Recently, an AI singer named Xania Monet became the first AI artist to appear on the Billboard Radio Charts.With a smooth R&B single, this virtual artist broke into the Billboard radio charts, as human musicians watched their turf being “invaded” by algorithms.The hit song “How Was I Supposed to Know?”debuted at No. 30 on the Adult R&B Airplay chart on November 1st.A week later, it climbed to No. 20 on the Hot R&B Songs chart.Monet’s sudden rise also earned her a $3 million record deal.This deal has sparked strong dissatisfaction among many artists, including Grammy winner SZA.Netizens, too, are not impressed—they have voiced their unwillingness to accept music created by AI.

A 31-Year-Old Female Poet: The Mastermind Behind Monet

Online, Xania Monet looks no different from any other flesh-and-blood pop star.Her breakout hit went viral on social media platforms like TikTok and landed on the Billboard charts.She has over 140,000 followers on Instagram and 1.2 million monthly listeners on Spotify, showcasing a distinct musical style.Much like Tilly Norwood, the first AI actor launched by Particle6, Xania Monet also has a dedicated creative team behind her.The mastermind behind Monet has now been revealed thanks to online sleuthing.Her name is Telisha “Nikki” Jones—a 31-year-old female poet.Hailing from Olive Branch, Mississippi, Jones is also the owner of a design studio.Having grown up singing in church choirs, Jones now writes all of Monet’s lyrics herself.She inputs the lyrics into the Suno AI platform, which then generates songs from the text—finally performed by Monet.Jones also adds human elements, such as live-recorded vocals, to refine the final tracks.According to statistics, Monet’s songs have amassed 44.4 million official streams in the U.S., a feat made possible by the AI-human hybrid model that allows for rapid production at lower costs.This approach helped Jones win a bidding war worth up to $3 million, securing a deal with Hallwood Media—an imprint run by former Interscope executive Neil Jacobson.But this success also raises a new question: how should the copyright of AI-generated content be protected?

Who Owns the Copyright? The U.S. Copyright Office Weighs In

In a January report, the U.S. Copyright Office stated that if the expressive elements of an AI-assisted creation are controlled by a human, the work may qualify for copyright protection—but each case will be evaluated individually.Faced with the controversy, Jones claims full ownership of the songwriting and production process and plans to collaborate with human producers on her next project.Romel Murphy, Jones’s manager and project manager for Monet, said the music is resonating with the public, and they aim to bring Monet’s songs to as wide an audience as possible. Traditional radio remains a key promotional channel for artists.Murphy said they will continue pushing for radio airplay, with hopes of reaching No. 1.They are also preparing for Monet’s first live performance.

Grammy Artists Speak Out Against AI

Despite Monet’s commercial success—including earning over 50,000injustafewmonthsandlandinga3 million contract—some veteran musicians are pushing back.Kehlani, a five-time Grammy-nominated R&B singer, publicly criticized the $3 million deal on social media:“Sorry, I can’t respect it.”She believes the deal disrespects the hard work of human artists, especially during tough times in the industry, and further devalues the human voice.Although AI has already expanded from simply generating album covers to influencing songwriting and even performance, Kehlani sees no evidence supporting AI’s legitimacy in creative fields.She argues that humans dedicate their lives to art, undergo extensive training, and bring unique emotional experiences—things AI simply cannot replicate.That’s why she finds AI-generated music unacceptable.Grammy winner SZA also voiced strong opposition: “I hate AI. Why are we belittling our music?”However, not all artists are against it.Singer JoJo believes resisting AI is futile and suggests embracing it instead.She takes a more positive view of AI-generated music, calling it “interesting” and suggesting its use in harmonies or background tracks.“We should learn to collaborate with it rather than fight it. We need to find a way to accept it.”

When AI Clones Outperform the Originals

British singer Emily Portman had a similar experience.A fan once praised her for “carrying on the legacy of British folk music” with a new album—except Portman hadn’t released any new music.When she clicked the link, she discovered an album titled Orca, credited to her name, available on Spotify and iTunes.The songs were clearly AI-generated and appeared to be trained specifically on her style.What shocked Portman even more was how closely the song titles resembled ones she might have chosen.The music sounded almost perfect—flawless pitch and execution—but to Portman, it felt “hollow and overly polished.”“I could never sing that perfectly, nor would I want to. I’m human,”she said.This incident helped Portman better understand the boundary between herself and AI-generated music.She became more convinced of the importance of genuine creativity—and how it moves people.

Even Dead Singers Aren’t Safe from AI

Even deceased artists aren’t immune to AI cloning.Recently, a new song appeared on the certified artist page of late American country singer Blaze Foley, astonishing his record label owner, Craig McDonald—because Foley passed away in 1989.Even worse, the AI-generated song was far removed from Foley’s heartfelt, soulful style.Artists pour their souls into their creations—something AI can never do. It can simulate chords, but not sincerity or genuine emotion.When AI music fools the human ear, whether it has a “soul” may become a key criterion in distinguishing it from human-made music.This distinction is becoming increasingly important in the age of AI.A recent study by Brazil’s top research university, the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), suggests that AI music is approaching the Turing Test—that is, it can now fool human listeners.The paper examined the latest advances in AI music (AIM) and conducted a blind test similar to the Turing Test.Participants were asked to identify whether a given song was created by AI or a human.The results showed that when song pairs were randomly matched, listeners could not distinguish AI music from human compositions—their accuracy was no better than random guessing.This confirms that AI music is evolving much like AI-generated text: with rapid iteration and rapidly improving quality.The transformation AI brings to the music industry is now unstoppable.

Challenges Ahead: Artistry, Rights, and Ethics

There is still widespread debate over the artistic value of AI music, as well as unresolved issues regarding the identity and rights of “AI artists,” the labeling and authorization of AI-generated content—all of which need swift attention and regulation.Amid this wave of change and controversy, Murphy maintains a “music-first” perspective.He encourages everyone—listeners, fellow artists, and industry professionals—to listen first, then judge.From Murphy’s point of view, AI may serve as an “amplifier” for creators, testing who can create the most moving music with its help.But the ultimate challenge remains: will audiences accept AI-generated music?