BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM

For 16 weeks, an AI-generated variation of Madonna’s “Like a Prayer” sat in Australia’s top 20 singles chart. At its peak, it hit number two. Listeners streamed it, and the chart counted it. And then the Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA) decided that probably shouldn’t keep happening.

Starting today, wholly AI-generated tracks will be barred from the ARIA charts and from eligibility for the ARIA awards. Music where humans wrote the song and performed the lead vocal and primary instruments can still qualify. Fully machine-generated output is out.

“The ARIA Charts will always remain a transparent measurement of the music Australia consumes,” said ARIA chief executive Annabelle Herd, “but a chart that rewards unlicensed AI output would undercut the very basis of the recorded music we exist to represent.”

Where the line falls

So, wholly AI-generated is out. AI-assisted, where the human is still driving creative decisions, stays in.

Sydney Conservatorium of Music composer and lecturer Alexis Weaver put it this way: “It can be quite hard to avoid AI tools in the current landscape. There is a way to use it while you’re still steering the ship and making the main creative choices.” That’s more or less what ARIA is trying to capture in rules: not whether AI touched the track, but whether a human was still at the wheel for the decisions that shaped it.

The new rules also require that eligible music come from legal AI services, not tools trained on artists’ work without permission. Music had been showing up on streaming platforms apparently built with unlicensed training data, a problem the chart rules now address alongside the creative question.

Australia isn’t doing this alone

ARIA’s move came alongside guidelines published in July by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, the London-based body representing the global recording industry. Their standard: a chart-eligible track must be “substantially human made.”

The shared pressure behind both is straightforward. Generative AI has gotten good enough that listeners may not notice, or particularly care, whether a track was made by a person or a machine. Charts weren’t built for that. The practical question for the industry is when to draw the line, and the answer both bodies landed on is: now, while the distinction is still legible.

The question the charts can’t answer

Weaver described the debate around AI in music as “exceptionally fraught and very emotional for a lot of musicians.” That’s understating it. AI tools trained on existing recordings can now replicate styles, voices, and production techniques that took artists years to develop. Nobody has a tidy answer yet for what that means for the people whose work fed those models.

The Madonna cover’s 16 weeks in the top 20 is the uncomfortable data point nobody quite knows what to do with. Listeners didn’t reject it. It wasn’t exposed and abandoned when people found out. It just charted, week after week, because it sounded like something people wanted to hear. The chart ban settles what counts as eligible. What people choose to stream is another matter, and the industry has considerably less say in that.

Weaver called the ARIA move “a wonderful step forward” and said it sent a message about valuing human creativity. Whether the people doing the streaming see it the same way is a genuinely open question.

Did this solution stand out? Share it with a friend or support our mission by becoming an Emissary.