Ai Worship

After taking a break from recording through the brutal summer heat and some personal exhaustion, Xeroforhire returns with something that finally got him fired up enough to turn the microphone back on: yet another round of moral panic over generative AI, this time coming from the Christian music world.And he’s sick of it.The rant begins with a recurring argument against AI-generated art: that something made with a machine somehow lacks humanity, authenticity, or “soul.” But Xeroforhire suspects there’s another idea hiding underneath that language—the belief that legitimate art needs to be accompanied by a certain amount of human suffering. You trained. You practiced. You struggled. You paid your dues. Therefore, someone who can produce something comparable without enduring that same process hasn’t earned the right to stand beside you.But then the conversation takes a sharper turn.A musician discovers that somebody has taken his work, manipulated or remixed it using AI, and uploaded the result to Spotify without his permission. That’s wrong. Xeroforhire isn’t defending it. His complaint is about who gets blamed.AI didn’t wake up one morning and steal somebody’s music.A person did.A human being took the material. A human being used the software. A human being packaged the result. A human being uploaded it. And a human being potentially collected money from it. If somebody committed fraud, copyright infringement, or some other serious offense, then find that person and hold them accountable. If what they did was egregious enough, there should be real consequences.Instead, the story becomes “AI did this to me,” and the actual person responsible practically disappears from the moral equation.That’s especially frustrating because Xeroforhire argues for human agency in both directions. If a person uses generative AI to make something worthwhile, there is still a human making choices—curating, selecting, rejecting, editing, packaging and ultimately deciding what gets released. But if that same person uses the technology to rip somebody off, suddenly everyone wants to blame the machine.You don’t get to have it both ways.And Xeroforhire isn’t pretending every copyright violation deserves prison. He recalls having music taken down because samples turned out to be copyrighted when he didn’t realize they were. Sometimes the appropriate response is simply a takedown, a warning, or correcting the material. But knowingly taking someone else’s work, repackaging it and uploading it commercially is something entirely different. The severity of the consequence should correspond to what the human being actually did.And then Spotify wanders into the crosshairs.Because Xeroforhire notices something strangely absent from all this moral grandstanding: a lot of these abuses are happening through Spotify. The platform facilitates the uploads, hosts the material and distributes the money. Yet artists can deliver sweeping condemnations of AI and the systems surrounding it while continuing to happily distribute their own music through Spotify.That’s where the rant becomes less about AI and more about hypocrisy.If you’re going to make this into a sweeping Christian moral argument about technology, creativity, image-bearing and exploitation, then follow that principle wherever it leads—even when it becomes inconvenient to your own career. Don’t condemn somebody else’s technological compromise while ignoring the compromises built into the platforms that benefit you.Or at least admit that we’re all navigating compromises.Xeroforhire does. He’s not announcing some righteous boycott of Spotify himself. His point is that he also participates in imperfect systems. “I’m a hypocrite, you’re a hypocrite, we’re all hypocrites” becomes the almost-comedic conclusion of that part of the rant.But there’s one final suspicion underneath all of this.Maybe some established artists aren’t merely concerned about ethics.Maybe they feel threatened.Generative AI has lowered the barrier separating trained professionals from ordinary people who want to make things. That doesn’t mean those people suddenly possess the lifetime of skill and training of an accomplished musician or artist. But they can now create something, release it, potentially build an audience and even make money without traveling the same difficult road.And if part of your identity comes from having endured that road, watching somebody else bypass portions of it can feel deeply unfair.Xeroforhire suspects that’s why some of the rhetoric becomes so personal. It’s no longer merely “this person violated someone’s copyright.” It becomes an argument about who deserves to create, who deserves an audience, who deserves money, and ultimately who deserves the glory of being called an artist.That’s the part he can’t stand.Punish pe