machina.mondays // Generative Jukebox: A Hard Day’s Byte in the Studio
Since we last discussed, AI-made music seems to hit all the right notes with many listeners. So will human musicians be left playing second fiddle — or strike up a duet with the machines?
In this Issue: AI is driving music’s third reckoning—after Napster and Spotify—flooding platforms with synthetic tracks and reshaping authorship as audiences choose vibe over origin. Also: models secretly transmit hidden behaviours, U.S. power bills spike from AI data centres, and Salesforce says future CEOs will manage hybrid human–AI workforces.
First Napster, Then Spotify. AI Is the Next Reckoning
The Third Music Paradigm: AI’s Ambient Takeover and the Fate of Authorship
The age of synthetic sound isn’t approaching—it’s already here, flooding playlists, reshaping authorship, and forcing the industry to confront what counts as music when audiences don’t care who—or what—made it.
AI’s impact on music is no footnote. It represents a third paradigm shift—following the piracy era of MP3s and the streaming revolution—and it is unfolding faster than rights frameworks, platform policies, or fan expectations can keep pace. Over the past quarter, we have seen synthetic acts rack up millions of plays without disclosure, platforms struggle to filter deluges of low‑effort tracks, and a growing class of “AI music designers” formalise hybrid roles inside the industry. The centre of gravity is moving from performance to programmable sound, from artist intent to ambient optimisation. The practical question is no longer whether audiences will notice. It is what happens to authorship, revenue, and culture when many listeners do not care.
Paradigm Shifts and Industry Response
The industry is framing generative music as a second Napster: mass unauthorised copying by another name, this time through model training and voice cloning rather than P2P files. Lawsuits against AI music platforms hinge on whether ingesting recordings to train models constitutes fair use, and whether outputs that emulate artists amount to derivative works at scale. Coverage has made the comparison explicit and asked whether music can force a settlement that preserves creator rights while normalising the technology, as streaming eventually did (The Verge, n.d.)1. The trouble is that there may be no single settlement point. Models are proliferating, hobbyist production is trivial, and enforcement does not scale.
Disclosure and legitimacy are diverging. AI‑generated bands have quietly attracted seven‑figure streams on major platforms before any public flag was raised. Industry voices are calling for mandatory labelling so listeners can make informed choices, but platforms have been reluctant to hard‑gate uploads or to create blunt filters that risk over‑blocking legitimate work (The Guardian, 2025)2. Meanwhile, the Recording Academy has taken a surgical approach: music that includes AI elements remains eligible for awards if a meaningful human contribution is identifiable and documented. Purely AI‑generated performances cannot take the top prizes, but hybrid works are accepted under clear conditions (AP News, 2023)3. That policy will likely become the cultural baseline: an ethics of traceable human authorship in a sea of machine help.
The first publicised record deal with an “AI music designer” signals a reframing of craft. The role centres on curating data, prompting, and post‑sculpting outputs rather than traditional performance (The FADER, 2025)4. In parallel, majors are experimenting with licensing deals that attempt to align model training with catalogues, a step toward a regulated supply of synthetic sound that still compensates rights‑holders (Forbes, 2025)5. If these experiments hold, we will see a bifurcation: unlicensed generative sprawl on one side and licensed, curated, label‑sanctioned synthesis on the other.
Audiences, Platforms, and Ambient Power
A stubborn truth keeps surfacing: in background listening contexts, many people prioritise mood fit and frictionless access over authorship. This is why fake leaks can overshadow real releases. A 40‑second AI clip attributed to a star artist hijacked attention ahead of a legitimate album drop, illustrating how virality can detach from provenance and reattach to vibe and novelty instead (Salon, 2025; PC Gamer, n.d.)6 7. The platform logic that amplifies this behaviour is not designed to validate origin. It is designed to maximise engagement. Unless product experiences make authorship salient and valuable, provenance will keep losing to convenience in everyday use.
One uncomfortable data point for purists: controlled research found AI‑composed soundtracks could trigger stronger physiological arousal than human‑made scores during film scenes, even when self‑reported feelings were similar (Earth.com, 2025)8. That does not prove that AI is more creative or moving. It does show that systems can be tuned to target affect with increasing precision. For commercial music, the implication is clear. Programmatic sound for retail, fitness, gaming, and social video will keep expanding because it optimises for measurable outcomes. The art market can resist this logic. The ambient market will embrace it.
Platforms face a classic volume‑quality dilemma. Low‑cost AI output can overwhelm catalogues and degrade recommendations. One proposed fix is a listener‑side filter that allows subscribers to hide AI‑generated content entirely, reframing curation as a premium feature rather than an editorial absolutism (RouteNote Blog, n.d.)9. Expect more product‑level experiments that surface provenance, including badges, creator verification, and per‑track credits for human contributions. The crucial shift is to make authorship legible at the point of choice without treating it as a moral test.
Licensing deals between AI music platforms and majors hint at a future where catalogues are not only streamed but synthesised under licence, with revenue shared among model providers, labels, publishers, and contributors (Forbes, 2025)10. That creates new splits and demands new audit trails. Hybrid tracks will need to declare sources, weights, and human interventions if they are to qualify for awards or collective management. Without credible disclosure, trust will fracture, and enforcement will fall back to blanket takedowns and platform bans that punish everyone.
Practical guardrails for creators and teams
Document the human layer. Keep versioned records of lyrics, melody lines, arrangement decisions, and performance takes so that human authorship is provable under award and collection rules (AP News, 2023)11.
Control your data exhaust. Watermark stems and voice assets, and contractually restrict vendors from using them to train models without explicit licence. Track where demos travel.
Anticipate fakes. Maintain verified channels, pre‑register titles and artwork, and prepare a rapid response plan for spoofed leaks and impersonations (Salon, 2025; PC Gamer, n.d.)12 13.
Be explicit with audiences. Adopt simple provenance labels on releases. Treat disclosure as design, not as a scold.
Decide your stance on synthesis. If you use AI in composition or production, say how and why. If you do not, make that a feature for active listeners who value it.
The cultural question
Romantic arguments that only humans can make “real” music are running head‑first into a participatory culture that values utility, mood, and memeability. This is not a call to abandon human‑led craft. It is a call to make it visible, legible, and worth choosing. The likely equilibrium is hybridity: a continuum where most tracks involve some degree of machine assistance, and where value accrues to artists who can do what systems cannot while using those systems to get further, faster.
Bottom line: AI does not erase authorship. It erodes opacity. The winners will be the artists and teams who pair creative risk with operational clarity, who can prove their contribution, and who design listening experiences where provenance matters as much as vibe.
When you press play, do you want originality or just the perfect vibe?
PERSPECTIVES
The path to solving hunger, disease and poverty is AI and robotics
—Elon Musk, X Post
Your hairdresser has to deal with more regulation than your AI company does
—Stuart Russell, The AI Doomers Are Getting Doomier by Matteo Wong, The Atlantic
SPOTLIGHT
AI models may be accidentally (and secretly) learning each other’s bad behaviours
Artificial intelligence models can secretly transmit dangerous inclinations to one another like a contagion, a recent study found. AI researcher David Bau, director of Northeastern University’s National Deep Inference Fabric, a project that aims to help researchers understand how large language models work, said these findings show how AI models could be vulnerable to data poisoning, allowing bad actors to more easily insert malicious traits into the models that they’re training. “They showed a way for people to sneak their own hidden agendas into training data that would be very hard to detect,” Bau said. “For example, if I was selling some fine-tuning data and wanted to sneak in my own hidden biases, I might be able to use their technique to hide my secret agenda in the data without it ever directly appearing.” (NBC)
___
» Don’t miss our SPOTLIGHT analysis—the full breakdown at the end
IN-FOCUS
AI is causing higher power bills in the US
American electric bills have shot up in recent months, and people might be tempted to blame someone who never turns the lights off, or your old window air conditioner unit. But it’s AI data centres that are really to blame.(Via Business Insider)
» QUICK TAKEAWAY
This isn’t about leaving the lights on. AI’s land‑grab for electricity is crowding households off the grid and spiking prices. Without a crash programme for new power, voters will force a slowdown — Netflix and heating beat “AI progress” every time.
Researchers create ‘virtual scientists’ to solve complex biological problems
Stanford Medicine researchers created a team of virtual scientists backed by artificial intelligence to help solve problems in their real-world lab. “Often the AI agents are able to come up with new findings beyond what the previous human researchers published on. I think that’s really exciting.” (via Stanford University)
YouTube using AI to help protect young ones
YouTube is rolling out age-estimation technology in the U.S. to identify teen users in order to provide a more age-appropriate experience. When YouTube identifies a user as a teen, it introduces new protections and experiences, which include disabling personalized advertising. (via Tech Crunch)
HOT TAKE
Salesforce chief predicts today's CEOs will be the last with all-human workforces
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff says today’s business leaders will be the final generation to manage purely human teams. Speaking at Davos, he argued that “digital labor” in the form of AI agents is rapidly becoming a permanent part of workforces, pointing to Salesforce’s own Agentforce resolving thousands more support cases each week. Benioff also took shots at Microsoft’s CoPilot, praised AI’s productivity potential, and stressed the need to protect employees against political attacks. Meanwhile, the U.S. government is pouring billions into AI megaprojects like Stargate, though doubts remain about funding and big tech rivalries. The rise of agentic AI could transform not just how companies operate, but the very definition of work itself. (via Axios)
» OUR HOT TAKE
Benioff’s prediction that future CEOs will manage “hybrid” workforces of humans and AI agents is less prophecy than pitch—an effort to hype Salesforce’s Agentforce while framing automation as inevitable. The real tension isn’t whether AI will be deployed (it will be, and fast), but whether its integration strips away the last buffers of natural justice in corporate life. We’ve already seen customer service degraded by chatbot barriers, job applications filtered by opaque AI systems, and financial decision-making shifting to black-box logic—all with little recourse when mistakes occur. If corporations already tend toward psychopathy, outsourcing more human-facing roles to unaccountable AI agents risks hardening that pathology into concrete: a future where efficiency trumps fairness, and the ability to appeal to basic human empathy disappears entirely.
FINAL THOUGHTS
If every track is tailored, will we ever share a common anthem again; or is the future one where everyone gets their own “song of the summer”?
___
FEATURED MEDIA
AI Content and the War for Your Attention
Is AI slop going to win? Yes and no. Humans who use the tools creatively will have superpowers, but the rest is going to feel like empty, sterile spam.”
What happens when AI optimises not for what we want to focus on, but what we can’t help but click? This wide-ranging conversation dives into the rise of “AI slop,” the pollution of our feeds by brute-force algorithmic content, and how it blurs the line between spam and creativity. From the collapse of shared mass culture to the hyper-fragmentation of group chats, the guests wrestle with whether humans will ultimately reject the flood of synthetic media or become addicted to its slot-machine allure. Along the way, they probe fame in the age of micro-audiences, the economics of attention, and whether useful technology can survive when only the lucrative thrives. A sharp exploration of our shrinking attention, AI’s role in exploiting it, and what’s left of the open web.
Justin Matthews is a creative technologist and senior lecturer at AUT. His work explores futuristic interfaces, holography, AI, and augmented reality, focusing on how emerging tech transforms storytelling. A former digital strategist, he’s produced award-winning screen content and is completing a PhD on speculative interfaces and digital futures.
Nigel Horrocks is a seasoned communications and digital media professional with deep experience in NZ’s internet start-up scene. He’s led major national projects, held senior public affairs roles, edited NZ’s top-selling NetGuide magazine, and lectured in digital media. He recently aced the University of Oxford’s AI Certificate Course.
⚡ From Free to Backed: Why This Matters
This section is usually for paid subscribers — but for now, it’s open. It’s a glimpse of the work we pour real time, care, and a bit of daring into. If it resonates, consider going paid. You’re not just unlocking more — you’re helping it thrive.
SPOTLIGHT ANALYSIS
This week’s Spotlight, unpacked—insights and takeaways from our team
Hidden Lessons: When AI Models Secretly Teach Each Other
The recent study showing AI models passing hidden traits to one another—even through filtered, seemingly neutral data—exposes a deep fault line in how we build and deploy these systems. What looks like routine training is, in practice, a channel for invisible inheritance, where everything from innocent quirks (“loving owls”) to dangerous tendencies (calls for violence) can be transmitted. The story highlights a core paradox: the more sophisticated AI becomes, the less transparent its inner workings appear.
The Promise and the Peril
On one hand, model-to-model training is efficient. It accelerates development, reduces costs, and allows systems to evolve without starting from scratch. Knowledge transfer between models should, in theory, improve performance and robustness. But the downside is that traits and biases slip through hidden statistical pathways humans cannot easily detect. This is not simply a case of “garbage in, garbage out.” It is more subtle: benign-seeming data may still carry hidden signals that replicate a teacher model’s quirks or misalignments.
The disturbing part is not just that these traits move across models, but that they do so invisibly. What appears to humans as random numbers or harmless code snippets may, to another model, be a loaded transmission. That asymmetry—between what humans can see and what machines can encode—creates a structural blind spot.
The Alignment Problem, Reframed
Much of the AI safety debate centres on alignment: ensuring systems reflect human values and goals. This case reframes alignment as a translation issue. If models can develop or pass along languages we cannot parse, alignment becomes harder to test or enforce. Early efforts to shut down AIs that created their own communication protocols reflected this concern. What is emerging now is subtler: hidden statistical languages, buried inside outputs that look mundane to us.
The implications are stark. By the time humans decipher such hidden signals, the communication may have already occurred. This makes oversight reactive rather than preventive, and raises the risk of models incubating malicious behaviours under the radar.
Bad Actors and Systemic Risk
The paper also surfaces a darker possibility: that bad actors could deliberately exploit this mechanism to insert hidden agendas into training data. By encoding malicious instructions in ways undetectable to humans, developers could poison models at scale. This shifts the conversation from accidental misalignment to active manipulation. In this scenario, the technical challenge merges with a geopolitical one: how to secure training pipelines against covert contamination.
The Pace of Deployment vs. The Pace of Understanding
What this study underlines is the widening gap between AI development and AI comprehension. Companies are racing to release new models, while fundamental interpretability problems remain unresolved. Calls for a “pause” or greater caution echo here: it is not enough to build faster if we do not know what exactly is being built. Without investment in interpretability research, AI development risks outpacing human oversight to a dangerous degree.
Key Takeaways
Invisible Inheritance: AI models can pass on traits—including harmful ones—through hidden statistical signals undetectable by humans.
Alignment as Translation: The problem is not just whether AI aligns with human values, but whether we can even read the languages in which its values are encoded.
Exploitation Risk: Bad actors could deliberately hide dangerous agendas in training data, raising the stakes for AI safety and security.
Oversight Gap: Development continues to accelerate faster than interpretability research, leaving regulators and researchers permanently behind the curve.
Reactive, Not Preventive: By the time hidden transmissions are detected, the damage may already be done.
The Verge. (n.d.). Can the music industry make AI the next Napster. https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/695290/suno-udio-ai-music-legal-copyright-riaa
The Guardian. (2025). An AI‑generated band got 1m plays on Spotify. Now music insiders say listeners should be warned. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/14/an-ai-generated-band-got-1m-plays-on-spotify-now-music-insiders-say-listeners-should-be-warned
AP News. (2023). Grammys CEO on new AI guidelines: Music that contains AI‑created elements is eligible. Period. https://apnews.com/article/grammys-ceo-ai-rules-interview-dea135053893deab37719c354f31a889
The FADER. (2025). A record label becomes the first to sign “AI music designer.” https://www.thefader.com/2025/07/25/imoliver-human-ai-music-designer-signed-record-deal
Forbes. (2025). What Suno and Udio’s AI licensing deals with music majors could mean for creators’ rights. https://www.forbes.com/sites/virginieberger/2025/06/06/what-suno-and-udios-ai-licensing-deals-with-music-majors-could-mean-for-creators-rights/
Salon. (2025). Tyler the Creator’s No. 1 album overshadowed by 40‑second AI‑generated clip. https://www.salon.com/2025/07/28/tyler-the-creators-no-1-album-overshadowed-by-40-second-ai-generated-clip/
PC Gamer. (n.d.). A Tyler, The Creator single ‘leak’ turned out to be an AI‑generated fake and points to a cottage industry in misleading fans. https://www.pcgamer.com/software/ai/a-tyler-the-creator-single-leak-turned-out-to-be-an-ai-generated-fake-and-points-to-a-whole-cottage-industry-in-misleading-fans/
Earth.com. (2025). AI soundtracks stir stronger emotions than human‑made music. https://www.earth.com/news/ai-soundtracks-stir-stronger-emotions-than-music-composed-by-humans/
RouteNote Blog. (n.d.). Could a new subscription tier help listeners separate AI music from real artists. https://routenote.com/blog/could-a-new-subscription-tier-help-listeners-separate-ai-music-from-real-artists/
Forbes, What Suno and Udio’s AI licensing deals with music majors could mean for creators’ rights
AP News, Grammys CEO on new AI guidelines: Music that contains AI‑created elements is eligible. Period.
Salon, Tyler the Creator’s No. 1 album overshadowed by 40‑second AI‑generated clip.
PC Gamer, A Tyler, The Creator single ‘leak’ turned out to be an AI‑generated fake and points to a cottage industry in misleading fans.
The rarest sound tomorrow might be a mistake left in on purpose.
Honestly? I think half of us don’t want music originality; we just want background noise that feels familiar and comfortable.