Why A.I. Music Can’t Replicate the Human Touch

As we’ve explored on this blog, A.I. has made remarkable strides in fields from image generation to writing.

But when it comes to creating music that really touches people, A.I. faces formidable obstacles.

Because while A.I. music generators can churn out competent melodies, their output often feels hollow or disconnected from the uniquely human experience that defines music.

YouTuber Adam Neely described the hurdles facing music A.I. Check it out:

One major obstacle stems from how A.I. companies approach music. For many developers, music is framed as a problem—a task to be optimized by algorithms rather than an art form to be explored. This mindset strips away the essence of music: its emotional depth, historical roots, and cultural significance.

For example, A.I.-generated tunes about cheeseburgers may mimic the structure of a Delta blues tune, but it trivializes the rich history that birthed the genre. That focus on “solving” music reduces it to an exercise in pattern replication, devoid of the intentionality that gives music meaning.

Related: Can’t Stop the Rock Faucet

A.I. music lacks the essential “human-ness” we intuitively respond to in art. Because music is inextricably intertwined with human history, passion, and tradition.

However, the accelerationist mindset of many A.I. developers prioritizes technological advancement over understanding why music moves us. This tunnel vision results in music that sounds polished but feels artificial. Without a sense of shared humanity, A.I. compositions fail to capture the ineffable quality that makes music strike a chord with individuals and whole societies.

Another significant barrier A.I. faces is the disinterest many developers show in the artistic process. Human composers and performers make choices based on knowledge, yes; but also on intuition, gut feeling, and plain old whim. They imbue their work with spontaneous–even purposefully flawed–touches to express their individuality.

A.I., on the other hand, operates by analyzing and replicating patterns. But it doesn’t understand why those patterns exist.

For instance, an A.I. might extend a phrase or introduce a harmonic progression that sounds right according to its training data. But without the proper context or intent, the result can feel soulless.

Related: Larry Correia on the A.I. Enthusiasm Deficit

In his 1950 paper, Alan Turing proposed the imitation game, which later inspired the Turing test. He understood that for machines to exhibit intelligence comparable to humans, they would need randomness and unpredictability. Modern machine learning incorporates these elements, but randomness alone doesn’t make music meaningful. Because “randomness” denotes a lack of understanding.

Music isn’t just about unexpected twists or novel combinations. It’s about creating emotional connections. A.I. can mimic randomness or structure as its programmers want, but it doesn’t know why it should.

The lesson A.I.-enamored bugmen are about to learn is that culture cannot be reduced to data points. The history of genres like jazz, blues, and classical music is inseparable from the social and personal contexts that shaped them. So A.I.-generated music often falls flat because it lacks this contextual grounding. It can mimic the surface features of a genre but not the back story that give the music its soul.

And even if an A.I. could create music indistinguishable from human compositions, it still wouldn’t address the deeper issue: intent.

Music is more than sound waves imposed on unsuspecting air molecules. It’s a form of communication between creator and listener. A.I.-generated music lacks the intent and emotional connection that people naturally seek in art. This absence of intent is why A.I. music (and visual art and fiction), no matter how technically impressive, often feels incomplete.

Humans have the ability to reinterpret and recontextualize music, even finding meaning in songs they initially dislike. Because music invites participation. It’s a cool medium people actively engage with, whether through dancing, singing, or just listening deeply. A.I. music, by contrast, often feels static, offering little for listeners to connect with or reinterpret.

A.I.-generated music faces significant hurdles in replicating the emotional, cultural, and historical dimensions of human music. While it may succeed in producing technically proficient compositions, its lack of intent, cultural understanding, and idiosyncrasy denies it that essential human touch.

That said, there are ways in which A.I. can enhance music without replacing the human element. When used thoughtfully, A.I. can serve as a tool for artists, aiding in composition or sound design while leaving room for creativity and emotional expression. The challenge lies in ensuring that A.I. complements, rather than replaces, the rich tradition of muicianship.

Because in the end, music isn’t just a sequence of notes. It both reflects who the listeners are and gives them a window on an aspirational world. As long as A.I. developers treat music as a problem to solve rather than a medium for expression, A.I.-generated music will remain synthetic.

Get early looks at my works in progress, the chance to influence my writing, and VIP access to my exclusive Discord.

Sign up at Patreon or SubscribeStar now.

“Happy, hopeful, and practical”

Learn to regain your dignity and have fun while you’re at it! Read now: