Commentary: Sienna Rose and the Growing Conversation Around AI Artists

This is not the first time the industry has encountered AI-generated “artists.” One of the most notable examples is the band The Velvet Sundown, which emerged in June 2025. In just a few weeks, the project amassed over 850,000 active monthly listeners (reportedly around 1.4 million at one point), while its breakout hit Dust on the Wind alone has generated more than 4 million streams on Spotify.

It didn’t take long for media outlets to report on accusations that the band was entirely AI-generated, and shortly after, those claims were confirmed. If you go to the Spotify profile of The Velvet Sundown now, you’ll see in their About section that whoever stands behind it calls it a “synthetic music project guided by human creative direction, and composed, voiced, and visualized with the help of artificial intelligence.”

In retrospect, there were a lot of “red flags,” indicators that pointed to the project’s artificial nature. It’s the sheer volume of music released over a very short period (3 full albums in just over a month), the extremely rapid spike in monthly listeners and streams, and the absence of any prior online presence. The posts on their Instagram page (very clearly AI-generated images) ultimately gave the truth away. Many experts also argued that the band's true nature is evident in the music itself, especially in the perhaps subtle but persistent hissing in the background. This so-called “telltale hiss” running throughout the audio is commonly associated with music created using generative AI platforms such as Udio and Suno.

Now, what about this Sienna Rose, the central case study of this article? What makes her situation particularly relevant today? At first glance, her trajectory does not seem drastically different from that of The Velvet Sundown. She, too, has released an unusually high volume of music in a short space of time: 3 EPs, 1 album, and 36 tracks overall, most of which came out between September and December 2025.

Her first social media footprint dates back just two weeks; she has never performed live, nor has she uploaded cover performances on YouTube, and, as confirmed by Deezer’s detection tool, many of her songs on the platform were previously “flagged” as computer-generated – the same telltale hissing is present. There are also noticeable inconsistencies in her appearance across photos and release artwork on streaming platforms.

Where Sienna Rose really stands out from earlier AI artists is in her social media content. There are no obvious AI-generated still images; instead, her Instagram and TikTok feeds are filled primarily with videos of her posing, moving in front of the camera, and opening her mouth in sync with her music. Her profile also includes a video where she appears to sing acoustically, photos supposedly from when she was a child, and, perhaps most striking, a video where she directly addresses claims that she does not exist, bluntly saying, “I feel real.” (Before releasing this article, the original video was removed from Sienna's IG account, so below you can see the video reposted by the media outlet Newsroom ZA.)

Essentially, what sets Sienna Rose apart from other AI singers we’ve seen so far is the sophistication of the AI platforms behind the persona – and perhaps the audacity of those running it. In just 6 months, we went from clearly AI-generated visuals to videos that look more real than ever. They depict an individual who, without paying much attention, seems (or rather pretends) to act as a real person would.

That said, there are still visible limitations and inconsistencies in Sienna’s videos, most evident in small details. For example, her body movements can sometimes feel unnatural; her mouth often opens without properly articulating the lyrics; and background elements either occasionally change unpredictably, like in this video (pay attention to the painting on the wall)...

…or don’t make sense at all, like the nonsensical writing on a jersey dress Sienna wears in this video:

The more you watch those videos, the more you may notice signs that indicate there’s nothing real about the person you’re watching. Still, without a doubt, the creation of Sienna Rose could be (if confirmed to be true) one of the most impeccable persona works AI has done so far.

It’s also worth noting that while most people online are all for one – Sienna Rose is AI-generated – her Instagram account continues to reinforce the narrative that there is a real, breathing person behind it. New content is still being posted, with captions like “can’t wait to perform this for yall” or “the feeling when I may be going on tour in 2026.” Some users have also pointed out that many comments suggesting she is AI-generated appear to have been intentionally deleted.

In the long run, this kind of sustained narrative can become confusing, often without people consciously realizing it. Some might argue this is a fascinating modern example of manufactured reality and could even resemble a psychological phenomenon known as the Illusory Truth Effect. This describes a cognitive bias where people come to believe information is more truthful, regardless of its actual accuracy or their initial conviction, simply because they have been repeatedly exposed to it.

Such an effect could be even more pronounced if (or when) AI tools continue to improve, resulting in fewer obvious errors and inconsistencies in the content being produced. As the posts and visuals become more polished and flawless, repeated exposure alone may be enough to soften distrust over time.

Overall, Sienna Rose's case could serve as a strong example of how interests, usually commercial ones, leverage psychological biases to bridge the so-called “Uncanny Valley.” Generally speaking, those using such mechanisms are not trying to convince one’s logical brain outright; instead, they strive to gradually wear down skepticism through repetition.

Whether fascinating or unsettling, the questions about Sienna Rose’s authenticity have reignited debate in the music industry about the impact of artificial intelligence on genuine artists and the credibility of music released today. If there’s one thing we can be certain of from Sienna’s case, it’s that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish what is real from what is not. This is troubling for many reasons.

While the prevailing attitude toward AI-generated music – among both artists and the public – has largely been rejection, the stance becomes far more complicated when audiences are unaware that what they are engaging with is artificial. If listeners can’t identify AI-generated content, how can they consciously dismiss it?

The more engagement these artists get, the more likely they are to trigger recommendation algorithms on social media and streaming platforms. Even undetected fraudulent streams can manipulate algorithmic suggestions. While it is likely that the early portion of activity surrounding Sienna’s music (streams, shares, saves) was driven by bots, the engagement was still picked up by the algorithms and recommended to real listeners. A high volume of streams, especially when it increases quickly, can cause a song to go viral. This creates a pattern where listeners, often unknowingly, support and reinforce the idea of a non-existent musician over a real one. Even weeks after Sienna Rose was exposed, some fans and even artists are still liking, commenting on, and sharing posts from her Instagram account.

This phenomenon is directly linked to revenue generation. Every stream generates royalties unless it is flagged and removed by the platform. As a result, these AI “artists” that accumulate thousands or even millions of plays can earn significant income. In late 2025, ticketing organization Seat Pick researched and listed the highest-earning AI names on Spotify.

Topping the list is Blow Records – not a record label, but an AI “artist” – which amassed over 45 million streams in 2025 and earned £123,176.09 for its creator. Second is Biscuit Beats, which earned £67,891.16 from nearly 25 million streams, followed by Xania Monet, which generated £50,021 from Spotify alone and reportedly signed a $3 million deal with Hallwood Media. Notably, The Velvet Sundown ranked fifth on the list. As Music Radar noted, all “artists” included in the ranking earned more from streaming than the average working musician in the UK, with Blow Records alone generating nearly four times the average UK wage in Spotify royalties.

The fact that AI-generated music is being promoted by platform algorithms and monetized in the same way as music by human artists has raised particular concern about taking space and revenue away from genuine artists. Some suggest that these interconnected issues point to persistent gaps in streaming services’ ability to reliably detect and label AI-generated content, often referred to as AI-slop.

Sienna Rose is now being cited as a relevant example of this problem. Multiple tracks attributed to her made it into Spotify’s Viral 50–USA playlist, despite the widespread and publicly available indications that the project is fully AI-generated.

English composer Michael Price called Rose “one of the most striking examples of those listening to music every day who trust that what is being curated by streaming services is made by real musicians." Similarly, Glenn McDonald, Spotify’s former data engineer, noted that Rose “represents much more” than “just one AI artist,” precisely because she is “being promoted in the same space as real music.”

Perhaps one potential solution lies in Deezer’s AI detection technology, currently the only such detection by a major streaming platform. According to Deezer, the system has demonetized 85% of all AI-generated streams on the platform. Due to its unique position and strong results, the tool is now being offered for licensing to other streaming services.

The controversy surrounding Sienna Rose may extend beyond concerns about visibility and revenue being diverted from real artists. In recent days, several TikTok accounts have claimed that some of Sienna’s videos were created by using online footage of real individuals, including their body movements and surrounding environments, and applying AI to superimpose a synthetic persona on top of them. You can see one such example in the video below:

One user also noted that her constructed identity has evolved over time from a Caucasian, red-haired songwriter to the Black singer recognized online today.

If these claims are verified, videos on Sienna’s account could be described as a form of deepfake, and they might even fall into a more specific category, often called body puppetry or full-body reenactment. This technique is considered one of the most intricate forms of deepfakes as it requires AI to realistically reconstruct the background around the new character while mirroring a real person’s specific gestures and movements.

In many countries, including the US and the EU, the use of deepfake technologies may be subject to transparency requirements and legal scrutiny. For example, under the EU AI Act (2024), anyone using AI to produce deepfakes must clearly state that the content has been artificially altered.

Beyond transparency, issues related to copyright and ownership rights can also arise when someone’s existing footage is reused, especially without permission. Generally, the creator of a video typically holds the rights to the original recording, including the background, recorded performances, and the footage itself. Using such material without permission could, depending on the circumstances, raise copyright-related concerns.