🔗 Share this article

The innovator's estate serves as part entrepreneurial hub, part deluxe accommodation, and part demonstration space for coming innovations. These properties can be found across Silicon Valley, inhabited by technology entrepreneurs and forward-thinkers. The most luxurious I’ve seen stands in this affluent community, one of the Bay Area’s wealthiest enclaves. Interior, polished marble shines below temporarily hung images of industry giants; outside, pebbles form meticulous meditative designs and water features sparkle past the greenery.

It was a sunny June afternoon, and I visited alongside my production partner to gather audio for a feature about the intersection of generative AI and classical music in the Bay Area.

We moved so quickly from talking about how AI could help the creative industries to hearing, quite casually, how easily it could replace every role within them

Each creative professional, it was stated optimistically, might eventually work just for pleasure. This was not provocation. No jest involved. Simply reality. This represents the instance in our recording when we hear my collaborator's reaction. She suddenly cuts in, disturbed: “So machine learning will remove my profession?” It’s brief. Natural. Yet it transforms the atmosphere.

When we commenced creating this project, I shared the widespread interest. “The genie's out of the bottle,” I joked. This seemed the reasonable response. The innovation was present. Better to work with it than ignore it.

When I connected with my collaborator afterward, the incident remained vivid for her. “The shift occurred suddenly,” she noted, “from considering assistance possibilities cultural sectors to hearing, somewhat offhandedly, how simply it might displace every role within them. The tone was friendly, optimistic, implying I ought to feel enthusiastic.”

That interaction appears as the turning point: a small, human moment of bafflement, once talk moved beyond hypothetical toward tangible impact.

They wanted to make us redundant.

That was June. Currently it's autumn, and after months featuring high-profile musical events, I've reflected upon another kind of mansion: the iconic concert in a renowned location. Hundreds of thousands during multiple evenings, waving lighters instead of phones. A concluding era of collective musical experience prior to digital transformation. Before file sharing and compressed audio formats. Prior to smartphones. Preceding the subtle reorganization of arts by invisible algorithms.

What came next was incremental but revolutionary: a shift from ownership to access. Digital sequences overtook physical recordings, not organized by creators but through algorithms, made to melt into whatever else we were doing. Audio for labor, shop to, scroll to. We believed we were observing the direction of sound. Possibly correct.

That is why I paused when, well after completing the documentary, I discovered a new arts initiative. It’s an exciting new initiative through an established performance company examining potential artistic engagement with artificial intelligence. It comes from an institution I care deeply about, directed by professionals I appreciate: that has historically championed my career and many others. It's described as a courageous, future-oriented discussion connecting innovation and artistry: the dawn of an intriguing cooperative relationship. However, what's noticeable in the announcement isn't the included content, but what appears to be missing.

No reference exists of ethics, regarding educational inputs, regarding authorization, regarding ecological impact, or professional considerations. Little recognition exists that these tools currently endanger to transform practitioners plus their artistry the establishment has nurtured, and that whole ecosystem of labour, primarily obsolete.

The approach, similar to what we encountered in that Hillsborough mansion, stays persistently optimistic. “Machine learning is established,” an artistic leader declared during a recent interview. “We might choose denial or embrace the change.”

Yet nobody I meet within the tech community – where such systems are developed, produced and distributed – is simply going along. Accepting change implies yielding to momentum. The people here have no interest in that. They're attempting to direct the currents, to alter fundamental realities.

I don’t want to ignore AI. But that phrase I used earlier, “there's no reversing progress”, currently seems like ethical avoidance, as if ethics expire the moment something new arrives. After a summer inside the machine, it's disturbing to observe prominent establishments treat AI like atomic energy for the arts: impressive, profitable, currently causing damage, but surprisingly lacking safety notices.

It’s unsettling to watch major institutions treat AI like atomic energy for the arts

Developments occur rapidly within technology circles that our work appears dated, a snapshot from the final instant before the future stopped asking for permission. That afternoon in the hacker mansion, featuring arranged stones, light and peace, appears preserved: the still point before acceleration.

When I review the recordings, I can hear the air shifting. The silence following the inquiry, my uneasy laughter. This represents anxiety, of humanity maintaining position.

If the historic performance represented the final massive analog musical experience, maybe this tiny moment we captured signals the anxious pause before the machines start to hum their own tune.