Entertainment megacorporations are simply getting into bed with artificial intelligence companies. The latest partnership is between Universal Music Group and a new entity called KLAY, a self-described “AI ethical music company.” The partnership is intended to be a “A pioneering founding and ethical business model for AI-generated music that works in collaboration with the music industry and its creators. »
According to a press releaseKLAY is working on a grand musical model “that will revolutionize the way people perceive music, presenting a new intuitive musical experience.” What is so ethical about this technology, you might ask? “Building generative AI music models in an ethical manner that fully respects copyright, name and image rights will significantly reduce threat to human creators and represent the greatest transformative opportunity, creating meaningful new avenues for creativity and the future monetization of copyrights,” the statement explains. The company is “developing a global ecosystem to host AI-driven experiences and content, including accurate attribution, and will not compete with traditional music services’ artist catalogs.”
Like many of these “innovative” AI announcements, KLAY’s promises are at this point mostly vague word salad. KLAY suggests its technology will be useful for “powering new products and experiences.” The company’s founder and CEO, Ary Attie, said in a statement that “KLAY’s obsession is not only to showcase its research innovations, but to make them invisible and essential to people’s daily lives.” people “. You know how people always talk about what is essential to their daily lives?
“Ethical” AI is a relative concept. One could argue that the outsized energy requirements of artificial intelligence (which will “run largely on fossil fuels” this decade) THE New York Times reported earlier this year) make it an inherently unethical company. On the other hand, as generative AI gains a (no doubt well-deserved) reputation as a plagiarism machine, respecting copyright and image rights certainly constitutes an important protection. UMG cited concerns about “protecting human artists from the harmful effects of AI” when it fought with TikTok in early 2024; the company now says it “has always strived to be at the forefront of the music industry by fostering innovation, embracing new technologies, and supporting entrepreneurship while protecting human artistic talent.”
Yet partnering with an AI company to protect human artistic talent may seem like an oxymoron to the actual human artists under the UMG banner, like Fall Out Boy’s Patrick Stump who said last year that art is “things we shouldn’t automate. (“I probably won’t have the opportunity to score films for much longer because they’ll have technology that will do that,” he mused.) UMG artist Nick Cave said it was “insulting” that “there are intelligent people who actually think the act of art is so banal that it can be reproduced by a machine”, adding that “ChatGPT should just fuck off and let quiet songwriting.” UMG artist Hozier said AI “can’t create something based on a human experience, so I don’t know if that meets the definition of art,” and declared his willingness to join a music industry strike against technology, if such a thing were necessary. Well, artists with contracts with UMG may want to examine what the company’s AI partnership actually means beyond the word salad, because “necessary” might be around the corner.
