Actuality¹⁷⁴

While Belgian singer Stromae's cover of the song Papaoutai, created entirely by AI without the artist's involvement or consent, is all the rage on the streaming site Spotify, many are questioning the importance we attach to the human connection and authenticity represented by artistic and cultural products.

In other words, these new technologies are not only disrupting our understanding of art, but also the role and value we choose to give to our artists and creators.

It is true that the arts are closely linked to these important technological developments, which enable our artists to continually renew and push the boundaries of human creativity. Whether it is the increasingly spectacular special effects in cinema or the growing use of virtual reality and other immersive technologies in museums, this reality can be seen everywhere.

In this vein, it may be tempting to see the development of generative AI as nothing more than a new tool that will accelerate or amplify cultural and artistic innovation. The problem is that this view tends to overlook the significant threat posed by the arrival of this new technology.

To better understand the depth of these issues, one need only look at the recent decision by the Bandcamp purchasing and listening platform to ban from its platform what it describes as “music generated entirely or substantially by artificial intelligence.” The platform justifies this decision by emphasizing that it wants “musicians to continue creating music, and fans to be confident that the music they find on Bandcamp was created by humans.” Bandcamp thus defends the idea that the product of its industry is not simply music as such, but rather the human connection it represents.

The merits of this measure are questionable. In particular, there is no clear definition of what constitutes “substantial” use of the technology. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the company will be able to accurately detect and identify prohibited use. The few AI detection tools available to date have not proven effective.

Nevertheless, beyond these limitations, this measure reveals a very real fear for two of the crucial elements that are the very foundations of the arts and culture industry: human connection and copyright. These two elements are equally important, because while it is humanity that enables our artists to create, it is copyright in particular that allows them to make a living from their work.

Let's return to our first example, Papaoutai version 2.0 without humans. Beyond the issues of copyright, other questions arise, and the answers to these issues are not black and white.

We could discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these new technologies at length. There is also no doubt that government regulations will have to adapt. But they are already lagging behind, and are likely to fall further behind as these technologies continue to develop and refine at an astonishing pace.

It is therefore clear that the industry itself, which has always been at the forefront of this type of innovation, must tackle these issues head-on. These are truly existential questions for the industry, both in terms of its ability to remain viable for our artists and to ensure that there is a new generation to take over.

However, while more and more platforms and distributors seem to be eagerly embracing and adopting generative AI, Bandcamp's decision shows us that there is a place in the industry for those who wish to take a counter-current stance by truly questioning this adoption and its implications. It also sends us an extremely important message about the value of having a clear position on the subject.

Yes, we must adapt to these technologies, which seem to be here to stay. But that doesn't mean we have to accept them unconditionally.

Article written entirely by a human.

1 https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2221118/bandcamp-interdiction-musique-generee-intelligence-artificielle