What AI Can't Do

Natalie Kradolfer is the Managing Director and co-founder of EdTech company, Amplify Music Education

Last week, we hosted a small gathering of teachers and principals at Amplify HQ, and naturally, we had some live music. Music brings people together and is a cornerstone of every Amplify event.

After a performance by the very talented Patrick James, a teacher came up to me and said: “There's something magical about people sharing their own art. He is a great singer of course, and I'm sure anything he sang would have been excellent, but it felt special watching him share something that he created.”

It stuck with me.

She wasn't talking about how good the music was. She was talking about authorship. There is something uniquely powerful about watching someone share a piece of themselves. Knowing the person standing in front of you lived the experiences that became those lyrics somehow changes the way you listen.

This is another reminder of the power of people creating and sharing their art.

As the founder of an arts-based EdTech company, I find myself sitting across three very different communities.

First, there's the tech community. AI is everywhere and, broadly speaking, completely accepted. These days, it's probably the foundation of 99% of new tech-based businesses. In my interactions with founders, AI isn't really a topic of controversy anymore because everyone just assumes it's part of the toolkit. It's not a dirty word. If anything, not using AI might see you politely questioned.

Then there's the EdTech community. We're a bit of a unique bunch, generally less glamorous than our fintech, health-tech, ag-tech and anything-else-tech counterparts, united by a desire to genuinely change the world through education. We all remember how computers and the internet were supposed to revolutionise classrooms. AI has arrived with the same disruptive promises, but the results are still emerging. We're curious, excited, cautious and a tad sceptical.

And then there's the music and broader arts community, where AI is probably the dirtiest word of all.

Honestly, I understand why.

The problem isn't AI itself. The problem is the assumption that creative work somehow stops deserving payment once a machine is involved

Many people in technology have simply never had to think about copyright from the creator's perspective. To them, data is abundant. To artists, every song, script, artwork and performance represents years of practice, risk, rejection and lived experience. Those two worldviews are colliding in real time.

If I had a dollar for every tech founder who's asked me why we don't just use AI-generated music in Amplify, I mean, I wouldn't be rich, but drinks would definitely be on me.

The answer is quite simple: we value what artists create.

We want students learning from real artists. We want them engaging with authentic creative work. And we want the people who created that work to be compensated when it's used. The licensing frameworks already exist. With the right people around the table, technology and copyright don't have to be enemies.

I'm firmly, wholeheartedly on board with artists being compensated whenever their work creates value. 

I'm also deeply excited about AI. Every day it blows my mind.

What I'm learning is that using AI well is actually a skill. Like all skills, some people have a natural aptitude and others need to work at it. But it's rapidly becoming one of the most valuable capabilities in modern workplaces, and the people who know how to use it thoughtfully are going to have an enormous advantage.

There's been a lot of discussion around the (allegedly) AI-assisted remix of Madonna’s “Like A Prayer”. I find it fascinating because it captures just how nuanced this conversation has become.

If the rights holders are compensated, permission has been sought where required, and someone uses AI as part of a genuinely creative process... I actually find myself far more interested in celebrating what's possible than fearing it.

Because that's the future we're heading towards. But, permission and compensation are the critical levers here, and I support the use of AI labelling for transparency for listeners.

The work that Annabelle Herd, CEO of ARIA, Dean Ormston, CEO of APRA, and many other industry leaders are doing to protect the rights of artists and songwriters is hugely important. They're not trying to stop innovation. They're trying to make sure innovation doesn't come at the expense of the very people whose creativity made it possible in the first place. And they have their work cut-out for them because the average tech-bro (or tech-gal?) is not educated on the impact of using copyrighted work for gain. This is education from the ground up.

As someone who spends plenty of time in technology circles, I'll keep having those conversations. I'll keep advocating for permission. I'll keep advocating for fair compensation. Because I genuinely believe we can build incredible technology without treating creativity as something that's free for the taking.

Amplify is living proof that technology and copyrighted material can happily co-exist. It's certainly not the easiest path, but I believe it's the right one. 

And I keep thinking back to that teacher watching Patrick James perform.

She wasn't reacting to perfect vocals. She was reacting to the privilege of witnessing someone share a piece of themselves.

AI is transforming the way we work. But as we build that future, let's not forget what made the art valuable in the first place.

The answer isn't choosing between AI and artists.

It's building a future where both thrive and where the people whose creativity taught the machines are recognised, respected and fairly compensated.