Roel Hendrikx, a resident of the Netherlands, is the administrator of the Alternate Timelines Forum, an online discussion board about alternate history.
Wallace: How would you describe alternate history to someone who has never heard of the genre?
Hendrikx: The best way to describe to a person what alternate history is to ask them what they would think if an event occurred differently than what really happened; if they understand that, then you can talk with them about the many other possible ways history could have turned out.
Wallace: What got you into Alternate History?
Hendrikx: Once when I was young, I went to my local library and there I found a translation of a American book detailing a German invasion of the United States in 1945. After that, I discovered that there was more than that single book out there about history that is not our own. It was not until 2006 before I was really able to discover the world of Alternate History when I, like many other before me and many after me, became a member of alternatehistory.com, the most prolific alternate history site on the internet.
Wallace: What made you want to start the Alternate Timelines Forum?
Hendrikx: My forum first began as a place where I had posted all my works I ever had created, but not many people wanted only to discuss what I had created; it was not long after that when I posted a thread on alternatehistory.com that something hit me: the forum was so huge, it was most of the time impossible for a thread to get responses because so many members created new threads every day. Then, I began to think, I had already a forum of my own, so why not turn it into an alternate history forum, where due to the small size, its members do not need to worry that their threads may disappear to page 2 after only a day? A forum where a thread can receive the attention it needs, even if it is only one or two posts, where the members can know each other instead of being just a number on the wall? That was my desire to change the forum from what is was to what it is now, a small dedicated Alternate History forum where its members post, others respond and where you do not need to worry if it is not good enough, because at this forum, every question is a new question to answer and to explore.
Wallace: What is the philosophy underlying how the board is run?
Hendrikx: This forum runs on the philosophy of only acting when it is needed; the moderators and administration only act when action is necessary. If there is no action needed, that everybody is just a member who has a great time discussing everything related to Alternate History.
Wallace: What does running the board on a day to day basis entail?
Hendrikx: Running the forum begins in the morning when I wake up. I check if there are new posts, new members and if there is any new update that I can install that can help make the forum better. Then, I go to work; during my lunch break I check if there new events I need to respond to. After I come back to work, I look at all the new posts, and as always, I try respond to them to my best of my ability. Also, I look at it as I do in the morning to see if there are ways that I can improve the forum.
Wallace: What makes your board different from other alternate history boards?
Hendrikx: For now, the small membership is different than other larger Alternate History forums. Also, I try to award my members for posting as I feel that giving them something in return for posting here on the forum make them feel acknowledged.
Wallace: What have been the challenges of running the board?
Hendrikx: The small membership number is, at this time, the greatest challenge; many new members who could join do not know that there is a small, good, running Alternate History forum out there that allows them discus their love for Alternate History.
Wallace: Do you have any particularly interesting stories from running the board?
Hendrikx: So far, in the year-long life of this forum, there as of yet has not appeared a story relating to the forum I can speak of. I hope in the future that there might be one, but for now, the fact that this is an active forum is already an interesting story.
Wallace: Does running the board have an effect on your offline life?
Hendrikx: No, not at all; the forum is part of my life now, a hobby I love to spend my time on.
Wallace: How do you envision the future of the forum?
Hendrikx: More members, more timelines and more discussion, I hope, but if not, I am already happy with achievements that the forum has already made. The future is a long road, and many things can happen along the way.
Recommended for you
The Illusion of Creativity
AI-generated music is often marketed as “artistic” or “educational.” But what does it really teach?
- That style can be replicated without understanding.
- That emotion can be simulated without feeling.
- That effort can be bypassed with a prompt.
For young creators, this sets a dangerous precedent. Why learn to play guitar when an algorithm can do it faster? Why study harmony when AI can generate chord progressions in seconds? The risk isn’t just laziness — it’s the loss of depth, discipline, and the tactile joy of creation.
I have listened to several AI-generated music covers. My initial reaction was one of considerable impressiveness, particularly regarding the reimagining of classic pop hits in diverse genres with novel arrangements. Here is one good example a-ha — Take On Me
However, after engaging with several such Ai generated song covers, a sense of emotional detachment emerged, attributable to the perceived absence of human artistry and genuine sentiment, resulting in a technically flawless yet ultimately soulless auditory experience.
Copyright in Crisis
What does the copyright law say about AI generated music, especially in field of music covers. Who is liable for copyright in this case, AI developers, people who used AI to generate music or people who published it on music platforms?
Recent lawsuits show that the music industry is pushing back hard:
- Universal, Sony, and Warner sued AI music platforms Suno and Udio in 2024 for allegedly training their models on copyrighted songs without permission Ars Technica The Lyon Firm.
- They’re seeking up to $150,000 per infringed song, arguing that the AI outputs resemble famous tracks and voices (e.g., Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson).
- These lawsuits target the developers of the AI tools — but they raise broader questions:The legal gray area is training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use Sites at USC.
But who’s liable?
Role | Legal Risk | Why |
AI Developers | ✅ High | For training on copyrighted material without licenses. |
Users | ⚠️ Moderate | If they intentionally recreate protected works. |
Publishers/Platforms | ✅ High | For distributing infringing content. |
The grey area lies in training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use. Meanwhile, AI-generated works themselves aren’t eligible for copyright unless a human provides substantial creative input — leaving them in legal limbo.
The Educational Mirage
Some argue that AI music helps people learn genres, production styles, or vocal techniques. But this “education” often lacks context. It’s like learning to paint by watching a printer — technically impressive, but creatively hollow.
True musical education involves:
- Struggle and iteration: Learning through mistakes.
- Emotional connection: Expressing what words can’t.
- Cultural lineage: Understanding the roots of sound.
AI shortcuts bypass all of this. And in doing so, they risk flattening the rich terrain of human creativity into a sterile landscape of algorithmic mimicry.
Why This Fight Matters
This isn’t just about music. It’s about the future of art, storytelling, and human expression. If we allow machines to dominate creative spaces, we risk turning culture into content — optimized, monetized, and devoid of soul.
We must ask: Do we want a world where art is made by machines, or one where machines help humans make better art?
5 Key Takeaways
- AI-generated music blurs the line between innovation and erosion in the creative arts
- AI-generated music raises questions about copyright, culture, education, and artistic expression
- AI-generated music can replicate style without understanding, simulate emotion without feeling, and bypass effort with a prompt
- AI-generated music sets a dangerous precedent for young creators by potentially leading to a loss of depth, discipline, and joy of creation
Trending Topics
Trending Stories
Best of Politics and Activism![Jenna Pizzi and her mom smiling by a waterfront with a historic ship in the background.]()
![Cristina Yang and Meredith Grey in scrubs sit against a wall, smiling and enjoying a break.]()
![Woman in field with a red heart-shaped balloon under a colorful sky.]()
