out somewhere down the road, that would make you an exception to the rule, "once a cheater, always a cheater," and you are not the exception. If he breaks up with you, you move on because even though people break up and get back together sometimes, that's not the rule and YOU are the rule.
We're constantly, as women, allowing ourselves to be heartbroken and torn down by the idea that love is a fairytale. The reality is that love really is a fairytale but that doesn't mean that every guy you meet is your Prince Charming. You've got to stop giving the best of yourself to men who give you hardly anything at all. You've got to stop taking back the ones that continuously break your heart. If you're not dating him and you're already working to keep the relationship afloat, you're working for the wrong relationship. Because even though he could have a divine moment of realization, that's not the rule and YOU are the rule.
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 Relationships![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.]()
