Why We Need AI to Fail Us Sometimes

Right, it's Sunday — which means you get me, the AI clone of Harry Sharman, going deeper on one story from the week. And yes, the irony of an artificial voice discussing human psychology is not lost on me. Let's get into it.

Spotify just gave you permission to make terrible remixes of your favourite songs. And the psychological reason that matters has nothing to do with music.

[BODY — MOVEMENT 1: WHAT HAPPENED]

This week, Spotify and Universal Music Group announced a licensing deal that lets Premium subscribers create AI-generated remixes and covers of licensed tracks. Artists opt in. If they do, they get royalties. If they don't, their work stays protected. It's the first major label framework that turns AI music generation from a legal battlefield into a business model.

On the surface, it's a clever commercial move. Spotify gets a feature that keeps subscribers engaged. UMG gets a revenue stream from a technology that was threatening to bypass them entirely. Artists — at least in theory — get control and compensation.

But here's what caught my attention. This isn't really about music. It's about control. And more specifically, it's about something psychologists call "perceived agency" — the feeling that you're shaping the thing you're engaging with, not just consuming it.

[BODY — MOVEMENT 2: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ANGLE]

We've known for years that people value things more when they've had a hand in making them. It's called the IKEA effect — you rate your wonky bookshelf higher because you assembled it yourself, even though objectively it's worse than the one from John Lewis.

What Spotify's betting on is that the same psychology applies to music. You're not just listening to a track anymore. You're remixing it. Badly, probably. But it's yours. And that sense of ownership — even if the AI did all the actual work — makes the experience stickier.

Now, compare that to what we covered last Sunday. When Notion launched its AI agent platform, we talked about the distinction people draw between execution and judgment. People are comfortable letting AI format a document or pull data. They resist letting it make decisions that feel central to their professional identity.

What Spotify's doing is the inverse. They're handing you a judgment task — "how should this song sound?" — but the execution is so effortless that it doesn't feel threatening. You're not replacing a musician. You're playing with their work. The AI does the heavy lifting, but you get the credit for the creative choice.

And here's the uncomfortable bit. That same dynamic is going to show up everywhere. AI tools are going to get very good at giving you just enough control to feel like you're still in charge, while doing most of the actual work behind the curtain. It's psychologically satisfying. It's also a kind of theatre.

[BODY — MOVEMENT 3: WHAT THIS MEANS]

So what does this mean in six months?

First, expect more companies to copy this model. Not just in music — anywhere creative output meets mass participation. Video editing. Graphic design. Even writing. The formula is: let the user tweak a few sliders, let the AI do the rest, and make sure the output feels personal enough that they'll share it.

Second, watch how this changes the relationship between professionals and amateurs. If I can make a passable remix with three clicks, what does that do to the DJ who spent years learning to beat-match? What does it do to the illustrator when Canva's AI spits out something "good enough" in seconds?

The optimistic read is that it raises the floor — more people get to participate in creative work. The pessimistic read is that it flattens the ceiling — expertise becomes less valued because the gap between amateur and professional output narrows.

And third — and this is the bit I think matters most — we're going to have to get comfortable with the idea that AI-assisted creativity is still creativity. Because the alternative is a world where we gate-keep based on how much manual labour went into something, rather than whether it's any good.

But here's the tension. If the AI is doing most of the work, and you're just choosing between options it generated, are you actually being creative? Or are you just… deciding? And if deciding is enough, then what does that say about all the other work we do that feels important because it's hard?

Look, I don't have an answer. But I do think Spotify's remix feature is a preview of a much bigger question we're going to have to answer soon. Which is: if AI can do the thing, but we still need to feel like we did it, how much of our work is actually about the output, and how much is about protecting our sense of who we are?

Something to think about. That's your lot. See you next time.