Cannibalization of Culture: Generative AI and the Appropriation of Indigenous African Musical Works
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) advancements amplify concerns about the potential to appropriate Indigenous African cultural expressions such as songs, dances, and other forms of art. Generative AI systems autonomously generate diverse content, including music and art, but the supply chain of this new technology presents a complex challenge that may exacerbate cultural appropriation practices. Scholarship on the intersection of technology and Africa’s art and culture is animated by the theme of cultural appropriation and the need for protection against commercial exploitation. Likewise, there is a need for more research on how the unique nature of Indigenous African musical works increases their vulnerability to appropriation in the face of entrenched content digitalization practices and the cannibalization of these works as inputs to, and outputs from, generative AI systems. Therefore, this paper attempts to fill this literature gap by exploring the interplay of generative AI training datasets, Indigenous creative works, and the risk of cultural appropriation, with a particular focus on African music. The author argues that if unaddressed, generative AI systems have the potential to significantly erode the data and proprietary rights of various Indigenous communities in Africa, thereby undermining their ability to derive value from the protection of their intellectual property and sustainability of their cultural identity. Through a doctrinal analysis of extant and emerging policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks, this paper establishes the proprietary nature of Indigenous African music and its vulnerabilities in generative AI’s supply chain. The author makes recommendations that serve as a vital bridge between technology and cultural integrity, offering a pathway for responsible engagement with Indigenous cultural expressions and respectful utilization of Indigenous African musical works for generative AI systems to safeguard against misappropriation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".