- Paul McCartney has spoken out to warn of the dangers of unregulated AI for future musicians.
- The reactions are notable after AI assisted the production of the Grammy-nominated song ‘Now and Then’.
- British lawmakers plan to protect creators from unauthorized use of their art for training AI models.
Paul McCartney doesn’t want AI to completely drown out human musicians just yet. Ahead of a debate in the British Parliament on AI and copyright, the legendary Beatle warned that artificial intelligence could push young musicians off stage unless great caution is exercised.
This may seem a bit surprising after AI recently helped McCartney and the rest of his bandmates land Grammy nominations for Record of the Year and Best Rock Performance. The ‘lost’ song “Now and Thenused AI to repair and restore audio, including the sound of the late John Lennon’s voice. AI tools lifted and enhanced Lennon’s vocal track from an old demo, making it sound like Lennon was back in the room with the rest of the band.
Nevertheless, McCartney is singing a new tune about generative AI and its impact on musicians. An endless stream of AI-derived music that mimics human artists without giving credit or paying royalties would destroy the chances for newcomers to break out.
This warning comes at an ominous time for AI and music. The UK government is considering changes to data laws to allow artists to opt out of having their work used to train AI. The law would allow makers to ban AI developers from training models on their work, limiting the AI’s ability to imitate those songs and sounds.
“We have to be careful with it because it could just take over and we don’t want that to happen, especially for the young composers and writers, for whom it may be the only way they (are) going to make a career McCartney said in one statement published by the Guardian. If AI wipes that out, it would be very sad indeed.”
Confront the AI music
Of course, some believe that the opt-out system is not enough. Many are calling for a shift in the burden from artists to AI developers. The argument is that it should be up to AI companies to first ask permission to use the music. Otherwise, musicians could spend more time controlling AI than making real music. And considering how quickly AI is evolving, it’s a bit like playing copyright whack-a-mole.
The debate in Parliament is not the only place where AI and music rights holders clash. Many apps that use AI to make music, such as Tad.AI, Sunand Udio are all confronted lawsuits from major music labels. ‘Now and Then’ may be a success, but McCartney seems convinced that AI could dilute the value of human creativity in music.
Regulators must find the right balance between artist rights and AI innovations. Until then, musicians want AI developers to take a page from McCartney’s work and “leave it alone.”