By *Guevara Leacock
On A View from the Outside this week, we turn our attention to Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Vincymas with the view being that the Carnival Development Corporation (CDC) should not rush to implement any AI policy in Vincymas but should do so with careful consideration and consultation with stakeholders especially the artistes.
This week the CDC told us something that should make every Vincentian curious. The CDC says it has found evidence of the use of AI in songs in this year’s Vincymas releases, and it is now drafting a policy to limit how much AI an artiste can use in carnival music. The chairman, Ricky Adams, said, “AI can help you refine your creation, but it cannot become your creative juice.”
We, on A View from the Outside, think he is raising an issue that is real and important. We are also of the view that the policy he is promising is far harder to write than his statement makes it sound. It is clear that CDC is trying to protect the creative nature of Vincentian culture and musical traditions but they may find that trying to regulate the use of AI in carnival music production is more difficult than anticipated.
This is not a small issue. So what is genuinely at stake? Vincymas is unique. As veteran calypsonian, Dr. Alston Beckett Cyrus tells us in his famous calypso, Carnival History, “Carnival is mas and music, carnival is calypso, carnival is mas and steel band” and as Vincentians know, carnival music also includes soca and ragga soca.
These cultural features of our civilisation were created by our people, out of our history, much of it out of the hardship of enslavement. When the chairman of CDC warns that we could end up as mere consumers of content made elsewhere, he is identifying a real danger.
If the music that defines our festival can be generated by a machine or software trained on everybody’s work and owned by a company in another country, then the culture Vincentians built can be taken from us quietly, one convenient shortcut at a time. That is not culture or nostalgia. In fact, it is not what calypso as social commentary is meant to do and it is not Vincentian.
We, on A View from the Outside, are with the CDC on the instinct. Carnival, Vincymas, as a Vincentian festival, should have standards. If Vincymas is a cultural festival and not just a content marketplace, then it is entirely reasonable to say that Vincentian creatives should be at the centre of the work. Vincentian musical artistes should pour their heart and soul into their artform. Insisting that calypsonians or soca artistes actually write and perform their songs is not censorship. It is asking that creativity be at the forefront of the heart and soul of Vincymas.
But there have to be checks and balances because the chairman admitted that the rules are not written yet, and as everyone knows that rules are sometimes everything. We, on A View from the Outside, want to share some thoughts for the CDC to consider.
The first is definition. What exactly is the CDC looking to ban or regulate? Almost every song you hear now passes through some sort of software. Auto-tuning, which a lot of studios use, is a form of AI. Beats are now largely made on machines. Producers have been using digital tools to produce music for decades.
So when the CDC says it wants to limit the amount of AI used to produce songs for Vincymas, they have to be precise about which uses they mean. Refining a vocal is one thing. Typing a sentence into a programme and getting back a finished song is another. Between those two, there is a wide grey area, and a policy that does not draw the line clearly will end up either meaningless or unfair. The CDC cannot police a boundary which is not clearly defined.
The second is proof. The CDC says its checks have already detected AI use in songs. We, on A View from the Outside, ask, “How?” What tools are they using? Generative AI is still very much developing and many of the tools that claim to detect AI-generated material, including music, are not reliable. Imagine a young Vincentian artiste who wrote every word of his calypso himself gets flagged by some piece of unreliable AI detection software and is told he is disqualified. How does he prove his innocence? Where is his appeal? If we are going to accuse people, and disqualification is an accusation, then we owe them a fair process, clear evidence, and a way to defend themselves. Laws, rules and regulations that can ruin reputations cannot run on suspicion.
The third point is about ownership. This is where we, on A View from the Outside, think the CDC should actually be more ambitious, not just more restrictive. The deeper threat is not that a local artiste uses an AI tool to craft their songs. The deeper threat is the law of authorship and copyright.
In most legal systems, including St. Vincent and the Grenadines, copyright laws protect works created by human beings. A song generated by AI may belong to nobody, or worse, the rights may sit with the foreign company whose system produced it. So, if our artistes drift into building careers on AI music, they may be building on land they do not own. The CDC’s energy would be well spent not only on what to forbid, but on teaching our artistes to protect what they create, to register it, to understand their rights, so that the value of Vincentian music stays with Vincentians. Protecting culture is not only about keeping AI out. It is about making sure our people hold the title deeds to their own work.
The fourth issue is fairness between artistes. Good AI tools cost a lot of money. The established Vincentian artistes with a sponsor and a studio may be able to afford the expensive, polished, hard-to-detect AI tools. The young man or woman in St. Vincent and the Grenadines with a mobile phone and a free app cannot. So a clumsy rule risks punishing exactly the people with the least resources, while the well-resourced sail through. If we are not careful, an authenticity policy could end up protecting the privileged and disadvantaging the poor. That would be the opposite of what carnival – Vincymas — at its best, has always been, which is a stage where talent from anywhere in St. Vincent and the Grenadines can rise.
None of these difficulties is a reason to do nothing. Every serious festival and creative industry in the world is wrestling with the same questions right now, and there are no settled answers anywhere. The CDC is not behind the curve here. If anything, it is ahead of many larger countries by even raising it before the 50th anniversary of Vincymas next year. The chairman of CDC says he is talking with the artistes rather than dictating to them, and he acknowledges that AI has a place in Vincymas. That is the correct posture to take. The danger is not in the intention of the chairman or CDC as an organisation. The danger is rushing into a vague rule and creating confusion and grievance during the festival season.
We, on A View from the Outside, think that the CDC is right to act, and right to insist that the creativity of human beings remain within the heart and soul of Vincymas. But before any rules are created or bites, three things need to be clear. The line between using an AI tool and outsourcing the creation must be written down in plain language that an artiste can actually follow. There must be a fair process, with real evidence and a right of appeal, before anyone is accused or disqualified. The whole process should be paired with something positive and with a serious push to help our artistes own and protect their work, so that we are building Vincentian wealth and creativity and not just gatekeeping.
The CDC should defend Vincentian culture, yes, but look out for Vincentian artistes, too, especially the young and the poor ones, because they are the future of Vincymas.
*Guevara Leacock is a barrister at law of Lincoln’s Inn in England and an attorney at law in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. He has a keen interest in history and politics and is a social commentator.
The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].