{
  "id": 10563931,
  "title": "AI memanglah tak ada jiwa, tapi kita ada",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/28/ai-memanglah-tak-ada-jiwa-tapi-kita-ada",
  "topic": "ai",
  "section": "AI",
  "published": "2026-09-28T23:00:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Free Malaysia Today",
    "slug": "free-malaysia-today",
    "url": "https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2026/09/29/ai-memanglah-tak-ada-jiwa-tapi-kita-ada"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "AI is not sentient, but we are. Many colleagues have expressed their delight in generating creative works using artificial intelligence, then claiming sole authorship. Recently, I encountered this topic on social media among music enthusiasts, who expressed their concerns about it. In our circle of painters, writers, and graphic designers, we have long lamented this development. Some staunchly oppose AI, asserting that AI-generated art lacks a soul. Colleagues argue that those who use AI for creative work are not deserving of the title \"artist,\" merely pressing buttons while the machine does the rest. When finished, they claim to have created a song, painting, or whatever else. Some colleagues find the presence of AI threatening, akin to losing their livelihood. This concern deserves serious attention and cannot be taken lightly. Let's discuss this issue, focusing on the music industry, as it is more readily understood by the public due to our daily singing and listening to songs. Once, a company had to hire composers, arrangers, musicians, and a studio to create a jingle or background music for a commercial advertisement. Today, with AI, one can sit alone at home, input a few instructions, and—voila! In just a couple of minutes, a song is ready. This has significantly reduced costs, as we have \"skipped\" the traditional production process. Disappointment with this advancement leads some to reject AI-generated music by declaring, \"AI has no soul.\" Yes, that's true. However, regarding the concept of \"soul,\" musical instruments such as guitars and pianos are also soulless, and even seasoned musicians once rejected synthesizers and drum machines, also considered devoid of emotion. We understand this, as all instruments and \"software\" have never felt love or regret. Nonetheless, the advantage of AI technology is that it is not a passive tool like a guitar. A guitar cannot play on its own when instructed, but AI, when given instructions, creates a sad song, a slow tempo, a melancholic mood in an instant. \"All right, it can! But AI still lacks a soul,\" sighs a music colleague. No soul at all, as they say! Did you know that a study published in the journal 'Frontiers in Psychology' in August last year conducted a blind listening experiment with 71 participants trained in basic music? They were exposed to music created by humans, 100% AI, and music created with human-AI collaboration, without informing them. Interestingly, even participants with a basic understanding of music could not consistently identify which was human and which was machine. This seems to be linked to psychology. When informed that a song was AI-generated at the beginning, our judgment changes. Simply labeling a song as \"AI-generated\" can influence how we listen to it. If told that a song was written by a man who recently lost his wife, before the song even begins, we are already prepared to weep. Conversely, if told that the same song was created by AI, we automatically create a perception. However, this argument does not prove that AI-generated music is as valuable as human-created art. It is essential for all of us to understand this. Personally, I find it enjoyable to experiment with AI to create songs, not for business but simply for the fun of feeling delighted that I have produced something. I write lyrics, determine the genre, vocal character, instrument types, and length. The result comes out, and of course, I am not a composer. Here, we must introduce some terms to differentiate the two. A composer is a true human who creates original music, including melody, harmony, or structure. If this composer creates a song using AI as part of its production, they remain a composer. However, if AI plays a more significant role in shaping and developing the original idea, perhaps the term \"AI-assisted composer\" is more appropriate. Likewise, those like me who do not compose music but provide instructions to AI and select the results after repeated revisions can also call ourselves \"music prompts.\" We should not begrudge the creative title, but we must acknowledge our role. Similarly, titles in other creative fields may no longer be appropriate due to the rapid movement of technology. What matters most to me is clear attribution. If Ahmad writes lyrics and provides instructions to AI, the credit should not read \"song and music: Ahmad.\" Instead, it should read \"lyrics: Ahmad, music: generated with AI\" and \"creative direction/kuration: Ahmad.\" If Ahmad creates the melody himself and AI helps with arrangement, write \"Composer: Ahmad\" and \"arrangement/production: assisted by AI.\" I believe this is fairer. AI should not be given moral rights like humans. What we need is clarity about the process so that the true contributors can be recognized. Society also needs to be educated about these differences. Constantly repeating \"AI has no soul\" may lead to our arguments being dismissed and not moving forward. We need to clarify. I understand the concerns of musicians, as I am also in the creative field.",
  "summary": "Dalam menghadapi cabaran teknologi, kita manusia yang ada jiwa inilah harus bersikap berani dan terbuka.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 2,
    "also_reported_by": [
      {
        "outlet": "Free Malaysia Today",
        "title": "AI memanglah tak ada jiwa, tapi kita ada",
        "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/28/ai-memanglah-tak-ada-jiwa-tapi-kita-ada-10565305",
        "published": "2026-09-28T23:00:00.000Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}