Artificial Intelligence in Music Composition: A Critical Analysis between Creativity, Culture and Transhumanism

Subscribe to the Blog and discover the benefits by clicking here >

1. AI and the New Paradigm of Creativity

1.1. The Historical and Epistemological Context of Musical Creativity

Musical creativity has historically been considered one of the most sophisticated manifestations of human intelligence and sensitivity. Music, in its essence, is a complex phenomenon that combines intuition, technique, emotionality and culture, and has always been shaped by the individual's ability to abstract, innovate and interpret reality through sound.

Throughout history, the concept of creativity has evolved in response to technological and cultural changes. Musical writing enabled the preservation of works and their reproduction outside of live performance; printing made large-scale dissemination possible; audio recording made music accessible independently of the performer; digital software made composition possible without physical instruments. However, until the advent of generative Artificial Intelligence (GIA), music creation was always bound to the will, intentionality and experience of the human being.

The element of discontinuity introduced by Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) based tools, such as Suno AI and other 'Artificial Intelligence' systems, lies in their autonomous ability to generate music without conscious, intentional and experiential processing. This leads to the need to redefine the very concept of creativity: is it still a human act or has it become a product of computation?

1.2. The Role of Computation in Creativity: A New Ontology of Art?

The term creativity has long been associated with a typically human faculty, characterised by elements such as inspiration, genius and talent. The Western philosophical tradition, from Aristotle to Kant, has considered creativity an expression of the human spirit that transcends the mere reproductive process of pre-existing patterns.

Generative AI, on the other hand, is based on a probabilistic and combinatorial process based on the recombination of existing data. AI algorithms do not 'create' in the traditional sense, but process huge amounts of data, recognise patterns and generate new configurations based on statistical patterns. This leads to a crucial question:

If creativity is the result of a predictive calculation, can we still define it as an intentional act?

The traditional ontology of music is based on a direct relationship between creator and sensory experience. AI breaks this paradigm, separating the creator from artistic production and replacing intuition with computation. This transition has profound philosophical and cognitive implications, as it challenges the distinction between creation and imitation, between inspiration and reproduction.

1.3. The Dialectic between Author and Algorithm: Complementarity or Substitution?

The advent of AI in music composition poses a further problem: what is the role of the artist in a system where the algorithm is capable of generating music without active human input? Three main perspectives emerge:

AI as an amplifier of human creativityIn this scenario, artificial intelligence is seen as an extension of the human being's artistic capabilities. The musician is not replaced, but supported by an instrument that accelerates and enriches the compositional process.
AI as an independent creative entityThis position suggests that AI has its own form of creativity, albeit based on different logics from those of humans. According to this perspective, AI-generated music is the result of an 'emergent creativity' that challenges our traditional conception of art.
AI as a replacement force for humansIn this more critical model, the AI is no longer a tool, but a true agent producer of artistic content, reducing the role of the human being to a mere user or selector of already generated material.

This dialectic between complementarity and substitution will be one of the central issues in the future of music and the arts in general.

1.4. AI and the Transformation of the Concept of Music as Process

Traditionally, music is the result of an iterative process that starts with an initial idea and develops through experimentation, refinement and interpretation. AI, on the other hand, can produce a complete piece of music in a matter of moments, eliminating the entire traditional creative process.

This raises a crucial question: is music defined by the end result or by the process that generates it? If music is not only the sound we hear, but also the creative act that originates it, then AI risks depriving music of its most deeply human dimension.

Some implications of this phenomenon:

Time as a creative factorTraditional music creation is often a slow process in which ideas mature gradually. AI eliminates this dynamic, reducing the production time to a few moments.
The loss of creative errorMany of the most revolutionary musical innovations have arisen from mistakes, accidents and improvised intuition. By operating on predictive patterns, AI reduces this essential component of artistic innovation.
Aesthetic saturationIf everyone can generate music instantly, the value of the work of art as a unique and unrepeatable object might vanish.

1.5. Conclusion: AI and the Redefinition of Creativity

Artificial Intelligence is redefining the very concept of creativity, questioning whether it is exclusive to humans or can emerge from advanced computational models. This transformation calls for critical reflection on what it means to be creative, what the value of artistic intentionality is, and how the role of the artist will change in an AI-dominated future.

The debate is open: if creativity is only a matter of pattern, then AI has already surpassed the human being; if creativity is instead a synthesis of experience, intuition and emotion, then AI remains only an advanced tool, but lacking true artistic brilliance.

In the following chapters, we will explore how these transformations affect culture, society, art and the ethical dimension of the use of AI in music, analysing in detail the deeper implications of this new era of artistic expression.

2. Cultural Implications: Music and Identity in the Age of Algorithms

The adoption of artificial intelligence in musical composition is not merely a technical phenomenon, but profoundly affects the cultural structures that regulate the production, dissemination and enjoyment of music. If musical culture is traditionally linked to the identity of peoples, their history and the social context in which it emerges, the entry of a non-human entity into the creative process imposes a reflection on the redefinition of the very meaning of musical culture.

This section will examine how artificial intelligence influences the creation of cultural identities, artistic diversity, collective memory and aesthetic saturation, raising the question of the extent to which a system based on past data can generate real cultural innovation or, on the contrary, foster a tendency towards homogenisation.

2.1. Stylistic Homogenisation and Musical Standardisation

One of the most critical aspects of the use of artificial intelligence in music is the tendency towards standardisation, i.e. the production of tracks that conform to pre-existing patterns rather than innovating them. AI algorithms are trained on databases of existing tracks, from which they extract recurring patterns and statistical structures to generate new music.

This methodology raises some cultural issues:

Reinforcement of dominant canonsSince training datasets are mainly based on mainstream music or the most popular and documented works, AI tends to replicate already established stylistic patterns, reducing the possibility of generating truly innovative variations.
Disappearance of local peculiaritiesTraditional musical cultures, often characterised by unconventional or orally transmitted forms of expression, risk being marginalised in a landscape dominated by the reproduction of globalised patterns.
Risk of creative stagnationIf the music produced by AI is built on models derived from previous works, and if artists start to use mainly AI to create new music, this creates a self-referential cycle that could limit musical evolution in the long term.

Stylistic homogenisation thus raises a dilemma: does AI expand the range of creative possibilities or narrow it, consolidating pre-existing styles? The answer depends on how it is used: if adopted as a tool to complement human creativity, it may offer new stimuli, but if employed as a substitute for traditional composition, it may encourage perpetual repetition of already codified patterns.

2.2. The Concept of Cultural Identity in AI-Generated Music

Music is a key element in the construction of cultural identity. Every musical tradition is linked to a specific historical and social experience, reflecting the values, beliefs and emotions of a community. Artificial intelligence, being an entity devoid of experience and belonging, generates music without an authentic cultural root.

This lack of contextualisation opens up questions about the cultural validity of AI-generated music:

If music is a product of human culture, can a non-human entity create authentic musical culture?
How does AI-generated music integrate into pre-existing traditions without distorting them?
Is it possible for AI-generated music to create new cultural identities independent of humans?

A case in point is the creation of entirely artificial genres of music. AI could develop stylistic combinations never explored by humans, leading to the emergence of new styles. However, this evolution could take place in a way decontextualisedwithout a link to a precise social and historical background, depriving music of its identity and community function.

2.3 Collective Memory and the Disappearance of the Concept of Tradition

Musical transmission has always been an intergenerational process, in which musical knowledge was passed on through direct teaching, imitation and experimentation. The introduction of AI breaks this chain, replacing human transmission with an automated generation system.

This has several implications:

Archiving the past without direct experience: AI can perfectly reproduce any musical style of the past, but without the experiential and interpretative component typical of human artists. The risk is that music becomes a process of remix permanent, emptied of the ability to reinterpret the past in an innovative way.
The weakening of the ritual dimension of music: In many cultures, music has a sacred or ceremonial function, linked to deep collective experiences. If music becomes an automatically generated product, can it still retain this symbolic and ritualistic charge?
The erosion of the concept of originalityIf music is automatically generated on demand, the concept of a unique and unrepeatable song may disappear, with consequences for the perception of artistic value and collective memory.

AI thus introduces a hyper-efficient form of music archiving, but at the price of a possible loss of the organic transmission of musical traditions.

2.4. Aesthetic Saturation and the Risk of Loss of Meaning

Another cultural effect of AI in music is aesthetic saturation: the ability to generate an unlimited number of tracks in a few moments reduces the perception of music as a meaningful experience.

If music becomes an abundant and easily replicable product, its characteristics of uniqueness and perceptual value could be drastically reduced. Some possible effects include:

Inflation of music supply: The more the amount of music available increases, the more the audience's attention span per track decreases.
Reducing the experiential value of listeningIf music is generated on demand, listening may become a merely utilitarian action, devoid of deep emotional involvement.
End of the distinction between art and entertainment: The possibility of creating 'instant' music can push the music market towards a production geared exclusively to commercial functionality, sacrificing the artistic and expressive dimension.

These factors raise the fundamental question: if everything can be produced immediately, does the concept of a musical masterpiece still exist? Or will AI turn music into a simple continuous flow of perishable and interchangeable content?

2.5. Conclusion: AI as Opportunity or Threat to Music Culture?

The integration of AI in music has the potential to expand creative possibilities, but also raises the risk of progressive standardisation, loss of cultural identity and aesthetic saturation.

If used with awareness, AI can become a tool for artistic exploration and cultural fusion, opening up new avenues for sound experimentation. However, if employed as the sole source of music production, it risks homogenising expressive languages, reducing the connection between music and cultural identity, and turning art into a mere industrial phenomenon.

The future of music culture will depend on how AI will be integrated into the creative process: will it be a means of amplifying human creativity or an agent of reducing artistic authenticity?

3. The Artistic Impact: Between Innovation and Mechanical Drift

The use of artificial intelligence in music is not limited to redefining the cultural context and the relationship between music and society, but directly affects the very nature of musical art. Artistic creation, traditionally regarded as an activity that combines technique, inspiration and lived experience, is now flanked or replaced by algorithmic processes that generate music on demand.

This phenomenon raises a number of questions:

Can AI be considered an artistic subject or is it only an instrument?
Is art generated without intention and without experience still art?
Can musical innovation be driven by an intelligence without a conscience?

This section will examine how artificial intelligence is redefining the concepts of authorship, inspiration, aesthetics and innovation, highlighting both the creative potential and the risks of a possible mechanical drift in music.

3.1. AI as Creative Subject: Tool, Collaborator or Author?

Traditionally, musical creation has been an activity deeply linked to the intentionality of the artist. The composer is not just a technician who arranges sounds, but an agent endowed with sensitivity, aesthetic taste and experience.

Artificial intelligence challenges this conception, as it generates songs without any direct experience of the world, relying solely on statistical patterns and correlation probabilities between notes, harmonies and musical structures. This raises the question: can an entity without consciousness be considered an author?

Three possible scenarios can be outlined:

AI as an advanced tool: In this case, AI is seen as an evolution of traditional compositional tools, in the same way as a synthesiser or DAW software. The artist remains the sole author, while the AI merely facilitates the creative process.
AI as co-author: Here, the AI is regarded as a kind of artificial collaborator, capable of proposing original musical ideas that the human composer can accept, modify or rework. This model assumes an active interaction between human and machine.
AI as an independent author: In this scenario, AI-generated music is accepted as an autonomous artistic product, devoid of human input, and evaluated solely for its sonic outcome, regardless of the absence of creative intentionality.

If music is judged only from an aesthetic point of viewthen the concept of author might lose its importance. But if artistic creation is also considered an act of individual and cultural expression, then an artificial intelligence can never replace the human artist.

3.2. Artistic Intentionality and the Lack of Emotional Experience

A key element in musical creation is intentionality. Music is not just a combination of harmonic sounds, but a communicative act that expresses emotions, ideas and states of mind.

Artificial intelligence, however sophisticated, has no emotions, no experiences and no individual perspective on the world. Music generated by AI is therefore the result of calculation, not subjective experience.

This raises a fundamental question: can art exist without an expressive intention?

Two schools of thought emerge in this debate:

The absolute aesthetic perspective: According to this view, what counts is only the sonic result. If an AI-generated piece is musically valid and arouses emotions in the listener, then it can be considered art, regardless of the lack of emotional experience in the act of creation.
The expressive and symbolic perspective: In this view, music is an expressive language that implies a bond between creator and listener. Without an artistic intentionality, AI-generated music may lack symbolic depth, as it does not express an authentic experience.

A middle ground between these two positions could be that AI is a means to amplify human expression, but it cannot replace the creative intentionality that underlies music as an expressive phenomenon.

3.3. The Concept of Innovation in AI-Generated Art

Art has always evolved through experimentation, mistakes, cultural contamination and personal intuition. AI, operating on statistical bases and predictive models, is able to recombine existing elements, but can it really innovate musical language?

Some critical factors emerge:

AI learns from past dataso any innovation must still derive from pre-existing models.
The absence of creative error: Many of the greatest musical advances (from Renaissance polyphony to atonal music) have arisen from mistakes, experimentation or countercultural decisions. AI, relying on the prediction of the most probable sequences, risks being too conservative.
The lack of an original aesthetic visionA human composer can deliberately break the rules to create new sound aesthetics. AI, on the other hand, works within the parameters given to it, limiting the potential for true innovation.

If AI is only used to generate predictable music optimised for mass consumption, it could lead to creative stagnation rather than meaningful musical evolution.

3.4. The Risk of Mechanical Drift: Music as an Industrial Product

Another danger of the massive use of AI in music is the devaluation of art as a unique and unrepeatable experience. If music can be generated in infinite quantities, its value as an artistic product could be compromised.

Possible negative effects include:

The standardisation of music productionwith algorithms that create music optimised for streaming platforms, reducing stylistic variety.
The commodification of artwith companies automatically producing music on a large scale, eliminating the role of the artist.
The loss of the craft dimension: Musical composition has always also been a process of reflection and personal research. If everything can be generated in a few seconds, the value of artistic creation as a deliberate act risks being compromised.

If music becomes a mere background generated on demand, it will lose its ritual, emotional and cultural dimension, turning into an anonymous stream of disposable content.

3.5. Conclusion: Is AI an Evolution or a Threat to Art?

Artificial intelligence represents a revolution in the way music is created, offering new expressive possibilities, but also raising profound questions about the nature of art, innovation and creative intentionality.

If used consciously, it can be a powerful tool to amplify human creativity, but if employed massively and indiscriminately, it risks mechanising and standardising art, reducing it to an industrial product with no identity.

The future of musical art will depend on how we balance these two forces: will AI be an ally or will it become the new master of artistic creation?

4. Social and Sociological Implications: The Democratization of Creativity or the End of the Author?

The advent of artificial intelligence in music composition has a direct impact not only on the concept of creativity and musical culture, but also on the social and sociological dynamics governing the production and consumption of music.

Music creation, once the preserve of musicians with specific skills and adequate resources, is now accessible to anyone thanks to AI. However, this apparent democratisation of creativity could conceal a paradox: the possibility for everyone to create music could annul the value of the author and dissolve the figure of the artist in a sea of automatically generated content.

This section will analyse the effects of AI on the distribution of creative power, the dynamics of music production and enjoyment, the redefinition of the artist's role and the new economic and professional models emerging in the music industry.

4.1. The Democratization of Creativity: Music for All or the End of Art?

AI has broken down many of the technical and financial barriers that once limited access to music creation. Today, thanks to software such as Suno AI, anyone can generate a song without knowing music theory or how to play an instrument.

This democratisation presents two opposing perspectives:

AI as an inclusive opportunity: Thanks to AI, millions of people who previously would not have been able to compose music can now express themselves artistically. This could lead to a greater diversity of voices and a democratisation of the art of music.
AI as a factor in the devaluation of artIf music can be created at the click of a button, the value of the creative act could dissolve. The abundance of automatically generated content could lead to a saturation of the music market, reducing the importance of originality and authorship.

This tension between accessibility and loss of value is crucial to understanding the future of music in the age of AI.

4.2. The Forgotten Author: The End of the Centrality of the Artist?

In the musical tradition, the figure of the artist has always been central: the composer and performer play an active role in creating the sound identity of an era. However, artificial intelligence introduces a new model in which the creator may become irrelevant, replaced by software capable of generating music indistinguishable from human music.

Some effects of this transformation could be:

Decreased individual recognitionIf music is created automatically and impersonally, audiences may no longer feel the need to tie themselves to a specific artist, simply favouring music that is functional to their needs (study, relaxation, entertainment).
Playlist culture vs. author cultureWith the spread of recommendation algorithms, music is increasingly consumed in the form of automatically generated playlists, rather than as the work of a specific artist. AI could amplify this trend, making the concept of 'album' or 'artist' less relevant.
The risk of anonymous musicIf AI produces millions of songs without an identifiable author, the music market could turn into a continuous stream of content without personality, eliminating the human dimension of art.

If the author is no longer necessary, music becomes just an industrial product, disengaged from artistic individuality.

4.3. New Dynamics of Music Production and Consumption

The use of AI in music not only changes who creates, but also how music is consumed. Music listening has always been tied to specific social and cultural contexts, but AI could alter these dynamics in unexpected ways.

Some of the most significant transformations include:

Real-time customised music: With the integration of AI and streaming platforms, it will be possible to generate music tailored to each user, adapted to his or her tastes and mood. This could eliminate the traditional concept of a 'song' as a fixed work, replacing it with an adaptive and ever-changing musical flow.
AI as DJ and automatic producer: Already today, Spotify and YouTube algorithms heavily influence what we listen to. With generative AI, it will no longer be necessary to search for new music: the system itself will create ad hoc tracks for the user, reducing spontaneous music exploration.
The disappearance of artistic rarity: There was a time when discovering a new song or artist was a unique experience. If music is generated on demand and in infinite quantities, it may lose its dimension of discovery and rarity.

These changes indicate that music consumption will increasingly become an algorithmic experience, rather than a conscious choice.

4.4. The Music Market and the AI Economy: Opportunity or Disaster?

AI will have a profound impact on the music market, with both positive and negative economic consequences.

Possible developments include:

New opportunities for independent artists: AI can reduce music production costs, allowing more people to create music without the need for expensive recording studios. This could encourage the emergence of new talent.
Substitution of creative work: Whether AI can generate soundtracks, jingles, pop songs and ambient music without human intervention, thousands of musicians and producers could lose their role in the market.
Monopoly of big tech companies: Music generation through AI is in the hands of a few technology companies. This could create a new music oligopolyin which the power of production and distribution is concentrated in the hands of a few platforms.

In this scenario, the key question becomes: will music remain a free artistic expression or will it become a product entirely controlled by the algorithms of big tech?

4.5. Conclusion: An Era of Diffuse Creativity or of Music Without a Author?

AI in music is redefining the relationship between artist and audience, between creation and consumption, between uniqueness and technical reproducibility.

While AI may democratise access to music creation, it risks erasing the value of authorship and turning music into an anonymous, standardised stream.

The fundamental questions that emerge are:

Will music still be a work of individual expression or will it become a mere product generated on demand?
Will the public still need real artists, or will they be content with machine-generated content?
Will the democratisation of AI lead to greater artistic diversity or the disappearance of art as a human phenomenon?

These questions lead us to the next chapter, in which we will analyse the anthropological role of art and the implications of music produced without lived experience. AI is creating a new musical paradigm, but will we be able to manage it without losing the essence of music as a human and cultural phenomenon?

5. Anthropological Perspectives: Art Without the Human Being?

Art is one of the most distinctive expressions of humanity, rooted in the ability to attribute meaning, emotion and transcendence to lived experience. Music, in particular, has historically been a medium through which societies have encoded emotions, told stories and strengthened community bonds.

The entry of artificial intelligence into the process of musical creation poses an unprecedented anthropological challenge: is it possible for music to exist without a human being composing it, performing it and, in short, 'giving it life by living it'? If music production becomes a purely algorithmic process, is it still art or just a technological by-product that represents an enhanced and condensed parody of historical musical expression, selected through other algorithms aimed at pleasing the masses of listeners?

In this section, we will examine how AI redefines the role of the human being in music, exploring the implications for artistic identity, a sense of cultural belonging, the value of creativity and the future of musical expression.

5.1. The Human Being As the Foundation of Art: The Role of Intentionality

Creativity is traditionally conceived as an intentional act, arising from the interaction between personal experience, emotion and expressive capacity. Every work of art is the result of an inner journey that transforms experiences, feelings and visions into a communicable form. The artist's intentionality is what distinguishes art from a simple combination of sounds, colours or words.

Artificial intelligence, on the other hand, possesses neither intentionality nor lived experience: it can generate 'music', 'painting' or 'lyrics', but it does so through statistical processing algorithms, without an experience to draw on, without an authentic message to convey. This difference raises a crucial question: if art is expression, can the AI be considered an artist?

A useful analogy for understanding this problem can be found in the relationship between art and craftsmanship. Craftsmanship is the technical ability to transform materials into beautiful and functional objects, following precise rules and methods. Art, while sharing craft skills, stems from an expressive need that transcends technical execution alone. A luthier makes instruments with mastery, but is not a composer; a painter can reproduce a masterpiece with incredible fidelity, without necessarily being its author.

Similarly, AI can process and reproduce musical structures with craftsmanship precision, but without an intentionality of its own. The difference is subtle but essential: if art is defined by human experience, then AI-generated music cannot be considered art in the strict sense, as it lacks an actual experience. It is a technical elaboration, not an authentic expression.

If, on the other hand, art is defined solely by the final aesthetic result, then the AI could be considered a musical creator, regardless of the fact that the process is devoid of consciousness and intentionality. However, this would lead to a redefinition of the concept of art itself, reducing it to an aesthetic effect rather than an expressive act.

So the dilemma remains: is it enough for music to sound good to be art, or does it need to be an expression of a human experience? If AI is devoid of awareness and intentionality, then every musical work generated is a reflection of human culture, but not an emanation of a subject that feels, suffers, loves and lives.

5.2. Music as Relational Experience and the Danger of Dehumanisation

Music is not just sound: it is also relationship. It is the result of a dialogue between the composer, the performer and the listener, who create an emotional and social connection through the musical work.

If music is generated automatically, without human intentionality, can this relationship still exist?

We can distinguish two dimensions of music:

Music as a participatory experienceIn concerts, live performances, popular songs, music is a shared act, a collective experience that creates connection between individuals. If music becomes a purely discographic and AI-generated phenomenon, this dimension could vanish, reducing music to an isolated consumer product.
Music as an expressive languagemusic communicates meanings and states of mind. If it is generated automatically, without a real experience behind it, its meaning can become neutral, lacking a true communicative soul.

AI could lead to the dehumanisation of art, turning it into an industrial, anonymous and impersonal phenomenon, devoid of genuine interaction between creator and user.

5.3. Cultural Identity and Loss of Historical Rootedness

Another fundamental aspect is the link between music and cultural identity.

Each musical genre originates in a specific historical, social and geographical context:

The blues originated in the experience of the African diaspora and the suffering of slavery.
Flamenco is deeply rooted in the history and gypsy traditions of Spain.
Classical music developed by taking an initial cue from European folk traditions and also evolved through the evolution of 'cultured' harmonisation and composition techniques.

If music is generated by AI without a connection to a social or historical context, can it still have a cultural identity?

Two possible scenarios emerge:

AI as a mere instrument of preservationIt can help store, catalogue and keep alive musical traditions, allowing endangered recorded music to continue to exist within its huge, searchable sound anthology.
AI as an agent of decontextualisationcan create music that seems to belong to a tradition, but which in reality lacks a authentic social contextturning musical identities into rootless simulations.

This problem leads to deep reflection: does music need a historical, geographical and cultural context in order to have value? If the answer is yes, then AI can never replace the human role in music creation.

5.4. The Transhuman Paradox: An Art Without Humans?

Transhumanism claims that humanity can be transcended and enhanced through technology. If this concept is applied to music, we can envisage a future in which creativity is no longer exclusively human, but shared with machines.

But what happens when technology is no longer a medium, but a substitute for the artist?

If AI surpasses humans in music production, can music still be considered a human art or does it become a new, autonomous form of expression, distinct from the human experience?
If music can be endlessly generated by algorithms, does it still make sense to talk about creativity or are we facing an entertainment industry without artistic value?

The risk of this evolution is that music will become a post-human phenomenon, deprived of the mark of the individual and the symbolic dimension that has always characterised art.

5.5. Conclusion: Can Art Exist Without the Human Being?

Artificial intelligence has introduced an epistemological break in the concept of art: if creativity is exclusive to the human being, then the AI is only an advanced tool; if, on the other hand, creativity is only defined by the aesthetic result, then the AI is already an artist.

However, art is not only its result: it is a communication process, a language, a form of experience. If it is separated from the human being, it loses its deepest value.

The crucial questions that emerge are:

Is art an act of human expression or can it be the product of an algorithm without conscience?
Does music still have cultural value if it is generated without a community of reference?
Can AI ever replace the symbolic meaning of human musical creation?

These reflections lead us to the next chapter, where we will address other implications of AI-generated music, touching on issues such as copyright, transparency in the use of algorithms and the risk of a machine-dominated market. AI is leading us towards a new musical paradigm, but are we ready to accept a world in which art no longer has a human face?

6. Who Owns AI-Generated Art?

The advent of artificial intelligence in music composition not only redefines the concept of creativity and the role of humans in art, but also raises a number of far-reaching ethical questions. Who owns the rights to an algorithmically generated composition? What are the implications of a musical production in which the human author becomes less and less necessary? And what risks emerge from the perspective of transparency, social justice and the future of artistic work?

This section will look at issues related to intellectual property, the substitution of human labour, transparency in the use of AI in music and the ethical impact of algorithmic creation.

6.1. Intellectual Property in the Age of AI

Traditionally, music has been protected by copyright laws, which recognise the artist's intellectual property of his or her work, as well as regulating its economic exploitation. However, when a song is generated by an artificial intelligence, who owns that property?

We can identify three main scenarios:

Copyright belongs to the user who generated the song - If the AI is seen as an instrument, the user who enters the prompt and supervises the result could be considered the author of the generated music.
Copyright belongs to the company that developed the AI - Some argue that the code and database on which the music generation is based are owned by the computer platforms that run the AI, and therefore the generated songs would also fall under the domain of these platforms.
The song has no copyright - Some legislations (such as currently in the US) hold that a work created entirely by an artificial intelligence cannot be protected by copyright because it lacks an identifiable human author.

This problem has direct consequences on the music industry:

If AI becomes the main means of music creation, artists might lose control over their copyrights.
If technology companies hold the rights to the generated works, they could monopolise music production.

The issue of intellectual property of works produced by AI is still a grey area of legislation and requires clear regulation to avoid conflicts of interest and injustice.

6.2. The Risk of Substitution of Creative Work

One of the main ethical issues related to AI in music concerns the replacement of human work. If AI can generate soundtracks, ambient music, advertising jingles and even pop songs without human intervention, thousands of composers and musicians risk being squeezed out of the public listening and music market.

The areas most affected could be:

Commercial music production - Companies might prefer AI-generated tracks to avoid paying artists and royalties.
Music for films and video games - If an artificial intelligence can create customised soundtracks in real time, the demand for composers could be drastically reduced.
Streaming industry - Platforms could replace part of their catalogue with tracks generated by AI, reducing the royalties paid to human artists.

From these points, it can be deduced that economic motivations could lead to an exponential increase in the massive and almost exclusive use of AI in the music creation process.

The risk is not only economic, but cultural: if AI replaces human labour even in sensitive areas such as art, the value of music as a human expression could decrease drastically, turning into an industrial product without identity.

A possible balance could be found in the co-development between artist and AI, where artificial intelligence becomes a creative tool used with reasonable limits, without eliminating the central role of the human being; but which elements will act as a brake and which as a healthy discriminator so that these limits are respected?

6.3. Transparency and Manipulation: Should AI Be Declared?

Another ethical issue concerns transparency in the use of artificial intelligence in music production. Does the public have the right to know whether a song has been composed by a human being or an algorithm? According to the principles of transparency, now shared at least in theory by modern societies, the answer is definitely yes.

We can identify three possible approaches:

Compulsory labelling - Every song generated (or partially created) by AI should be explicitly declared on streaming and sales platforms, and stored for the use of a guarantor of the designation of origin, while an automatic sounding system similar to Shazam, should be activated by law in places where music is played, to reveal abuses.
Transparent use to support artists - AI could be integrated as an assistive tool, but without hiding the human contribution, by requiring precise and certifiable declarations on the details of the designation of origin of the tracks produced and used.
Indistinct use without declarations - If the public cannot distinguish a song created by AI from one composed by a human being, legislators might consider it irrelevant to point this out.

The absence of transparency could lead to large-scale manipulation, with companies producing artificially generated music without the public being aware of it, altering the perception of artistic value, misleading listeners and irreparably damaging artists.

6.4. The Power of Tech Companies: A Monopoly of Creativity?

Music AI is not equally accessible to all: advanced music generation technologies are developed by large technology companies, which own the infrastructure, data and code needed to power these systems. This could lead to a monopoly in the music industry, with only a few companies able to:

Controlling music distribution - If platforms such as Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music start generating AI music themselves, they could drastically reduce the visibility of independent artists in a short time.
Making profits without paying artists - Companies may prefer automatically generated tracks to avoid paying royalties and to minimise the bargaining power of composers, arrangers, orchestrators and performers.
Influencing global musical taste - If algorithms decide which tracks are to be produced, played and promoted, they could quickly standardise music trends according to purely commercial logic.

This situation could drastically reduce musical diversity, pushing art towards extinction through mass standardisation controlled by a few dominant players.

6.5. Conclusion: Towards an Era of Automated Creativity?

The ethical issues raised by the use of AI in music are profound and complex. If unregulated, AI could monopolise the music market, replace human labour and reduce the depth and diversity of artistic expression. On the other hand, if used responsibly, it could be an extraordinary tool to amplify musical creativity, but this is certainly pure utopia.

The fundamental questions that emerge in this chapter are therefore:

Who owns the AI-generated music?
How to protect artists from substitution?
Should the use of AI in music be transparent and regulated?
Are technology companies becoming too powerful in controlling musical creativity?

Artificial intelligence is redefining the rules of music production, introducing ethical questions that go far beyond the issue of intellectual property. If music creation becomes an automated process, what room is left for the authentically human artistic experience?

Perhaps the place where music can still retain its irreducible essence is where technology cannot replace the body, imperfection and the direct relationship between performer and audience: the live concert. In the age of AI, human performance can become the true bastion of creativity, the point of resistance against the algorithmic standardisation of music. But is it still possible to preserve this authenticity? Can the concert be the last stronghold of lived music, or will it too be assimilated by technology?

7. The Live Concert As Human Revenge: Creation, Performance and Musical Identity

The advance of artificial intelligence in music production is redefining the relationship between composition, performance and enjoyment of sound art, generating an epistemological collapse of the distinction between what is authentically human and what is artificial. However, there is one area that resists this algorithmic assimilation and may become the ground for a cultural revenge of the human: the live concert.

For the live concert to maintain this function, it is not enough for the musical performance to be entrusted to human beings, but it is necessary for the entire creative and performative process to be human, excluding:

AI intervention in music composition and writing.
The use of playback, pre-recorded sequences or purely synthetic voices.
The use of real-time vocal editing tools, such as live autotune, that alter the integrity of the performance (while mixing tools for sound quality management and sound reinforcement and broadcasting equipment remain acceptable when used in concerts that are not purely acoustic).
The integration of holograms, performative artificial intelligences and performing robots into the dynamics of the concert.

This new perspective on live performance introduces a cultural and phenomenological distinction between the genuine human concert, based on corporeality and direct interaction, and the virtual or hybrid concert, in which synthetic and technological elements take the place of the human performing gesture, sometimes completely overwhelming it.

This chapter will examine the ontological value of the live concert, the need for a clear separation between generated music and music composed and performed by human beings, the return to the raw and authentic dimension of music, and the urgency of a regulatory framework to protect humanistic musical culture as opposed to the transhuman technological-algorithmic drift.

7.1. The Live Concert as a Space of Authenticity and Resistance

The live concert cannot be reduced to a mere technical performance of musical pieces, however composed by humans themselves: it is a performative act in which the performer does not merely reproduce a work mechanically, but recreates it in an unrepeatable context, in relation to the space, the audience and his or her own interiority and capacity.

The distinctive aspects that make the live concert a phenomenon irreducible to algorithmic reproduction include:

The unique and non-reproducible event - Each live performance is influenced by uncontrollable variables, such as the energy of the audience, the acoustics of the space and the subjective interpretation of the artist.
Human imperfection as an artistic value - The AI is designed to maximise predictability, while the human musician introduces spontaneous variations, technical and expressive irregularities and elements of interpretive risk (similarly to the acrobat and tightrope walker, he creates and transmits a thrill to the spectator).
Sensory and relational interaction - The concert is not only sound, but also gesture, physical presence and empathetic communication with the audience, where the artist's concentration, energy, 'sweat' and interpretative refinement are also indispensable communication elements

If the record product is destined to be polluted or dominated by artificial intelligence, the live concert becomes the human's territory of resistance, the only place where the musical experience is unrepeatable, vulnerable and deeply authentic.

7.2. The Net Distinction between Human Concert and Virtual Concert

The emergence of new technologies, including performance technologies based on AI, interactive holograms, robot performers and voice reproduction algorithms is generating a new model of musical performance, in which the distinction between real presence and technological simulation is becoming increasingly blurred.

To counteract this trend, a clear separation between three types of concert must be established:

Genuinely human live concert - All the music performed was composed, played and interpreted by human beings, without the use of AI or performance-altering devices, with full tolerance for amplified concert mixing filters.
Mixed concert (with technological support but human performance) - The performance is by real musicians, but includes pre-recorded sequences, autotune effects or other invasive digital support technologies.
Virtual or synthetic concert - The performance is dominated by artificial elements, or entirely based on virtual or mechanical elements, such as holograms, performative artificial intelligences or performing robots.

This distinction is not only theoretical, but must be clearly communicated to the audience, so that each listener is aware of what he or she is experiencing and can choose whether to participate in an authentically human event or a product of technological spectacle.

7.3. Towards the Separation of Recorded Product and Live Concert

In the age of algorithmic music production, it is necessary to redefine the relationship between recorded and live music, establishing new perceptual categories.

Four levels of music production can be identified:

Faithful reproduction of live concerts - Recordings of authentic performances, without digital manipulation in post production editing, with the exception of pure mixing and mastering processes of varying depth (according to the established phonic literature used for the various musical genres).
Human realisations in the studio - Music produced with mixed traditional and digital techniques, but without the contribution of AI.
Music co-created with AI - Works in which AI was used in part but not to a dominant extent for the compositional and production process, under human supervision.
Music generated entirely by AI - Songs created without any human intervention or where this is limited to the prompt or where human intervention is secondary and not dominant in the process

This distinction must be a key transparency parameter for the public, preventing AI from being used in a misleading way.

7.4. Legislative and Cultural Perspectives for the Protection of Human Music

The defence of the authentically human live concert must be supported by concrete legislative and cultural actions:

Obligation to declare the use of AI - Transparent labelling to distinguish human, hybrid and synthetic concerts.
Ban on passing off as 'live' events with artificial components - Regulation against the abuse of playback, holograms and robot performers.
Institutional support for human music - Funds for the promotion of authentic concerts and educational programmes on the distinction between human and artificial music.
Creation of a certification mark for all-human music - A system that guarantees the integrity of human performances and compositions.

These tools are not mere conservation strategies, but cultural interventions necessary to preserve music as a human artistic phenomenon.

7.5. Conclusion: The Live Concert as the Last Bastion of Human Creativity

If record production is destined to be increasingly influenced by AI, the live concert stands as the human being's main act of cultural resistance.

The question that remains open is: will we be able to defend the authenticity of musical art or will we surrender to its complete artificiality?

8. Conclusion: The Destiny of Music between Artificial Intelligence and Humanity

The analysis conducted in the previous chapters has outlined a complex and evolving landscape: artificial intelligence is redefining the very concept of musical creation, introducing artistic, cultural, sociological, anthropological and ethical questions. However, the live concert has emerged as the last space of authentically human resistance, the place where music remains a lived, unrepeatable and relational experience.

But what is music? What value does it have in different social and cultural contexts? And how can humanity preserve its essence in the age of algorithmic reproducibility?

In this conclusion, we will analyse the deeper meaning of music and its role in society, to understand whether artificial intelligence represents a threat or an alliance for the future of musical art.

8.1. Music: An Aesthetic, Social and Cultural Phenomenon

Music is not simply a set of organised sounds, but an expressive and communicative phenomenon that takes on different values depending on the historical, social and cultural context in which it develops.

We can distinguish five fundamental dimensions of music:

Music as an expressive language

Music is one of the oldest means of human communication, predating verbal language. It expresses emotions, thoughts and states of mind in an immediate and universal way. In the age of AI, a crucial question arises: can musical language exist without human intentionality? If music is both an expression of lived experience and a manifestation of a creative will guided by a clear mind and an open heart, then AI can only imitate its forms, without ever possessing its authenticity.

Music as a social and identity phenomenon

Music has always played a crucial role in the construction of cultural and collective identity: from religious ceremonies to social movements, it has been code and symbol of a lived and cherished belonging. By generating music on demand and adapting it to individual tastes, AI breaks its link with the community, reducing it to an isolated, decontextualised and rootless experience. In doing so, it not only empties music of its aggregating power, but also contributes to the dissolution of identities and social cohesion, which are the beating heart of the authentically human world.

Music as a bodily and performative experience

Music is not only a sound art, but also a bodily and physical experience. Playing a hand instrument, singing (and dancing) are acts that deeply connect human beings to sound and rhythm. If vibrating music, already deadened by obsessive sequential generations devoid of modulation, is now generated by artificial intelligences and performed by holograms or robot performers, this organic connection is lost, turning music into a form of simulation devoid of physicality and tactility.

Music as an aesthetic value

Music has traditionally been considered one of the highest forms of art, an expression of human ingenuity and sensitivity, the closest to the human and universal spirit. However, if music can be endlessly generated by AI, its value risks being eroded by inflationary overproduction. The greatest danger is not the ability of AI to mimic human music, but the fact that if everything becomes immediate music generated on demand, it could lose its status as art and become merely a functional product for the sake of trivial entertainment and whim.

Music as an ethical and spiritual dimension

Music has always had a sacred and ritual role, connected to the transcendent dimension of human experience. From Gregorian chants to mantras, from Sufi music to Orthodox liturgies, sound has been an instrument of spiritual elevation and meditation, which can still be seen, in part, in some more modern and inspired compositions, even in some well-crafted pop. AI-generated music, devoid of intention and soul-searching, can be used to replicate sonic atmospheres, it cannot replace the spiritual and philosophical significance of man-made music, but it can propose a mere parody of it.

8.2. Music in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Threat or Opportunity?

After analysing the functions and meanings of music, a fundamental question emerges: is AI an ally of creativity or a danger to artistic authenticity?

AI as a tool for creative expansion

If used as a discrete support and not as a replacement, artificial intelligence can expand creative possibilities, allowing artists to explore new sounds, generate novel musical ideas and experiment beyond traditional boundaries. AI could become an extension of human ingenuity, providing suggestions and advanced tools for improvisation, orchestration and sound processing.

AI as a risk of cultural homologation

If music generation becomes predominantly algorithmic, there is a risk of a standardisation of musical languages, as AI systems operate by processing pre-existing patterns and are unable to create appreciable stylistic breaks.

Music is in danger of becoming a large-scale industrial production, devoid of cultural differentiation and tied to purely commercial logic.

The need for music ethics in the age of AI

It is crucial to establish clear and regulatory guidelines to protect human music, ensuring the distinction between music created by humans and music generated by AI. The live concert must be recognised as an intangible heritage to be protected, enshrining with legislative rigour that no technology may be used to falsify or alter a performance declared as a 'live' event. At the educational level, a new critical awareness must be formed in audiences and musicians so that a distinction can be made between human artistic experience and synthetic entertainment product (toy).

8.3. The Future of Music: Artificial Intelligence Must Be an Alliance, Not a Substitute

Artificial intelligence can be an ally to human creativity, but only if it remains one tool among many and does not become a substitute for the author and performer.

The future of music in the AI era depends on humanity's ability to preserve and enhance its musical traditions, creative sensibilities and artistic experience.

The final questions that emerge from this analysis are crucial:

Are we willing to accept a world in which music is an algorithmic product without author and without history?
Will society recognise the difference between authentic music and digital simulation, or will it accept the fusion of human and machine without distinction?
How can we ensure that music remains an existential phenomenon and not just a commercial algorithm?

Humanity's last great challenge will be to decide what we want music to be in the future: an art of expression or an automated generation of subjectless sounds?

If music is the language of the soul, then its defence is the defence of the human being itself.

Appendix: Artificial Intelligence and the Crisis of Authenticity in Art and Human Culture

The analysis conducted on music has revealed a much broader issue, which goes beyond the perimeter of sound art and invests the entire relationship between artificial intelligence and human creativity. The problem identified in musical composition is not an isolated case, but the symptom of a systemic transformation affecting every expressive and productive sphere in which human authenticity is challenged and progressively replaced by a synthetic and autonomous elaboration.

At the heart of this phenomenon lies a philosophical and existential question of unprecedented magnitude: is the human being still the main creator of culture, or is AI progressively eroding the centrality of intentionality, experience and consciousness as engines of artistic and intellectual creation?

The same dynamics observed in the field of music are manifesting themselves in other areas: literature, visual arts, cinema, architecture, scientific research and even in the social and anthropological sphere of human identity. If AI-generated music raises questions about the very nature of creativity, the problem becomes even more radical when it extends to the foundations of human activity: art, thought, historical memory and ethics.

Literature and creative writing

The advent of advanced language generation models has made possible the creation of novels, poems, essays and screenplays written entirely by AI, posing a dilemma similar to that of music:

Is an AI-generated text that simulates an author's style still a literary work or is it merely a statistical processing of language?
Is writing a creative act only by virtue of the result obtained, or is it the author's intentional and conscious process that gives it value?

Literature, like music, is not simply a set of signs organised in a coherent manner, but a form of expression that stems from subjective experience, a worldview and historical and cultural stratification. The possibility that AI can write novels indistinguishable from human ones does not negate the essential question: is a text really art if there is no consciousness behind it that intends to communicate something?

If literature is progressively replaced by algorithmic processing, the risk is not only the loss of authorship, but also the neutralisation of the very act of writing as a form of human expression. The reader risks finding himself immersed in a literary production in which there is no longer a subject to trace back to, where the very meaning of the word becomes functional to a productive logic devoid of intentionality.

Visual arts and iconographic creation

AI has already demonstrated the ability to generate paintings, illustrations, photographs and digital images that emulate the styles of famous artists, making it complex to distinguish what has been produced by a machine from what has been created by a human being. But what does this mean for the future of visual art? If art is an interpretative act of reality, can an algorithm 'interpret' without experience? Is a work of art the final aesthetic result, or is it the artist's gesture, history, hand and sensitivity that gives it value?

AI works by combinatorial generation, analysing pre-existing patterns and reproducing new images that respond to specific demands. However, art has always been more than just an aesthetic creation: it is a sign, a testimony, a trace of a thought, a rebellion, a spiritual and philosophical quest. The algorithmic reproduction of images risks homogenising artistic language, creating a visual landscape in which everything is perfectly coherent, but nothing is authentic.

If art loses the physicality of gesture, the tension of error, the difficulty of aesthetic research, it is no longer art, but functional decoration for the market.

Cinema and audiovisual production

AI is already having a significant impact on film and audiovisual production, enabling the creation of scripts, automatic editing, synthetic dubbing and even digital actors. This opens up a new set of ethical questions:

If an actor is replaced by a digital reproduction of him, what happens to the peculiar value of human interpretation?
If a script is generated entirely by AI, is it still an author's work?
If a film is systematically tailor-made to satisfy the audience's approval algorithms, does cinema become just a consumer product with no real artistic vision?

Here again, the risk is not only the technical substitution of human labour, but the neutralisation of the experiential value of film art, which is transformed from an instrument of expression and narration into an optimised calculation of statistical preferences.

Music, art and culture in the transhuman era: the weakening of the human experience

The common thread running through all these phenomena is the progressive reduction of human experience within the creative process. Art, music, literature and film have always had an experiential, corporeal and relational component, which is not limited to the final product, but manifests itself in the very act of creation, in the relationship with the audience and in the historical continuity of culture.

If artificial intelligence becomes the main generator of artistic content, a post-creative era looms, in which the very meaning of art is lost. Not because AI cannot generate astonishing (rather than fascinating) works, but because these works, while drawing on an endless heritage of authentic human experiences, are not the result of real experience, inner research or expressive intention. The AI mixes and reassembles the human cultural heritage of all times, constructing an aesthetic homologation artfully calibrated to bend to the logic of maximum business convenience, through a devious and strategic operation of intentional refining of culture itself.

This leads to an even deeper problem: is humanity progressively abandoning the value of direct experience?

If music can be generated without musicians, does it still make sense to play and sing?
If a painting can be produced in seconds by an algorithm, does it still make sense to draw or paint?
If a novel can be written without an author, what value does the writing have?

In a transhuman context, in which the boundary between human and artificial becomes increasingly blurred, what is at stake is not only the fate of the arts, but the very fate of the human being as a creative subject.

Artificial intelligence is an extraordinary tool, but art and culture cannot be reduced to generative processes devoid of subjectivity and experience. The fundamental question is not whether AI can create, but whether we want creation to become an act without author, without experience and without consciousness.

The real risk of transhumanism is not technological superiority over human creativity, but the passive acceptance of a culture without authors, without experiences and without intentions.

If the world accepts this transformation without a profound ethical and cultural debate, the real loss will not be of art, but of the human being itself.

The transformation of the human

Prolonged exposure to artificially generated cultural products, particularly those produced by artificial intelligences that draw on repetitive patterns optimised for immediate enjoyment, can induce a profound transformation in users, altering processes of aesthetic perception, the relationship with art and critical capacity. The very mechanism by which AI generates content, mixing, reiterating and recombining established patterns to respond to user preferences, generates a vicious circle of cultural homogeneity, in which expressive diversity and intellectual provocation are progressively eroded.

Art, in its essence, has often historically been an agent of rupture and transformation: it has challenged certainties, opened up new horizons, forced human beings to confront the unexpected, the unknown, the uncanny. Cultural growth does not come from complacency, but from contrast, irregularity, intellectual and sensory challenge. If, on the other hand, the audience is progressively exposed to content that merely confirms previous tastes and satisfies predefined expectations, a perceptual flattening occurs that reduces the ability to appreciate the complexity, layering and depth of the artistic experience.

This transformation, already observable in the mechanisms of algorithmic personalisation of digital content, amplifies exponentially with the use of generative AI. The paradox of personalised entertainment is that, while offering each user what he or she believes he or she desires, what superficially seems to 'like best' ends up impoverishing the variety of the cultural experience, excluding anything that might surprise, disturb and challenge.

Continuous exposure to customised AI-generated content induces:

A progressive loss of the ability to process the new and unexpected - If art is reduced to a constant stream of aesthetic confirmations, the user becomes less and less inclined to experience outside his or her comfort zone.
A reduction in perceptual and cognitive complexity - AI, also because of the business strategies promoted by the companies that run it or use it, builds products optimised for maximum usability and minimum resistance: what is challenging, controversial or difficult to interpret is in danger of disappearing, leaving room for an easy, immediate culture without intellectual friction, in short superficial and frivolous.
A crisis of originality and aesthetic taste - If artistic production is dictated by algorithms that maximise enjoyment, the public gradually loses the ability to distinguish between what is artistically significant and what is merely familiar and pleasurable. Art, which for centuries was an education of taste and sensibility, is replaced by a passive consumption of predigested content.
A loss of the social and collective dimension of art - The extreme personalisation of artistic experience fragments culture into individualised bubbles, reducing the ability to construct a shared imaginary. If each individual is exposed to a music, a literature, an iconography modelled on his or her specific tastes, without the encounters and clashes of a common fruition, the collective cultural connections, which have always been fundamental to the construction of identity and a sense of belonging, are flattened or dissolved.

The result of this process is a culture that ceases to challenge and prod the human being and limits itself to cradling him like an infant: an artistic production that no longer has the task of questioning, of scandalising, of raising the critical spirit, but is reduced to a flow of comfortable and predictable stimuli. Art becomes passive entertainment, and the public becomes spectators of a cultural world constructed not to disturb, not to raise doubts, not to stir emotions that are too deep or destabilising.

The ultimate risk of this transformation is the gradual loss of the historical function of art as a tool for the evolution and growth of the individual and society. If music, literature, film, and all forms of expression become products moulded to respond to pre-existing desires, critical thinking atrophies, imagination is reduced, and the ability to process the world through culture is flattened. Art, from an instrument of transcendence, becomes a simple comforting decoration capable of leading us, in time, into the 'realm of idiots'.

Conclusion: The Final Challenge of Humanity in the Age of AI

Artificial intelligence is not just a technology: it is an epistemological and ontological transformation of the relationship between human beings and artistic, cultural and intellectual creation. The ability of AI to generate content indistinguishable from human content poses an existential crossroads: if art can exist without artists, does human creativity still have value?

The analysis conducted has shown that the issue is not only the technical replacement of artists' work, but the very redefinition of the concept of authenticity, intentionality and experience. If the public becomes accustomed to content optimised for immediate gratification, the greatest risk is not the disappearance of artists, but the loss of the collective ability to recognise the value of art as a transformative process.

What is at stake is not only the future of music, literature or the visual arts: it is the future of humanity as a creative and reflective subject. If artificial intelligence takes over as the main culture-generating force, society could find itself living in a world where everything is perfectly constructed to please, but nothing is more authentic, nothing is more necessary, nothing is more profound.

The challenge, therefore, is not to stop technology, but to redefine man's role in the culture of the future. Space must be preserved for error, for creative effort, for the tension between the new and the old, between the known and the unknown. Art must remain a human act of research and discovery, not a mere supply of content calibrated for optimal consumption.

If the world passively accepts the replacement of human culture by artificial generation, the real problem will not be the technical superiority of AI, but the surrender of humanity to its own dissolution. Culture, art and creativity cannot be reduced to a statistical prediction algorithm: they are the very pulse of human consciousness, and their defence is the defence of the very essence of the human being.

Biografia di Alessandro Fois

Brani Audio

Galleria Immagini