1 minute ago, gasman449 said:

It's so frustrating that in the middle of a drought hosepipes were banned but none of these awful generative AI platforms were... If they insist on keeping it around they need to at least charge people to use it...

I hate how the government believe that AI data centres are necessary infrastructure, even though it'll cause more strain on water supplies. They're also making/planning AI data centres that use fossil fuels instead of water, which will further accelerate global warming/climate change. The climate crisis is the biggest threat humanity has ever faced. If the average temperature compared to pre-industrial levels continues to rise (which I believe it will), we will see famine, droughts, starvation, climate migrants, and other stuff like that in biblical proportions.

Edited Wednesday at 15:271 day by DanielCarey

I guess at this point what does it matter.

The single charts are made up due to ACR, 3 track rule and random record company resets, along with the album charts (‘Greatest Hits’ spending months in the charts without appearing in sales Top 100) so may as well allow AI into the mix.

I’m surprised that people are surprised that record companies want it - for them it’s all about market share and profits, having an AI artist is certainly cheaper than having to deal with actual artists; their teams, writers, in-person promo etc.,

4 minutes ago, ___∆___ said:

I’m surprised that people are surprised that record companies want it - for them it’s all about market share and profits, having an AI artist is certainly cheaper than having to deal with actual artists; their teams, writers, in-person promo etc.,

For me, I'm not so surprised about the £££ signs in their eyes, but moreso if AI music takes off even more with major label backing that the genuine artists that they are trying to develop for the future will have even fewer opportunties to chart, in a chart landscape already overrun with old songs and hard to break into. And I would imagine AI 'artists' are also more likely to be one-hit wonders, who also can't make them any money from touring etc... so it's all short-term gain. Also, the artists already on their labels are bound to become disgruntled if priority is given to AI acts, plus the aforementioned environmental concerns of a label building up an AI artist, AI music videos etc will likely reflect badly on these companies, who are constantly pressed by shareholders etc on how they are being sustainable. Also, the lack of musical creativity and originality coming from the major labels who exploit this will hurt in the future as things become even more homogenised... it all feels like a recipe for potential disaster to me. And sad that this is how labels feel they need to thrive, but maybe a sad reality also in this day and age, as 2026 has been so dry, the industry feels stuck so profits must be dropping.

4 minutes ago, gooddelta said:

For me, I'm not so surprised about the £££ signs in their eyes, but moreso if AI music takes off even more with major label backing that the genuine artists that they are trying to develop for the future will have even fewer opportunties to chart, in a chart landscape already overrun with old songs and hard to break into. And I would imagine AI 'artists' are also more likely to be one-hit wonders, who also can't make them any money from touring etc... so it's all short-term gain. Also, the artists already on their labels are bound to become disgruntled if priority is given to AI acts, plus the aforementioned environmental concerns of a label building up an AI artist, AI music videos etc will likely reflect badly on these companies, who are constantly pressed by shareholders etc on how they are being sustainable. Also, the lack of musical creativity and originality coming from the major labels who exploit this will hurt in the future as things become even more homogenised... it all feels like a recipe for potential disaster to me. And sad that this is how labels feel they need to thrive, but maybe a sad reality also in this day and age, as 2026 has been so dry, the industry feels stuck so profits must be dropping.

I think even without AI new (and to some extent established artists) are struggling - artists nowadays seem almost faceless, back in the day you had acts on your TV most days - breakfast, afternoon and evening TV, chat shows, Saturday TV, TOTP etc., - the evolution of AI acts just feels like a natural global progression (even if it’s one I’m not excited about).

So many times I’ll say to my nieces and nephews (all under 20) what do you think of X new song - they’ll usually have zero idea about who is singing it despite loving the song, their generation will embrace AI and faceless acts.

I think most songs probably are using AI already. Obviously most of you are thinking in terms of AI vocals or lyrics or instrumentals. But in terms of mixing and mastering I'm pretty sure it must be being used in most songs and none of us would be able to tell. Even the singers probably wouldn't know because they just send the song over to a producer and the polished product comes back as has always happened. Even if the singer is sitting in the studio while the song is being mixed, it can just show up on the DAW like a normal plug-in, so they wouldn't even be able to tell from watching. And on top of that producers might be downloading and experimenting with new plug ins and the latest effects and technologies and might themselves be using AI without knowing.

Yeah you can easily tell AI vocals or lyrics, but you can't tell AI automation or AI compression or AI EQ easily. So it's impossible to really ban it from the charts. And some songs which may be artistically incredible with real instruments and heartfelt lyrics and vocals, but if an AI noise gate was used to get rid of background noise during the recording, does that make it evil, or slop or ban-worthy from music charts?

17 minutes ago, Eric_Blob said:

Yeah you can easily tell AI vocals or lyrics, but you can't tell AI automation or AI compression or AI EQ easily. So it's impossible to really ban it from the charts. And some songs which may be artistically incredible with real instruments and heartfelt lyrics and vocals, but if an AI noise gate was used to get rid of background noise during the recording, does that make it evil, or slop or ban-worthy from music charts?

From what I've seen I don't think many anti-AI music people oppose AI being used in those ways (I personally don't), if we're including AI in those contexts we've already had our first AI number one with Now And Then. When AI becomes a substitute for coming up with ideas rather than refining what's already been created i.e. generative AI, that's when it becomes objectionable.

I really don't see the value in AI art of any kind - AI posters cringe me out so much, they're always ugly and so easy to identify, and it just makes me so sad that actual designers will be losing work, and fewer people will be interested in learning the arts, not just in terms of photo editing but beyond. Music baffles me even more, though. The most famous songs are what they are because of the investment and talent of the artists behind them. Products like Suno do nothing but exploit other people's talent, and attempt to equate itself to genuine musical talent (which, particularly when it comes to playing an instrument, can take a hell of a lot of hard work to learn!). I'll never see the merit in an AI song even if, on the surface, it doesn't sound that bad (but then, every AI song I've heard feels quite noticeably AI that it's offputting regardless anyway), and I'd happily see it banned from the chart, Australia are totally right about their approach. It's not something that needs to be platformed and encouraged when there's an incredibly crowded market in the industry and it's already so hard for new artists to break through.

And and and, there's more than a 10% chance it could end up killing the entire human race!

https://news.sky.com/story/more-than-10-chance-ai-could-kill-all-humans-anthropic-researcher-13583522