A familiar voice is echoing somewhere. The lyrics are well written. The melody is attractive. It's the kind of song you want to listen to over and over again. Eventually, curiosity arises as to who the artist is who created such a wonderful song.
Sitting in a cafe in Baneshwar, 22-year-old Yaaman Shrestha was working while listening to music. He usually plays songs in the background while he works. But one particular song caught his attention. he liked that voice. Next, I checked the description and title. It felt like a new music band. When he visited the channel, he finally realized that the song was created with the help of AI. This channel only uploads AI-generated songs.
This is a personal experience. But AI-generated songs with similar abilities to mislead listeners are now beginning to flood social media. Be it 'Aditya Shrestha's pahiro haaso, pahiro bol, sabu yaad cha…' or the viral 'Pyara Piyali' snippets, such examples abound. Many people have created dedicated YouTube channels where they regularly upload AI-generated songs.
All of this is driven by the increasing capabilities of AI tools. Currently, AI can create creative works such as text, videos, photos, and music. These tools are easy to use and widely accessible. As a result, experts say AI-generated content is popping up everywhere.
However, along with the positive aspects, there are also worrying aspects. According to a New York Times article, the use of AI poses risks to many artists and companies that own creative works. AI can faithfully replicate what humans have created, undermining markets. Furthermore, AI can also use artists' works as learning data without their consent.
So far, there have been no public incidents in Nepal regarding the theft of creators' works for AI training, legal disputes with AI companies, or organized opposition by artists to AI tools. Nevertheless, experts say AI is already having a noticeable impact on music production and audience behavior.
AI tools like ChatGPT, Copilot, and Suno are trained on large datasets and generate outputs based on that training. Without data, AI tools cannot function, and lack of data reduces output.
According to the same New York Times article, there are three major debates currently taking place around the world. What creators should receive in return, whether “fair use” applies, and who owns AI-generated content.
In other words, Western artists are demanding their consent and fair compensation when their work is used to train AI. Currently, copyright protection only applies to works created by humans. However, the answers to the remaining questions remain unclear.
In this connection, the situation in Nepal needs to be considered. Are Nepali artists aware of this trend? What risks does AI pose to them? What do Nepali artists think about AI? What impact and opportunities does AI bring to Nepali artists?
As AI-generated music continues to blur the lines between human creativity and machine production, Nepal finds itself at an early but critical crossroads. While this technology offers new possibilities for experimentation, accessibility, and innovation, it also raises serious questions about artistic ownership, consent, and fair remuneration.
With limited awareness, weak legal protection, and so far little public discussion, Nepali artists risk being unprepared for the long-term effects of this rapidly evolving trend. Going forward, informed debate, policy clarity, and collective engagement by artists, platforms, and regulators will be essential to ensure that AI becomes a tool that supports rather than undermines creativity.
