Please Don't Make Me Tap the AI-Will-Ruin-Everything Sign Yet Again

Last week I received an invitation from a research group that is being funded by the UK government to the tune of several tens of millions of pounds. It has been put together to look at how AI and other 'emerging technologies' might be responsibly applied to the UK's live music industry.

Since they consider me to be a 'leading innovator and creative in my field', I was asked to take part in a two day workshop at a posh house in the country (sorry, I mean 'ethical retreat space' in the country). On this retreat I would meet with 19 other leading innovators and creatives, and together we would try out some of these new 'emerging technologies' and workshop some ideas about how they might be used to save the music industry. That's how they might be used rather than, y'know, if they should.

Now I am not against research groups, obvs. And much like the original Luddites, I am not against technology! But I am against the people who own and wield that technology to create or cement inequality! But also, I do not have either the energy or fondness for conflict to be a token dissident in a room full of techno-solutionists who have accepted the framing that all of this is inevitable.

And I can see why there are people who accept all of this is inevitable. Starmer is talking about 'mainlining AI into the veins' of the UK. Turns out part of this means research bodies that nominally exist to help the creative industries are gearing up to spend tens of millions of pounds to brute force their way to answering the question of how AI can be pointlessly squeezed into roles within the live music industry that, even if it works — WHICH IT WON'T — would only function as a means to syphon what little cash remains out of the creative sphere and into the pockets of tech companies.

I can see why, after decades of being beaten down by things only ever getting worse, some people would conclude that this, too, shall get worse. And that being the case, if you're lucky enough to grab a seat at the table at the 'ethical retreat', why wouldn't you? Sure, things can only get worse and we have to let tech giants integrate themselves into any remaining art spaces, but why not try to help things get worse and let tech giants integrate themselves into any remaining art spaces more ethically?

No thanks. Not for me. I declined the invitation to take part, telling them that I believe the ailing live music industry of this country needs social and political solutions rather than technological ones. That I would not know how to make a useful contribution within the boundaries of their research if it looks only at how actively applying 'new technology' can help fix things. That I agreed with their opinion that AI cannot be ignored, but therefore my response is to resist it! Not treat its arrival into every facet of our lives as a forgone conclusion.

The sorry state of grassroots live music in the UK is a symptom of a much bigger problem (i.e. yes, hello, it's me saying capitalism is bad and must be destroyed again) and ways to fix it need to be considered in that larger context. But even taking this question on its own terms, what would 'using AI to help the live music industry' even mean anyway?? AI-slop live visuals in every club? AI-DJs instead of human ones?

Perhaps I just lack imagination.

If I am being honest with myself, it is hard to untangle my decision to decline this invitation, to have opted for 'a politics of withdrawal' rather than 'struggling for terrain'. How much of it was an act of political conscience, and how much of it was just me being scared of face-to-face conflict? Being scared of having to put into praxis arguing for my values over 'being nice and not rocking the boat in a posh mansion full of ultimately well-intentioned people trying to save the music industry but only in a sanctioned, neoliberal kind of way'? What if it was full of people who actually thought of themselves as leading innovators and creatives in their field? Terrifying!

I also don't know exactly why I'm writing about it here really. Perhaps it just comes across as showing off, I dunno. But I found the whole thing both somehow noteworthy and also pretty bleak. The idea that I am a 'leading innovator and creative in my field' — it is funny because those words mean nothing. But also, make no mistake, it is the people who write and send these kinds of emails who get to decide such things. And I suppose it is by taking these kinds of opportunities when they arrive and accepting their boundaries that you get to slowly network your way up the chain. And then, eventually, decisions about precisely how to invest in the future of music are left to people whose perspectives already uncritically align with the framing of research questions that only get green-lit in the first place if said framing fits the political moment.

I don't know how any of us are supposed to fight this. I also don't think it would have shifted the dial for me to go along to a posh mansion to argue with some artist whose Instagram bio still points to his NFT gallery that actually no, maybe getting a Large Language Model to flash lights in time to the music at the local dive bar might not be the best use of arts funding.

Anybody got any better ideas?