I’ve been watching the Fenix Flexin saga unfold with the kind of morbid fascination usually reserved for watching someone try to debug production code at 3 AM. And honestly, it’s teaching us something important about how creators, platforms, and audiences are collectively figuring out what AI actually means in creative work.
Let’s be clear about what happened: Fenix Flexin released ‘Rubberz,’ an 80s synth-pop track that immediately got flagged by producer Medasin as AI-generated using a tool called Treblo. The company behind Treblo released an AI detector proving it. When directly asked on Hot 97 if AI was used, Fenix said no. Now he’s claiming he ‘never said I didn’t use AI’ and that using AI is just ‘keeping up with the times.’
This isn’t just about one rapper being evasive. It’s a window into how we’re collectively failing to establish honest frameworks around AI tooling.
The Contradiction Problem
What strikes me most isn’t that Fenix used AI. It’s that he denied it, then reframed the denial. His Instagram comment tries to have it both ways: claiming he never actually said he didn’t use AI while his own Hot 97 interview says exactly that. This is the creative equivalent of a developer insisting their code doesn’t have a bug while standing directly in front of a stack trace.
But here’s what I think is actually happening underneath: Fenix probably didn’t see this as a big deal. He likely grabbed a tool, used it as part of his production process, and didn’t consider it worth mentioning. Then the internet decided it was a scandal. Then he got defensive. Then he overcorrected.
This matters because it shows how the conversation around AI in creative fields is completely inverted. We’re not actually debating whether AI tools are useful for music production. We’re debating whether admitting you used them makes you less of an artist. And that’s a communications problem, not a technology problem.
What This Means for Creative Tooling
As someone who builds and uses software, I find the Fenix situation almost sad because it represents a missed opportunity. Imagine if his response had been: ‘Yeah, I used Treblo for the synth work. It saved me 20 hours and let me focus on arrangement and vocals.’ That’s actually interesting. That’s honest about what modern production looks like.
Instead, we got obfuscation. Recording session files. Claims about lip-syncing. The energy spent defending the choice could have been redirected into explaining why the choice made sense.
For developers building creative AI tools, this is critical. Every time a creator gets defensive about using your tool, it’s a signal that you haven’t successfully framed what your tool actually does. https://mgks.dev/tags/tools/ is full of discussions about this, but the pattern is clear: tools that succeed are the ones where using them feels like a choice, not a shortcut.
Here’s the uncomfortable part: Fenix was probably right that there’s nothing wrong with using Treblo. The synth lines are compelling. The song works. But the moment you lie about it, you create a credibility problem that towers over any technical consideration. And once you’re in that position, every explanation sounds like a rationalization.
The Transparency Gap
I think what’s actually happening is that we’re in a transition period where the cultural norms haven’t caught up with the technology. Musicians have always used tools. They use DAWs, plugins, samples, production techniques that other people created. But AI feels different because it’s generative, because it’s new, and because we haven’t collectively decided if it’s a tool or a replacement.
Until we do, creators are going to keep hedging. They’re going to keep denying. And they’re going to keep getting caught.
What we need from the industry is honesty about where AI fits into the creative process. Not ‘we don’t use AI’ and not ‘everything is AI now,’ but actual transparency about what role generative tools played. Some artists might say ‘I used it for 20% of the production.’ Others might say ‘It was a starting point I completely reworked.’ Some might say ‘I didn’t use it at all.’ All of those are valid.
https://mgks.dev/tags/ai-ethics/ covers more about what responsible AI adoption looks like, and I think we need more of this conversation specifically in creative spaces.
The Fenix situation is ultimately about trust breaking down the moment someone felt they needed to obscure their process. And in a world where tools are becoming more powerful and more accessible, how many other creators are going to end up in this exact same defensive crouch?