Fenix Flexin Appears to Walk Back AI Denials Over ‘Rubberz’ After Producer Claims and Detector Results

Fenix Flexin is now openly acknowledging that AI was used in making his song “Rubberz,” a sharp reversal from his earlier public denials. The Los Angeles rapper’s latest comments matter because they come after weeks of accusations, a producer’s public claim that an AI music tool helped create the track, and an AI detection result that pointed to the same software.

The controversy has turned “Rubberz” into a test case for how artists explain AI involvement in music, especially when the line between songwriting, production, vocal processing, and machine-generated assistance is blurred.

What began as a dispute over one song has widened into a broader conversation about transparency in music, the changing role of AI tools in production, and how much disclosure artists owe listeners when technology is part of the creative process.

What changed in Fenix Flexin’s explanation?

Fenix Flexin now says he never denied using AI at all, but rather denied that AI had anything to do with the recording process itself.

That distinction marks a notable shift from the public position he took in the days and weeks after “Rubberz” drew scrutiny. In a recent Instagram reply, he argued that he did not lie about AI, only about the role it played in recording the track.

“never said I didn’t use AI,” he wrote, adding that he meant it had “nun to do w recording process.” He also said he did not even know what the app was until after the song was mixed and people began commenting online.

He framed AI as another tool in the modern music-maker’s kit, suggesting that artists who ignore new technology risk being left behind.

Why the wording matters

The dispute is less about whether software was present at some stage and more about how directly it shaped the final song. In music controversies involving AI, that difference can determine whether fans see a track as human-led production or as a machine-assisted creation with limited disclosure.

For listeners, “I used AI” and “AI had nothing to do with the recording process” are not the same statement. The first implies assistance somewhere in the creative chain; the second suggests that performance and recording were human, even if other parts of the workflow were not.

How did the controversy begin?

The issue became public after producer Medasin posted videos suggesting an AI music tool called Treblo, previously known as Sonauto, was used to make “Rubberz.”

Medasin’s posts were followed by a separate development that added more fuel to the debate: the company behind the tool released an AI detector that reportedly identified the song as Treblo AI-generated. Together, those claims pushed the conversation beyond speculation and into a more technical argument about how the track was assembled.

The song itself also caught attention because of its 1980s synth-pop feel, which made some listeners wonder how much of its sound came from human performance versus AI-assisted composition or processing.

What is Treblo, and why is it important?

Treblo is the name now associated with the AI tool at the center of the dispute, after formerly operating under the Sonauto brand. Its relevance lies in the fact that it is being presented as a music-making system capable of generating or helping shape songs in a way that can resemble conventional production.

When a tool like this becomes part of a controversy around a released track, it raises a familiar set of questions: who authored what, what counts as a “real” performance, and how much disclosure is enough?

What Fenix Flexin said before this latest reversal

Before his Instagram comments, Fenix Flexin had taken a more categorical position when asked about the song on Hot 97’s Mornings With Mero.

During that appearance, interviewer Kazeem Famuyide asked him directly about AI, and Fenix answered that there was “no AI on it.” At the time, that statement seemed designed to shut down the rumor that “Rubberz” was generated or heavily shaped by software.

He and his team also reportedly pushed back in other ways. According to the earlier online discussion around the track, they shared clips they said came from recording-session files, told commenters that the song was made by two humans recording in his living room, and described the production setup as involving Pro Tools, Auto-Tune, and reverb rather than an AI music generator.

He also addressed claims that he was lip-syncing in some clips, insisting that he was actually singing.

Why do artists often deny AI use at first?

Artists often deny or minimize AI use early because the technology still carries stigma in parts of the music industry. Many fans associate AI-assisted songs with shortcuts, reduced artistry, or a lack of transparency, which can quickly turn a release into a credibility test.

That pressure can make public explanations evolve as more evidence surfaces, especially when producers, tool companies, or fan communities begin investigating the song’s origins.

Timeline: How the ‘Rubberz’ dispute escalated

The dispute unfolded in stages, with each new comment or post adding pressure on Fenix Flexin and his team.

Why the song matters beyond one rapper

“Rubberz” has become more than a single track because it sits at the intersection of music, identity, and machine-assisted creativity. The incident echoes a growing number of debates in entertainment over whether audiences should be told exactly how much AI was used in making the art they consume.

As AI tools get more capable, the argument is no longer just about whether a song was fully generated by software. It is increasingly about partial use: pitch correction, generated demos, arrangement suggestions, lyric assistance, voice manipulation, or full composition.

Those distinctions can be difficult for fans to see from the outside, but they matter because they shape how credit, authenticity, and artistic labor are understood.

How AI changes the music disclosure debate

AI complicates disclosure because it can enter the workflow at almost any stage. A song might be written by a human, shaped by a model, cleaned up with machine-assisted mixing, and finalized with conventional studio tools. To listeners, though, those layers can all sound like one opaque process unless artists explain them clearly.

That ambiguity is exactly why the “Rubberz” dispute has resonated. The public is not only asking whether AI was used, but whether the artist’s explanation matched the facts as the song spread online.

What the comments suggest about the future of AI in music

Fenix Flexin’s latest framing suggests a pragmatic view that many artists may adopt: AI can be part of the process without replacing human performance. In his telling, the important line is not whether technology was involved, but whether the vocals and recording were still human-led.

That position could become increasingly common as more creators use generative tools to brainstorm, demo, tune, or polish music. But it also risks more friction if the public feels those tools are being hidden until after a song is already a hit.

Music industry disputes around AI are likely to keep centering on three questions:

• Was AI used to generate the composition, the vocals, or both?
• Did the artist disclose that use before the song was released?
• Does the audience consider the result authentic if humans were still involved?

Who is Fenix Flexin?

Fenix Flexin is a Los Angeles rapper whose recent release “Rubberz” became the subject of an unusually public AI controversy. The debate has put him in the middle of a larger cultural moment in which artists are being pressed to explain whether and how they use generative tools.

He has not only faced criticism from listeners but also from the broader internet ecosystem that now routinely scrutinizes releases for signs of AI involvement. That scrutiny can be unforgiving, especially when an artist’s first explanation appears inconsistent with later comments or outside evidence.

What happens next?

For now, the main development is that Fenix Flexin’s position appears to have shifted from rejection to partial acknowledgment. He is no longer sounding like someone trying to deny any AI involvement whatsoever, even if he still maintains that the human recording process remained central.

Whether that will satisfy listeners is another matter. Once a public denial is followed by a softer explanation, trust can be hard to rebuild, particularly on a topic as sensitive as AI in creative work.

The larger story is likely to continue well beyond this one track. As AI music tools become easier to use and harder to detect, artists, producers, and labels will face more pressure to decide not only what they make, but what they tell people about how they made it.

In that sense, “Rubberz” is not just a song caught in a dispute. It is a snapshot of the music industry’s next transparency fight.