It is customary to praise progress, and indeed, modern music-making is entirely the fruit of technology. However, neural networks are now ready to replace living authors, and the value of human creative thought seems to be decreasing drastically. Today, we can no longer say with certainty what is the result of an intense human search and what is the output of an algorithm trained on terabytes of stolen works. Does it still make sense to invest your soul, time, and health in artistic work when the world has exploded with generative content? Many say that AI content is still inferior in quality, but its perfection is only a matter of time. Yet, there is hope that new generations will want to return to authentic creativity, because it is an integral part of human nature.
An author creates primarily for the thrill of the process — self-learning, overcoming difficulties, and self-improvement. AI cannot take away this personal joy. The second motivation is expression, a way to be heard. Today, the explosive growth of generative music creates an endless flood of digital noise, making it harder for real creators to stand out. Fortunately, the situation is changing: streaming platforms are beginning to tag AI tracks, listeners are boycotting faceless music, and avoiding neural networks has become a mark of good taste. So, there is hope.
I have never used AI to solve my creative tasks, whether it's writing music, composing poetry, or designing an album cover. And I can say with confidence that I never will. Simply because it's not interesting. Therefore, you can be sure that my work is based solely on the search of a living consciousness and is completely free from generative tricks.