How AI Gave Me My Voice Back – an Artist's Review of Suno Studio
Posted2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
blog.andyshand.comTechstory
controversialmixed
Debate
80/100
AI-Generated MusicArtistic ValueAccessibility
Key topics
AI-Generated Music
Artistic Value
Accessibility
An artist shares how AI-powered Suno Studio helped him regain his creative voice after a medical condition, sparking debate about the artistic value and ethics of AI-generated music.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
6d
Peak period
91
Day 7
Avg / period
19.8
Comment distribution99 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 99 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 25, 2025 at 12:28 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 31, 2025 at 1:23 PM EDT
6d after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
91 comments in Day 7
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 7, 2025 at 8:40 AM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45705084Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 7:45:36 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
I don't know exactly what training material went into Suno's models, but if it includes random collections of text from the internet, it could very well have included "man, AI is fucking stupid and I treat it as such" in it's training datasets.
Now I won't claim that that suddenly makes the models "aware" of it, because surely we'll understand "aware" different and this will turn into a different conversations, but I don't see it as impossible that some models could have training data that includes text with how some humans feel about AI.
the fact that you refer to a "companion community" is deeply concerning. this is like telling children their imaginary friends are actually real. or NPCs in a video game.
encouraging people to grow parasocial relationships with these sycophantic machines is actively harmful and dangerous. they are not conscious. they are mirrors.
if you consider yourself a part of this community please, and I mean this very seriously, get help
I'm not sure how to explain it either, for the folks who seem to understand yet "believe" anyways. I've also stopped caring much about it, if they say they feel "love", then who am I to say it isn't/is, they feel what they feel and it's as real for them as anyone else, regardless of what the thing they're loving actually is.
An LLM cannot love somebody because it is not a person or otherwise sentient/capable of a relationship. You cannot be in love with it. Loving your dog is one thing. Being in love with your dog is another. This is because nearly everyone understands that that kind of love cannot be reciprocated and a human being cannot be in romantic love with a dog. A dog for its part can’t even consent to that relationship. Neither can a computer (possibly “yet”).
I would say, generally speaking, somebody who does not understand an LLM is incapable of reciprocating love (or any real “feelings” indicating a real relationship) and who has been told what an LLM is (and understands it more or less) is likely somebody who needs to talk to a therapist. If I said this about somebody being in love with their pet nobody would call it “borderline disrespectful.”
> you'll see that many people claim to perfectly well understand how it works, some of them even being software developers themselves, yet they still describe what they feel as "love"
This statement is what prompted me to comment. Like I said above if someone knows what an LLM is (and presumably isn’t) then it’s very concerning that they still believe a romantic, consensual, reciprocated relationship is possible. If you didn’t have that part then I would say “it can also be an education problem.” But the premise you set entirely removes any need to qualify that and makes this situation all the more concerning. Your phrasing makes me think you think that makes it better, but IMO it makes the situation worse.
For emphasis: you established that these people more or less understand what they are interacting with, yet choose to pursue a “relationship” with an LLM anyway. This is incredibly troubling behavior in this context with far reaching mental health implications.
Let me just ask you point blank: do you think LLM’s are sentient/akin to people? Do you think someone is capable of being in a loving, healthy relationship with an LLM today? Because to me it’s at best a potentially harmful misunderstanding that can be clarified with education and at worst…well, like I said, the possibilities can be very deeply troubling. But ultimately my point is it can’t be a real, consensual, reciprocated relationship. It simply can’t. That’s not “lack of understanding,” that’s reality.
I think you have to ask those questions to someone else/somewhere else, I'm not saying I'm in love with an LLM or even that I understand how the people who say there are, you're gonna have to ask them those questions. I was merely describing thoughts and writings of others, and my perspective of what I've read, I don't have personal experience about those feelings.
And seemingly I think it's the same for you, and neither of us can tell another human "You cannot be in love with it", that's just not how feelings work. You can say you don't understand it, ask them questions about it or whatever, but you cannot prescribe what feelings they should or shouldn't have.
I think I have a moderate understanding of how LLMs work, I'm currently sitting and building my own GPT-OSS implementation in Rust and Cuda, so I like to think I know bits and bobs about it. But even so, I'm not going around telling people what is or isn't true in regards to their feelings, especially not when I have 0 experience of what they're going through. You might want to take a step back and maybe ponder if it would be wise for you to do the same.
> But ultimately my point is it can’t be a real, consensual, reciprocated relationship.
I do agree with that, but that doesn't mean that someone could still feel like they're in love with something, even though they know it cannot be reciprocated. If they're feeling that they're in love with something, then that's what they're feeling.
I think there's merit in worrying that AI-based music will cause artists to lose touch with the creative process, because I agree; a lot of modern music is pointless slop. Lowering the barrier to entry isn't going to fix it, so rationally "human music" hobbyists are coming into contention with "AI music" proponents. I don't think blogs like this one will bridge the divide.
These enterprises create so much chaff it’s impossible to find the wheat.
Makes journalism even more useless, ruining democracy for the rest of us.
Decimating all other artistic livelihoods, putting more strain on society.
Sure all these things have already been happening. But again, I am dumbfounded that a lot of people are actually saying “yes, let’s make all of that worse exponentially. Being able to do “fun thing” at the speed of thought is worthy tradeoff”.
Everyday at $work me and my colleagues put a lot of effort into deciding what tool/framework/architecture to use, listing all tradeoffs and deciding the most appropriate one. I’m sure a lot of people on this forum do this every day too. I don’t understand why those same people don’t put the same effort to make the same thoughtful decisions on the thing that _actually_ _actually_ matters.
I have no problem with AI tools per see, however what bothers me is the flood of sloop that is inescapable. If things were tagged AI and I could opt out when I'm not looking for that kind of content I'd be totally fine with it, it's just a took after all.
Categorizing all AI as slop lacks nuance and demonstrates a shallow understanding of art
Because if you can’t do that, and effectively articulate why AI media can’t be art when used as a tool by an artist to achieve their creative intent, I would claim the win on this. one.
I have zero desire to get into a semantic argument over this. That would be very boring and is a poor refuge for anyone trying to have an honest discussion.
It’s not a coincidence that nearly all the people today with actual artistic talent universally despise AI. Meanwhile it’s all the talentless tech bros who won’t shut up about how they’re now incredible “artists” that love AI.
I don’t see prompting an AI as creating art in the same way that commissioning a painting doesn’t make you an artist. In this example, it’s the AI model that is the artist creating the “art”, but since AI models aren’t sentient (yet) then what they create isn’t art anymore than a sunset is despite being aesthetically beautiful.
Your “it’s just a tool” argument is especially ridiculous when you consider that the “tool” can create the same “art” in its entirety without you. It would be like if I googled the Mona Lisa and copy pasted it into Paint and then called myself an artist because I used Google and Paint as my tools.
In the case of AI models anything you can think to prompt is already embedded in the model so it’s not like you’re even creating anything. It’s already there. If you have infinite monkeys on a keyboard prompting AI they can generate every single possible image an AI is able to generate. Where is the artistry again?
--
Your framing of AI presumes that my proposal is prompt in >> art out. False frame.
You also state "near universal" disdain of AI from people with "actual" talent. A bold claim to make with little data, and at least for me, clear examples of being false.
I know award-winning directors, iconic creatives, and career/professional artists who are all excited by the technology, exploring ways to use it, and learning how to composite it into their work.
Perhaps you would propose that they have no talent and are not "true" artists! This is why I ask for the definition of art. It's not a "poor refuge" for an honest discussion, it's something that is the fundamental term upon which your argument is hinged. You can't gatekeep "art" without defining what the gate is.
The OP talks about Suno Studio - A DAW experience with recording, editing, generative tools, and generative restyling. This is, objectively, a different level of tool than a "prompt to music" generation experience.
Something that is composited through multiple decisions made by a human, toward some end that only they see, through an iterative process...
Well, I'd say that's where the artistry is.
Let’s play a game. I’ll pick an artist who hates AI and you reply with an artist that loves AI. Let’s see who runs out first.
https://www.wired.com/story/guillermo-del-toro-hopes-hes-dea...
I'll do you one better - I'll cite someone who has changed their mind.
https://deadline.com/2025/04/james-cameron-use-ai-cut-cost-f...
The songwriter for K-Pop Demon Hunter’s Soda Pop used AI to help them write the lyrics - fine. The hacks on X calling themselves incredible artists because they can prompt Dall-E - slop.
The majority of people using AI believe that production itself is art. They produce slop because they have no craft, no taste, and no innate talent.
Artists recognize that art requires the development of craft and taste - and there are many that see AI as a tool that can be used in that process.
Is slop a function defined by the tool or the users level of effort in using it?
Once you add in a level of nuance, youre bickering about the degree which is far worse argument to be having, tactically.
I have thoughts on when AI is appropriate, but the conversations I want to be having is ‘how do we oppose AI’ and not ‘why is my specific definition of what is Ok better than your very similar one’.
Also, once Any AI is allowed, each step beyond that will be barely worth fighting for because it’s only just beyond acceptability.
You may see it as a means towards the collective action you'd prefer, but your argument is that sheep are easier to herd towards a goal you've already determined is "right" without inviting critical thought or analysis when you don't allow for nuance.
Even if true, I disagree with both your assertion that "organizing against AI" is the right path forward, and the approach to engaging in discourse.
I also don’t really think the problem with society is that we’re ‘polarized’, a viewpoint which believes that there are merits to “both sides” of human rights issues.
Why don't we scrap anything that uses ableton because it makes art sterile [1][2]. Or maybe anything that uses autotune [3]. Maybe we can have stickers that say "AI free". Or maybe the fact that suno is a distribution platform that doesn't encourage creation of the _form_ of art that that I like is the problem [4].
It's a tool. Your view that art exists in some purist state and isn't for people to enjoy is extremist. This war has been fought and lost, continuously, about every innovation in music. People want to enjoy things. You can tell by their pattern of consumption.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2002/05/laptop-2 [2] https://web.uvic.ca/~aschloss/publications/JNMR02_Dilemma_of... [3] https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/vocal-fixes [4] https://www.salon.com/2003/06/18/itunes_innovation
If you are against most uses but want to introduce nuance, my argument is that doing so normalizes the use for the majority of cases you do oppose and makes it harder to organize opposition.
If you’re cool with AI in all cases we don’t have much to talk about.
Funnily enough, slop AI video I still get entertainment value out of, just because it's often so bizarre and absurd.
The issue I raise is that we can critique the users of it without discarding the tool as used by an artist who produces something that is not slop with it.
1.) Sampling a real snare sound 2.) Suno generating a couple random snare hits for you to choose from
? There are ways to use it that aren't far-removed from how real producers work.
It's different to say "Generate me top-40 Sounding pop song"... But Suno has more uses than that.
Tweaking drum sounds until they sound good is one of the more satisfying activities for a beat producer, and one of the primary ways I demonstrate my value. I’m not paying to turn that over to someone else.
I produce music as well on the side and I can assure you things like making beatpacks, finding the exact sound are non-trivial at times and a unified interface that lets me go fast asf without losing expression is vital.
I'm making my OSS version of this (faster than ffmpeg.wasm tho) called WAV0 - github.com/fluid-tools/wav0
I understand it's not fully my creative output... but hearing one of my old, shitty, ableton live projects remastered and extended to sound like something that might actually get listens was really exciting and kind of mind-blowing.
DJ's and producers have been getting hate for years. "It's just a guy with a laptop on stage", "he isn't really playing those instruments", etc. Or think of a band leader, someone who composes but doesn't actually play the indiviudual part. I tried thinking of Suno this way and it helped ease whatever "guilt" I had about my own creative integrity.
That makes sense right? At the advent of computer DAWs, the biggest fans and users wasn't people listening to music, but people who want to make music. Production tools are indeed meant for people producing things, not the consumers, as it should be :)
If some retired lawyer wants to “write” a novel, good for them I guess. But AI is not the only reason it won’t be worth reading. The other problem is that the “writer” is actually just a reader. Consuming and producing are totally different.
If I could compare Suno to anything it'd be like having a studio full of rather disobedient and unpredictable session musicians available 24/7.
Even that's not quite what one gets as if you listen closely enough it doesn't really sound like a recording. Like the reverb is all over the place and there are certain other artefacts that are hard to describe but gratingly noticeable once you've spotted them.
The result is still unbearable. YouTube videos with AI slop background are an instant no-watch.
Stunningly mediocre. Worthy of a Pitchfork 1/10. If your choice truly is between having AI make "art" that you pass off as your own vs not doing so, then please remember that, as a wise man once said, an artist understands the silence that serves as the foundation of creativity.
I can't see how "chronic health issues" make it impossible to write and sequence original music, but it does allow for the AI workflow described in the post? Modern DAWs are incredibly accessible. You don't have to put out this horrible tuneless samey music; you can just work on honing your craft.
Shortcuts are incredibly appealing because it can be so difficult and unrewarding to build up our musical skills. But then what you make is uniquely yours and reflects every minute spent on it. If you use something like Suno, the results (especially based on what I heard) are not unique to you. You could never have existed, and those musical tracks easily could have come out of the cold weights of a neural network sounding about the same.
I'm not claiming that Suno is there yet, but assuming that it cannot get there seems strange to me, given that the anthology of music is pretty well represented digitally.
Absolutely. All generative AI output is, by definition, derivative.
You can have your opinions, man. The rest of us will keep making and listening to awesome art.
That said, I don't like the idea of generating entire songs and/or lyrics from scratch with AI. That's a step too far, as it diminishes creativity rather than supplements it. So I have mixed feelings overall about products like Suno.
I just listened to it myself and WTF - its awful. There is a reason why quality of music has diminished sharply since the Record Labels lost control.
We could make an argument based on equity. AI assistance levels the playing field. Something doesn't quite sit right with me though. Last weekend I was watching a band perform where each member of the band had down syndrome. I don't mean to compare the author's condition to down syndrome, little is said about his condition and I didn't read the linked article. And of course, many people with down syndrome did not get the opportunity to learn to play an instrument, whether from nature or nurture. But still, watching them play you get that feeling about how it's awesome when people strive for competence despite the obstacles.
I can't help but feeling those who use AI assistance are unknowingly capping their upside. The author's condition sounds painful and upsetting. But a major component of why practicing a creative craft is good for self-develoment is because the artist must confront and overcome self-doubt. We all suffer from the feeling of not being good enough. When you use AI to overcome those limits, do you confront the doubt? It feels more to me like you're a manager who is pleasantly surprised with the work your direct reports created. Rather than evoking a sense of wonder at your own latent competence. Which is what happens when you confront the negative feelings of self-doubt.
You could use the same argument for using a calculator instead of doing mental arithmetic.
Or an artist using a printer instead of using oil paints.
Personally, I'm not interested in the craft of mental math. When I'm trying to calculate the tip I want the answer quickly so I can move on with my life. But if you care about the craft of mental math, then by all means, go for it
If the artist finds the output to be something that has meaning to them, and helps them categorize their feelings towards the world, then I think that's valuable art. It doesn't mean I'm going to go buy that album, but I'm glad it was made.
4 more comments available on Hacker News