Almost immediately after it came out, skeptics accused Fenix of employing artificial intelligence<\/a> to create the track, if not entirely at least partly. He and the song\u2019s credited producer, Purps on the Beat, initially denied it, with Fenix insisting that he\u2019d just used Auto-Tune<\/a> and a phoney British accent. The kerfuffle culminated this month when indie DJ-producer Medasin posted a video<\/a> that he said proved that Rubberz had been made using the free generative music tool Treblo.<\/p>\n Medasin then captured himself giving Treblo prompts to pump out his own track. Its sound and lyrics were eerily close to those of Rubberz. Fenix rejected Medasin\u2019s claims, posting what he said were clips of the song\u2019s stems, or its fundamental components, but then Medasin posted a rebuttal of him demonstrating how AI songs, too, can be broken down into stems. A few days later, Fenix finally admitted<\/a> to using AI to make Rubberz, writing: \u201cnever said I didn\u2019t use AI, i said it had nun to do w recording process.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This is in line with the findings of the platform\u2019s own open-source classifier, Was This Made With Treblo?<\/a>, which finds Rubberz to be \u201cvery likely Treblo\u201d according to Wired<\/a>. The tool hasn\u2019t been independently reviewed, but the Treblo co-founder Ryan Tremblay confirmed to the Guardian that the classifier returns a very high probability score (\u201chigher by far than any false positive\u201d) for Rubberz, indicating that Treblo generated the song. \u201cWe built Treblo for everyone, from normal people experimenting at home to charting artists looking for new sounds,\u201d Tremblay said. \u201cSome artists appear to have used our model to find a sound that millions of people connected with, and that\u2019s exciting.\u201d When reached by the Guardian, Fenix\u2019s representative declined to comment.<\/p>\n The uproar over Rubberz coincided with another major development in music in recent weeks. On 29 July, several record companies, including \u201cthe big three\u201d \u2013 Universal Music Group, Sony Music and Warner Music Group \u2013 issued a proposal calling for global music charts to disqualify AI-generated tracks from consideration if they did not meet certain criteria. According to their suggested guidelines, a song could enter the charts only if it was properly authorized, lawful and substantially human-made, and does not raise concerns of streaming or chart manipulation. The issue, as the record companies stated in a press release<\/a>, is that a significant number of AI-generated tracks hitting streaming services like Spotify have used tools trained on artists\u2019 music without their consent and are often linked to fraudulently boosted streaming numbers. Under the proposed rules, these songs would not be allowed to enter charts such as the Billboard Hot 100.<\/p>\n At the same time, all the major record labels have announced partnerships with the likes of Nvidia, Spotify and Stability AI to develop AI music tools, with BMG announcing<\/a> a partnership with the AI music-creation platform Suno this week. The rapper Tyga, a labelmate of Fenix, proudly told Vibe<\/a> magazine recently that his new album $tarface was created with AI, saying: \u201cThere\u2019s nothing wrong with using technology as a tool.\u201d (The album received Pitchfork\u2019s first 0.0 review<\/a> in nearly two decades.)<\/p>\n He is not alone in his permissive attitude. While Rubberz is the first AI-generated single to crack the Hot 100, it is not the first to land on the Billboard charts. In November, the AI act Breaking Rust hit No 1 on the country digital song sales chart with Walk My Walk<\/a>, a track credited to a person who goes by Aubierre Rivaldo Taylor. That same month, the AI-powered R&B singer Xania Monet<\/a> \u2013 whose name instantly conjures actual human R&B singers Victoria Mon\u00e9t<\/a> and Janelle Mon\u00e1e<\/a> \u2013 became the first AI act to enter a Billboard radio airplay chart, later climbing to No 1 on the R&B digital song sales chart. An avatar that the Mississippi poet Telisha \u201cNikki\u201d Jones invented with Suno, she reportedly landed a multimillion-dollar record deal last fall.<\/p>\n After Xania Monet\u2019s milestone, Billboard reported<\/a> that a total of at least six AI-generated or AI-assisted artists had debuted on its various charts in 2025. The publication admitted, however, that the tally could be higher because it has become harder and harder to determine which songs have used AI, and just how much. This was validated a week later when a study by the French streaming platform Deezer<\/a> and research firm Ipsos revealed that 97% of its participants couldn\u2019t tell the difference between AI-generated music and human-made music.<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, the proliferation of AI artists has struck a nerve with the human ones. SZA told i-D<\/a>: \u201cI feel like I\u2019m at war because of AI.\u201d Last month, she slammed<\/a> AI generators like Suno and alleged that they were being trained on her songs without her permission. \u201cIf you\u2019re a musician and you support this degenerate shit? You\u2019re disgusting and there\u2019s nothing you could ever say to me to make this OK,\u201d she said. Jack Antonoff recently called<\/a> AI-music makers \u201cgodless whores\u201d. Billie Eilish, Bad Bunny, Kate Bush, Annie Lennox, Nick Cave, Sting, Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney have all protested<\/a> against the heavy use of generative AI in music.<\/p>\n And why shouldn\u2019t they? Yes, dictating what one wants to create to an app requires a sliver of inspiration and imagination, but it pales in comparison with the blood, sweat and tears artists pour into music of their own \u2013 music that hasn\u2019t been trained, often without permission, on reams of pre-existing copyrighted work. If those artists\u2019 labor is grueling, the results, performed live and perfected in a studio by bands and session players with real instruments, can be deeply moving and totally exhilarating. Directing prompts to AI music generators like Suno, Udio and Treblo to spit out fully formed songs for mass consumption is a faster, cheaper, easier way to make music. It also disrespects and debases the art form, reducing hard-earned craft to half-assed mimicry.<\/p>\n If the outcry against AI sounds like a bunch of intransigent luddites shaking their fists at the inevitable arrival of a new era, know that naysaying artists and wary record companies are not alone. A recent report published by the music and entertainment insights company Luminate showed that listeners, especially members of gen Z and gen Alpha, are increasingly uneasy with AI-generated songs. The study found that 44% of US respondents felt less inclined to listen to a song if it involves generative AI. \u201cConsumers are net negative,\u201d a Luminate analyst told NPR<\/a> in May. \u201cPeople are more likely to feel uncomfortable than to feel comfortable with AI use.\u201d<\/p>\n The AI tool Suno lets users generate prompt-based songs at the click of a button. Photograph: Courtesy of Suno<\/p>\n Universal, Sony and Warner are not demanding an outright ban on AI music from charts and streaming services. Though all three sued the AI music generators Suno and Udio in 2024, alleging they had trained their platforms on the labels\u2019 artists without their permission, Universal settled with Udio<\/a> and Warner settled with both Suno and Udio<\/a> last year. (Sony has yet to settle with either.) The labels continue to work with Spotify and AI companies to develop generative music tools, in a move that effectively keeps their options open. Warner executive Robert Kyncl said<\/a> the deals would foster \u201cnew creative and commercial possibilities\u201d, adding: \u201cNow, we are entering the next phase of innovation. The democratization of music creation.\u201d Universal, Sony and Warner did not respond when approached by the Guardian for comment.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, other artists have expressed support of AI as a means to enhance songwriting. \u201cWith new technology, I try to use it as a tool to grow, not a crutch,\u201d Bj\u00f6rk wrote in a 2025 post<\/a> on X. \u201cIf there is no soul in tomorrow\u2019s music made by AI, it is because no one put it there \u2026 Anything that is mass-manufactured without the attention of creativity is that way, AI or not. So it is not about the tool \u2013 it is what you do with it.\u201d Even McCartney enlisted AI to isolate John Lennon\u2019s vocals for the final Beatles song, 2023\u2019s Now and Then. What these labels and so many musicians want is a system of guardrails to ensure that AI use is limited, honest and transparent.<\/p>\n There is hope. In January, Bandcamp<\/a> banned all music fully or substantially created by AI from the platform. Though Tidal<\/a> allows fully AI-generated songs on its app if they are not linked to fraud or artist impersonation, they cannot collect streaming royalties or direct-to-fan sales revenue, and get tagged with an \u201cAI\u201d label. A coalition of music industry organizations, including the Grammys and the Recording Industry Association of America, recently announced<\/a> that it was taking steps to notify listeners of AI use in recordings. This month, Spotify said<\/a> that it would label AI artists with an \u201cAI Persona\u201d tag and exclude these artists from its personalized recommendations, while its optional \u201cAI Credits\u201d feature allows artists to note whether AI was used in a song\u2019s creation.<\/p>\n Per the record companies\u2019 proposed criteria, such AI Personas would not be chart-eligible. If Deezer\u2019s findings are any indication, plenty of listeners would support this. Its 2025 survey results showed that 80% of respondents agreed that entirely AI-generated music should be clearly labeled to listeners, while 52% thought entirely AI-generated songs should not be included alongside human-made songs in the main charts.<\/p>\n![\"AI-generated](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/620.jpg\")
Xania Monet, an AI artist created by Telisha \u2018Nikki\u2019 Jones. Illustration: Talisha Jones<\/p>\n