>[Songwriter Chambers] described the acceleration in use of artificial intelligence in the music industry as “terrifying” because of its potential to replace so

>[Songwriter Chambers] described the acceleration in use of artificial intelligence in the music industry as “terrifying” because of its potential to replace songwriters. If machines can produce better music, why wouldn't I listen? >“I think we may get to a stage in the future where an album will need to have a badge saying ‘this is an all-human record’." Why is it sooo important that things be human made? >Asked for his advice to young musicians, he said: “Be flexible. Have as many skills as possible because you’re going to need them ... They need to have very personal skills, like charm and hustle.” So, if a music AI system can easily "collect them all" [skills], can't it not also develop "charm" and "hustle" ? >The Recording Industry Association of America has launched a “human artistry campaign” to limit AI. In a list of core principles, it says: “People relate most deeply to works that embody the lived experience, perceptions and attitudes of others. Only humans can create and fully realise works … with such specific meaning.” ...so if only a human can deliver such "lived experiences," why would anybody be afraid of an AI delivering better music from its collectively larger database of more human experiences [than any human could possibly ever experience, individually]?