I am not an AI advocate, but I consider myself an AI power user. Still, just because I have been mastering this technology, I don’t want to convince the world that everything must be replaced with algorithms. Most things shouldn’t.
The Economist published an article about the use of AI in various industries. It provides data about the number of mobile apps before and after the emergence of vibe coding. I have never been an avid ebook reader, so maybe I am lucky there: according to the data, their number has tripled since 2022, when some writers started putting their prompting skills to use.
Anyway, all this is expected, but one statement in the article worries me: a lot of people actually prefer AI-generated text, music, and software. What this means to me is that, as consumers, we often care about the final result while being indifferent to the soul of the work. People say they have nothing against AI-generated music because, first, they hear no difference, and second, they like it. Pretty logical, right?
If you ask me, the blame is not on OpenAI, Google, or Anthropic. It’s Spotify. And the shuffle culture it has successfully popularized. I’m not saying Spotify started it. Artists themselves have spoken against this, and I remember Adele’s public statement on social media: “We don’t create albums with so much care and thought into our track listing for no reason. Our art tells a story and our stories should be listened to as we intended. Thank you Spotify for listening.”
This was the only request I had in our ever changing industry! We don’t create albums with so much care and thought into our track listing for no reason. Our art tells a story and our stories should be listened to as we intended. Thank you Spotify for listening 🍷♥️
— Adele (@Adele) November 21, 2021
Eventually, we came to the point where many of us have forgotten how to listen to music, or what to listen for in music. I am not even talking about the composition of entire albums, but individual songs. Many may listen to “Regrets, I’ve had a few. But then again, too few to mention,” and never realize that, through his performance, the singer shared someone’s experience, told a story, showed vulnerability, and maybe even revealed some concealed pride in his personality. Music is story, emotion, psychology, and much more.
And so, when a lived life turned into a ballad becomes nothing more than background noise, people stop caring about the creator. I just need something that makes me feel good, and if it’s AI-made, no difference.
The same goes for books.
The AI policing we see today will never solve any of these problems. I know some readers of this article will, just out of curiosity, scan this text through an AI detector to check my honesty. Don’t. Because AI policing will always punish the wrong suspect.
The indifference toward music started when generative AI was still science fiction. And had it not been for that indifference, no one would worry about AI-generated music today, because it wouldn’t have a significant audience.
In any text, product description, press release, or official statement, it’s not the AI “score” that makes the difference. Marketers need to think about the big picture, going beyond structural details. When the message conveys the right idea, provides something valuable, and speaks to the reader, the customer, or the business partner, most people will not care whether AI was involved in creating it. And in most cases, they shouldn’t have to.
We can’t change our perception of art, literature, and marketing by policing AI. Let it be. Every creator simply needs to ensure that their work has a human reason to exist.