- Paul McCartney has spoken up to warn about the dangers of unregulated AI to future musicians.
- The comments stand out after AI assisted the production of the Grammy-nominated song ‘Now and Then’.
- UK lawmakers are set to protecting creators from unauthorized use of their art for training AI models.
Paul McCartney doesn’t want to let AI completely drown out human musicians just yet. Ahead of a debate in the UK Parliament on AI and copyright, the legendary Beatle warned that artificial intelligence could push young musicians off the stage unless great care is taken.
This might seem a little surprising after AI helped McCartney and the rest of his bandmates nab Grammy nominations recently for Record of the Year and Best Rock Performance. The “lost” song “Now and Then” used AI to recover 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.
Nonetheless, McCartney is singing a new tune about generative AI and its impact on musicians. An endless torrent of AI-derived music mimicking human artists without giving credit or paying royalties could devastate the chances for up-and-comers to break out.
This warning comes at a portentous moment for AI and music. The British government is considering changes to its data laws to let artists opt out of having their work used to train AI. The law would allow creators to forbid AI developers from training models on their work, limiting the AI’s ability to imitate those songs and sounds.
“We[’ve] got to be careful about it because it could just take over and we don’t want that to happen particularly for the young composers and writers [for] who, it may be the only way they[’re] gonna make a career,” McCartney said in a statement published by the Guardian. If AI wipes that out, that would be a very sad thing indeed.”
Face the AI music
Of course, some think the opt-out system isn’t enough. Many are pushing to shift the burden from the artists to the AI developers. The argument is that it should be up to AI companies to ask for permission to use the music first. Otherwise, musicians might spend more time policing AI than making actual music. And considering how fast AI is evolving, that’s a bit like playing copyright whack-a-mole.
The debate in Parliament isn’t the only place where AI and music rights holders clash. Many apps that use AI to make music, like Tad.AI, Suno, and Udio are all facing lawsuits from major music labels. “Now and Then” may be a success, but McCartney seems to have been convinced that AI might dilute the value of human creativity in music.
Regulators need to find the right balance between artists’ rights and AI’s innovations. Until then, musicians want AI developers to take a page from McCartney’s work and “let it be.”
