Generative AI, Creativity, and what AI means for the Music Industry with Hayleigh Bosher

[MUSIC PLAYING] Hi, I'm Dr. Carrie McEnerney. Dr. Eleanor Drey, tonight are the hosts of the Good Robot Podcast. Join us as we ask the experts. What is good technology? Is it even possible? And how can feminism help us work towards it? If you want to learn more about today's topic, head over to our website, www.thegoodrobot.co.uk, where we've got a full transcript of the episode and especially curated reading list by every guest. We love hearing from listeners, so feel free to tweet or email us. And it also so appreciate you leaving us a review on the podcast app. But until then, sit back, relax, and enjoy the episode. [MUSIC PLAYING] In this episode, we talked to Dr. Haley Bosher, associate Dean and senior lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at Brunelle University and host of the podcast, Whose Song Is It, Anyway, a podcast on the intersections of IP and the music industry. Haley gives us some great insight into tomorrow's legal disputes over AI and music copyrights. She tells us why AI can never create an original song. What it takes to sue a generative AI company for creating music in the style of someone, and why generative AI risks missing the point about what creativity is. We hope you enjoy the show. Thank you so much for joining us, Haley. It's such a pleasure to get a chance to chat to you. For all those who are listening who might not know, Haley is the host of a fantastic podcast called Whose Song Is It, Anyway, on the intersections of IP and the music industry. And we thought a really fun way to start this episode would be to play a song that had been at the center of some kind of copyright or IP dispute. And they get Haley to explain it. And then this morning, at about 2 a.m., whereas woke up because I like, you know, when you pull something in your neck, and you then can't turn your head. So I was sort of glumly staring at the ceiling. I realized that actually, if we did that, then wouldn't this episode get taken down? So Haley, am I correct? Could we have included a song? Or would it get-- It's a really good question. And basically, this is one of those situations where, like, the law and the technology don't necessarily align, because if we were doing this kind of like offline, then to play an extract of a song, to then critique it, would clearly fall within the copyright exception for criticism and reviews. However, the technology doesn't understand copyright exceptions. And so what would happen is the content idea, whenever it is, if you put this on YouTube, for example, would just match the fact that you used a song in your recording and probably take it down. So the risk would have been that it did get taken down, even if technically-- when you could have argued back, but it's not a reliable system. So-- Well, that's fascinating. I think that happened to you once, Eleanor, right? With Eleanor does TikToking for a data rights organization with the citizens. And I think once-- didn't one of your videos get flagged for something that we couldn't really figure out? Yes, I think that was like a bottle in it. And they thought that it was alcohol, but it wasn't. It was like squash. So I'm not sure whether that was the-- I don't really know, I'm not really sure what happened. I like message carry frantically. They're like, ah, help me. I understand TikTok. And that's what we came up with. But anyway, it was accepted in the end. I was telling my ex-- at my friend's house at the moment-- about like generative AI and all the problems, this poses to copyright. I think it's something that really captures everyone. Like everyone knows something about music. And can imagine that it's a big issue. I'm using this opportunity to say that I'm also at my friend's house for anyone watching this. Yes. I'm a vision. My house, I don't live like royalty, but some of my mates do, apparently. And yes, I would agree. I actually recently finished this project for the UK IPA, where about perception of IP and discussions around IP topics on social media and in the press media. And the research showed that there's just like an increase over time in terms of people engaging in discussion about these topics. I mean, it's something that I still spend a lot of time trying to convince people that copyright and IT is actually interesting and not boring. But there is still that kind of misconception, I think. But at the same time, when you all know something about music, or theater, or film, or social media, and we can kind of see where those things that we are interested in, like, smash into the law. And maybe it doesn't make sense. And that's what makes it interesting, where you're like, well, it doesn't seem right that it's like that. Or this-- everyone's got an opinion about whether they think Ed Sheeran did or didn't copy the song that he's one of the cases he's been in in the last 10 years. So deaf is becoming something that's of more interest to the public. And that's actually what that project showed that I did with the IPA recently. Well, that's fantastic. So actually for the benefit of our lovely listeners, could you share a little bit more about you? And so let us know, you know, we've covered that you work in IP and the music industry and that you're a real expert in this area. You get called on a lot to do kinds of public broadcasting about it. We'd love to hear a bit more about you and what's got you to be interested in the intersections of technology and IP. Sure. So yeah, I'm an academic at Bruno University. And I specialize in internet property law. I did a PhD in copyright law. At the time, it was looking at piracy, although I hate to use that word. But that's what people know. When I mean copyright infringement is the technical term. And I've always-- before I did law, I did perform arts. I've always had an interest in the arts. And when I studied law, I found a lot of it really boring until I found entertainment law and internet property law. And I was like, yes, a marriage of my favorite things. And I now spend my time doing two things, really. One is helping creators understand more about their rights, empowering them to understand what their rights are and how to enforce them and how to utilize them. And also, I do a bit of policy work. So I look at the laws around the creative industries in particular, the music industry, and see where those laws could be better or more effective. And obviously, in view of evolving technologies, this is a massive part of the work that I'm currently doing. I was recently in the Science Innovation and Technology Select Committee evidence session about how AI is impacting the creative industries. And as I mentioned, all of that stuff clashes with IP rights and copyright law. That's the bit that people don't tend to know so much about. But that's one of the ways that we can kind of regulate the technology to make sure that all of the different people we're involved in the development of the new technology, but also in the creative industries, can be protected and benefit fairly. I want to ask, what is wrong with piracy as a term? I don't like it because I think it's quite emotive and metaphorical. And I think that it polarises the discussion. People either think pirates are quite cool, like pirates of Caribbean vibes. So it's like, piracy is fine because it's like this kind of off of society, kind of non-conformist rebel, but in a cheeky good way approach. Or you think of pirating like a negative way, in which case the people who are legally streaming films, for example, are just wrong and evil and all that kind of stuff. And I don't think either of those paint the correct picture of what online copyright thinks it's really about, which is a combination of lack of knowledge and understanding around how the law works. Because research from the UK IPO shows that people who consider themselves fans of music are the most likely to illegally stream music and same for film. So they obviously are not connecting the fact that you're not appreciating the person you're a fan of if you're not sharing the wealth with them, that kind of thing. So I think there's a lot of misunderstanding around how copyright works and the whole system. There's also issues around the dissemination of works and the easy access of works. The second reason in that research study for people, a legally streaming film, for instance, is because it's easy. So it's easier for them to just search the name of the film and find an illegal version of it where, for instance, say you're signed up to Netflix, but it's not on Netflix. It's on Amazon or something. And they don't want to join a whole other subscription service. So sometimes it's that, do you know what I mean? The whole point is it's a very nuanced discussion. And so pirate, semi, is not a helpful way of thinking about it. You're totally right. It actually takes me forever to find things online illegally. I am not the right person. I don't know how people do it. I always end up with some absolute pooling version or like is actually in Spanish or something. Did you guys have that ad? You know, like you wouldn't steal a car like that. You had to go like, give me the go. When you see, and they give me such a lot of ideas of like streaming in general, because yeah, that's the only like association I now have of. Well, I think it's really accurate. Because also I didn't like 10 years ago. So it was at the time that kind of approached you and I think they just tried to sort of like criminalize it. Like you're a bad person if you do this. And I'm like, but that's not really a helpful way of having that discussion where I think personally, if you explain to people, especially if they consider themselves a fan of music, but if you understand it, like you never pay that artist, then they'll have to quit and go get another job because they can't pay their rent. So like you should support financially the people that you were fans of. And actually the people benefiting from you [BLANK_AUDIO] that stream, whatever is aggregator, you know, the pirate bay make money, they're you're supporting that system as opposed to the people they can actually fan of. And I just think that's a much better, I mean, it's a complicated conversation to be having, but I think that approach with those, that advert. And I, the same, the one to see like empty cinemas. And it's like piracy kills with cinemas and piracy is crime and all of that stuff. I just think it's unhelpful way of framing that conversation. - Well, we'll ask letharon if AI is pirating the system, but first, we really want your response to our big three good robot questions. So what is good technology? Isn't even possible and how can feminism help us get there? And specifically focusing on the eyes of the law or the kinds of technologies that you look at. - These are huge questions. I think technology is neutral and you can use it for good or bad. I also could get into a whole hour discussion about what is good or bad. Take the piracy example, right? So the way you frame a conversation to put someone in this box of like what you're doing is bad or wrong. It's just for me, often an unhelpful way of framing a discussion in lots of situations, not just in that scenario. So I think that with technology it's the same. Framing it as good or bad is not necessarily helpful. I think the technology itself is neutral. However, it can be used for good or bad. I'm doing a better comment if someone is listening to this. It's the audience. I'm like wavy my hands around. But I think that the law and feminism as a kind of lens to view technology are helpful ways to think about justice and service. For me, AI or any technology really being in the kind of good category, if you want to put it in that category, is something that is solving a problem, making the world a better place, being of service, being of use, and not discriminating or displacing humans. And I think that thinking about those concepts through the lens of feminism or through the lens of the legal system. I mean, the legal system less so, because I said this in the committee the other day, there are laws, laws, supposed to reflect technology in many, to society in many ways. And so there are laws that now we would think horrific, like if that was the law now, right? Think of things that are now legal that used to be illegal. And so sometimes I think the specific regulation is not always a good lens. What I mean by thinking of the legal lens really, especially in terms of copyright, is more like principles. But why do we have copyright? What are the legal kind of philosophical justifications for copyright? And those can be helpful lenses. I don't necessarily mean section two or four of the whatever act. I think because laws can change and they should change all of the time. But they can be used as tools to uphold justice and balance. And I think that that can be a useful way of thinking about it. I think they are by definition kind of an answer for questions, right? I would be able to see someone was like, I've got a vision and this isn't a bit like, oh, okay. It's really fascinating to hear your distinctive on this because Unway Eleanor, who's the ex-NIP lawyer, and she knows a bit more about this. Unfortunately, my main knowledge of IP is one of my best friends who was an IP lawyer. And unfortunately, this one IP related case in New Zealand, which went viral because John Oliver covered it about an Eminem-ISC soundtrack that was used in the New Zealand elections for the joke is that it was being sued because they were like, oh, it sounds like Eminem and then the title track was actually called Eminem-ISC. And so this became as only things in New Zealand do a very distinct, tiny local scandal. But things are really heating up right now with IP issues around chat GPT. So could you briefly explain to the latest knowledge of audience like me what IP is and how it relates to generative AI tools like chat GPT? Sure. So the first thing is that IP means intellectual property and that is an umbrella term that means also lots of different things. So types of IP and like copyright patterns, designs, trademarks, all these other things. And actually, we tend to be mostly talking about copyright in this context of AI, although patterns, so patterns protect inventions. So something like parts of your washing machine or your eye phone or whatever are cat and protected. And there is a whole conversation about whether AI can be an inventor and therefore have a patent and all that kind of stuff. So that's one conversation. In the context of like the creative industries and the chat bots and that kind of stuff, we're really talking about copyright. So copyright is a type of intellectual property right that protects literary, artistic, dramatic and musical works as well as some other things like sound recordings and films. And basically that just means anything like books, films, music, theatre, literature, paintings, photographs, creative stuff. And what it does is it gives the rights holder or the creator certain rights that allow them to be remunerated for their creativity and control the use of the thing that they have made so you can light it to it or not and things like that. It's a balancing act, as I said already, one of the core principles of copyright is to balance the different stakeholders interests. And what that means is we give them certain rights to the rights holders, but we also limit those rights in other ways so that we can also have access to works for certain things like criticism and review we mentioned already. So a copyright exception is a way that you limit the kind of scope of rights for that kind of balancing act. So that's what we're talking about in terms of the legal context with AI, it kind of engages with copyright in a couple of ways. So first of all, all of the data that is ingested in the AI for the purpose of training the AI could be copyright protected data. So in the examples we've seen in the news recently of like the song that's in the style of drape and the weekend, the AI obviously ingested the music catalogs of the weekend and drape, which are both copyright protected. So the use of that data, which is obviously blasphemy to say that music is data. For the purpose of AI, you would call it a data. In the music industry, we would absolutely not call it that. We could call it a music catalog. Whether that needs to be protected, whether that needs to be, sorry, licensed or not, is one of the big questions that we're kind of looking at. And then on the other side, the AI output, we can, the other kind of issues that we're exploring in copyright is basically two things. Is that AI output copyright protectable in and of itself? Like has the AI created a work or not? And secondly, is that work an infringement or somebody else's copyright work that's maybe been ingested as part of the process of that AI-generated work? So those are some of the kind of key legal questions around AI, the technology. With the chat AI, there's also like a whole other layer of like, for instance, as an academic. Like we're worried about how this impacting our students and like assignment and plagiarism. I mean, we are seeing, I genuinely have seen assignments submitted by students, which I am sure were written by a chat or because they're just absolutely nonsense call. And it really frustrates me because I just want to like have a word with the student and be like, did you even read this? Like, could have at least edited it? It certainly has some logic to it. But also that I'm just like, also, going away your degree because maybe it was like an experiment to see if they thought they could get away with it. I don't know that there are also those kind of like ethical concerns in that context as well. Maybe we should be moving to oral exams like in Italy. Yeah, I think that's what universities will do or at least combinations of which we do anyway, like with, for instance, at Brunel, when you write your dissertation, you also do a presentation. And because we've faced problems like this before, for instance, students can buy an essay online and doing the presentation enables us to like, ensure that they can talk about for 15 minutes, their topic and things like that. But yeah, I definitely think there will be more, well, doing an exam is different. Like if you're in an exam setting in a room in real life, then obviously you can't cheat with AI. But things like dissertation and assignment, saying is probably gonna change. And when you're studying law, I mean, it might be in other subjects, that's not even a bad thing because why do we need to do all this essay writing anyway? And I think in law, essay writing skills are really important being a good lawyer. So, and research skills that go along with that. So that would actually be a real shame to have to kind of get rid of that completely. - Anyway, so you've got a bit of a topic that who doesn't wanna hear about what university's gonna do about Chai Teeruti. - Yeah, the other thing that I'm related to what you were just talking about is the question of whether an AI generated song is an original, is it its own piece of art, and its own rights, or is it unoriginal? And the parent of the law needs to know that in order to be able to assess whether it's a copyright infringement. Can you explain a bit about that? - So, see the AI output. There's the two questions of like, is it protectable by copyright? Like, can it be a copyright protected work, and then could it be an infringement? Those are like the two key questions. So the first question, when something is copyright protected or not, It has to fall within the categories of things that copyright protects, so if it's like pitch-dress or song or whatever. And if it's one of those things, is it original? So the requirement for originality and copyright is not necessarily how we would think of the word originality in everyday language. It doesn't have to be like brand-spanking new every time, right? Because obviously lots of songs use the same common chord combinations as advocated for by Ed Sheeran and not recently. So originality doesn't mean completely brand-new. It means, have you made your own creative choices? Have you taken the building blocks of the thing that you always use in that particular context? So if it's a song, it might be the chord structure or a basic structure of a typical pop song or something like that. But then how do you add it to your personal touch? In the language of the law, we say things like skill, labor and effort, own intellectual creation and all these terms that I don't actually mean a lot on their own. But it is a lot to do with an extension of your personality, how you view the world and putting your own personal touch, which relates to your personality. So in my view, AI can generate a song however, it only uses the data set that it's been ingested and it doesn't add anything new. It also doesn't have a personality, doesn't have a view on the world. One of the protest signs that I saw in the protests in America, the script writers and the writers, it says, "GBT doesn't have childhood trauma." And it's funny, but it's so on the point because when we create stuff as humans, it's a manifestation of everything that we've been through and emotions and not just the skills that we have. It's not just that you can play the piano and then you write a song based off the fact that you've heard other songs before. It's also that you're writing about your own personal experience and creativity in my mind anyway is a very human experience and I don't think that AI can do that. So not everyone would agree with me. Some people would say that it really depends on how you think about what creativity is. If you think that all humans do when they create something is regurgitate all the other books that they've ever read or all the other films that they've ever seen, then AI can do that. If you think that creativity is about adding your own personal touch, your own personality, your own life experience, your own kind of view of the world on top of your skill and effort and all of the inspiration that you draw from other works, then I don't think AI can do that and therefore doesn't reach the threshold and therefore doesn't create copyright protective or things. Well that's the first question. The second question about infringement. So this is actually sort of flipped on its head. The normal test for infringement is did you take a substantial part of the other song? For instance if you do like that song and substantial relates to the original parts because you know I've just said about like you draw inspiration from that's fine. You take the building blocks of the kind of works that you're working within. Those things are what we call the unoriginal elements that are commonplace in that particular context and the test for infringement. You have to show that what's been copied is the original parts. So the challenge if you were a rights holder and you wanted to sue an AI generator whose for instance made a song that's in the style of your music. The problem is that it'd be difficult to point to a specific song where they've taken the original parts because say going back to the example of Drake and the weekend what it did is it created a song in the general style of and general style of is not something that's copyright protected. Your voice is not something that's copyright protected and so that would be very difficult to show and necessarily impossible and also just to say that with the weekend and the Drake song there are other IP rights that play as well because those are those are trademarks the names of the people and so even to say that this song is Drake at the weekend engages other types of rights as well and maybe there would be we have the single passing arts in the UK like and in America they have something similar like likeness and personality rights. So there are other rights that are engaged as well but just from a copyright perspective the the originality criteria maybe the kind of biggest hurdle when it comes to whether or not the output is infringing a previous work or not. My gosh it's so interesting. I don't want to ask you to sing if you don't want to but what's there's something that's a substantially original part of a track? I mean any track? Can you or just tell us something that we might all know? You don't want to sing? I can have my go at singing. No, Kerry. Kerry is a really good singer. So not what I do anything but I will. So I have this playlist. I have a whole playlist of songs. It's called copyright and the music industry is on Apple and Spotify. I made it after I read my book because when I was writing the book about all of these different songs that were they weren't all infringement cases but they were some some kind of legal dispute. I was like listening to the music as I was writing the book and having the best time and I just thought I want people to listen to this. So it started out as a kind of like glossary of the book I suppose but I've just kept adding to it so every time there's an infringement case or every time there's some kind of legal dispute around a song I add it to the playlist. And in there are tons of examples of songs where they they didn't all win or lose they might have to google which ones but I'll give you a couple of examples that you can listen to and then you can decide. So one quite famous case was George Harrison from the Beatles was sued for copying a song by the chiffons. His song is called one but I'm gonna make sure I don't get them mixed up. One of the songs is called My Sweet Lord that's George Harrison's and he's so fine is the chiffons. And that was found to be copyright infringement because the judge said they were so substantially similar and when you listen to them it's not just one element there's many the song has almost an identical melody throughout although the lyrics are different and the speed one song is slower than the other but you can literally sing the lyrics from one song over the top of the other one when they're very similar. However it was still a controversial case because George said I created this song independently even though I had heard of the other song before and the judge said that he did it subconsciously so he didn't even know that he had done it. Naughty George I well it's a bizarre rate how does the judge know? George is like I didn't know that I was doing that how could the judge possibly see into his brain and and determine that he'd done it subconsciously but basically it's more due to the fact that the songs are so similar that you can infer that he had done it subconsciously rather than necessarily being about the fact that he didn't know he was doing it because what the first part of the copyright infringement test is also that you have to have heard the previous song before because copyright is the right to copy and you can't copy something never heard before and so an example of something that wasn't infringement was the UK Ed Sheeran case where he was sued by a guy called Sam Chokri and it was to do with the specific part of the song where Ed's song is like the O-Y-O-Y-O-Y and the Sam Chokri song had in it O-Y-O-Y-O-Y and so the very similar those parts but he couldn't prove that Ed had actually ever heard his song before and so he lost that case but the judge said even if he did overcome that hurdle of access the parts that are similar in those two songs are general parts so those those little snippets are considered commonplace elements and therefore wouldn't be the same same with those American case where Katy Perry was sued for you know had the song Dark Horse it's got that really distinctive scale in I'm not going to sing it but that's also on the playlist you can listen and at first actually it was found to be infringement and then there was an appeal and on a appeal she did win and they said that a scale is a commonplace element and therefore not a substantial taking even though the scales are I don't know if I can't remember if the job I heard if they were identical or nearly identical but the whole point was that something like a scale is not something that should be protected by copyright and therefore even if it was distinctive wasn't found to be infringement so there you go there's just some of the job I heard but the the playlist is like hours and hours long it's not a great listen because one minute it's like Mariah Carey singing all I'm up to Kristen and the next minute you get George Harrison so it's not necessarily saying I'll put on while you're having dinner but it's fun to explore the different cases I mean I think that's so great and yes please to all our listeners check out not only Haley's podcast but also her cool playlist you know wish Ellen and I could have an AI ethics playlist yeah or you put the AI generated songs on there and they'll get taken down anyway exactly let's sort of mess it commentary but on it no something we were interested in is I guess kind of what the advent of technologies like chat GPT maybe mean for things like the music industry and so yeah how do you think that IP or like copyright law should be wielded in a way that protects the music industry rather than sort of letting these tools undermine that. So I think the first thing to kind of point out is that copyright always evolves with new technology. So this isn't the first time that any creative industries has been like, oh no, a new thing. And it's not even that with AI, it's not that necessarily it's a bad thing. Like, I don't think that the creative industries are like, oh no, this is terrible. Let's like batter down the hatches. Because in many ways, especially in the music industry, artists and songwriters and composers have been using AI tools to assist in their creation for a really long time. This is not actually that new, but AI generating technology is kind of something different, which can displace creative workers. And that's why we're seeing the protests in America, because they're worried about the fact that this idea, that why would we hire a script writer when we could just get this chatbot to write the episode for us. And I think that somewhere that the law can come in and help rebalance those kind of different interests. Because the creative industries is something that offers so much to us as a society, not only from the economic perspective, I mean, it massively contributes from an economic perspective. But also all of the joy that the creative arts brings us, as well as the healing, there's so much amazing scientific research about the incredible kind of healing powers of music and how it helps students who are in education, nor is it kind of set, they're like creative arts and the creative industries does so much for society that I think it's something that we want to ensure that we don't just completely bulldoze, because someone's created this technology that can do something similar, but not the same. And for me, it comes back to that exact question of like, why do we want AI technology to generate music or to write scripts for us or whatever it is? I think that we've got to really think about what we want to uphold and value in life and what kind of world we want to live in, because it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom. It's just about not letting the technology run away with itself, displace all these workers, exaggerate discriminations and issues that we already have as humans, whereas it could be stayed into a really good direction where we could support the use of AI as a tool for assisting creativity without undermining the importance of human creation. And I think copyright in particular is a really good way of doing that because of the balancing act that it does in general. But I think in order for that to happen, we have to move quite quickly from a legislative perspective, which is a challenge because law does both slowly and AI technology is obviously going on a speed of light. And so that's a challenge. But I do think that there are ways that we can utilize copyright regulation as a way to kind of balance this interest and steer the use of that technology in a healthy direction. That's really fascinating. And I love the way that you frame it in terms of actually, what does the creative process give us as well as the sorts of beautiful kinds of outputs that we get. My husband comes from a slam poetry background, but also from an art education background. So it's all about using poetry to teach and kind of think about how the arts can be really transformative. And ironically, something I always say about him is he is an artist who hates art because he does not want to be spending a spare time reading books or going to art museums or thinking about the arts. But he sees this kind of transformative quality in the arts as being one of the most important things that they can give us. And so, you're right, it's quite sad to think of the fact that if we allow this kind of arts work to be outsourced, do we kind of lose all that transformative power? And also, the kind of content that AI generated works will be is only a regurgitation of the data that input into it. And I think this is a really important point that art and creativity is all about breaking patterns, and going somewhere new and exploring the human experience. AI generated works, you know, do that. All it does is recognize a pattern in a data set and then reproduce something that follows that pattern. And so, okay, fine, it might make all right sort of background star music, I don't know. It can do that, but it is that what we want from music, you know what I mean? And we have, this is a choice. We can decide that we're going to uphold human creativity, that we're going to value what humans bring to the world in that sector, or we can let AI do it and sort of basically ruin the creative arts and industries. And it would be so, honestly, such a waste of such an amazing kind of, like transformative, like you said, is a really good word, I think, for describing some of the benefits. Not only for the creators themselves, but also perhaps, like receiving all this incredible kind of culture and creativity. And I just don't see a world in which allowing AI to display that is going to give us a rich and evolving culture and society. I actually think you'd see the opposite, where it would become narrower and smaller and less insightful and less progressive, because it is just taking a data set and then reproducing it. And it's just like not the point in creativity in my view. Yeah, I totally agree. And I think people can get really caught up in how the technology itself is really exciting. I think that it's amazing that this is possible and the engineering, the teamwork, all that that goes into it is a really incredible achievement. But as an excellent student and a lover of arts, I think it's such a long-term, the pictures suck. Yeah, that's a good idea. Exactly. But I think it goes back to what I said earlier about thinking about the why. Like, why do we want somebody to use the chatbot to write this point of this blog post that just in my view, this is the internet? It's just we're already in a saturated market when it comes to the internet. There's already more music than we could ever listen to. There's more blog posts and books and anything that you could ever possibly read. So all it's doing is contributing to an overproduction or works anyway. When it could be used to problem solve, to manage data, an AI is doing incredible stuff in other areas, like medicine and transport. And all of this stuff where it's like, we have a problem and AI can help us solve it or be more accurate than the human can be because AI doesn't get tired and stuff like that. I think that stuff's incredible. And we should definitely encourage that. It's only in my view when we're talking about this kind of stuff that I'm like, what's the point? Yes, very impressive. AI can make a song. I saw recently, they used AI to get the voice of Kurt Cobain to sing a song by Paul. And I'm like, that's what's horrible. Second of all, why? Like, why are you doing this? I don't see the value. But there is value in AI technology in general for sure to be able to do things that humans can't do. So let's focus the energy there. Humans already make exceptionally beautiful magical and credible music, art, literature, those kind of things. We don't need AI for that. We've done that. We've got that. We're good. Do you know what I mean? Or like, AI can be in a tool to assist in that exploration. But it doesn't need to replace it. Whereas there are things that AI can do that does make the world about place, essentially. And I think we should direct it there, rather than, like you said, just being like, oh, yeah, it's cool. It can do that. It's like, yeah. And, well, Haley, thank you so much for giving us so much food for thoughts. We just really appreciate it. And I'm sure you will also be the face, wipe your lawn future. So someone to watch out for. Thanks for coming and joining us today. Well, thanks so much for having me. And I really hope that listeners do go and check out. Because this is a really exciting policy area, like the government are looking into this right now about what they should do. And you actually can get involved in this. This is not something that's just happening over there. You can put your views forward. And they will take that into consideration at national and international levels. So this is also wherever in the world you're listening to this. This is happening now. This episode was made possible, thanks to the generosity of Christina Goul and the MacArthur Foundation. It was produced by Eleanor Drage and Kerry McAnone and edited by Eleanor Drage. (upbeat music) (birds chirping) [BLANK_AUDIO]