39 pointsby thm6 hours ago5 comments
  • spicyusername4 hours ago
    I have no problem with AI music, but it's absolutely crazy to let labels pretend they're real people.

    It should be required to include the AI model as a featured artist. Or maybe it's labeled like DJs, where the prompter is the artist.

    As an aside, I think you're going to see a real resurgence of live music that let real artists showcase their real skills.

    • Rochus2 hours ago
      Still more laws and regulations. We're already drowning in regulations.

      If you start to require such things, then you should also require that labels declare whether the artist indeed sung him/herself, and whether it was their real voice or some autotuned stuff.

      • jollyllama2 hours ago
        The GP never explicitly mentioned law. Now's would be a great time for the recording industry to prove their value by instituting a framework for self-regulation. They could actually differentiate themselves from things like Bandcamp if they had some proper enforcement on this topic. But of course, we know that they're purely extractive, so that won't happen.
        • Rochusan hour ago
          > never explicitly mentioned law.

          The fellow said "It should be required to include the AI model as a featured artist"; the common means is laws and regulations, like in the food industry.

          > They could actually differentiate themselves...

          Instead, it will go in exactly the opposite direction: the record monopolists will use AI themselves to further improve their already high margins. They have already secured the technology for this, if you have been following the news about Suno and Udio.

      • Capricorn24812 hours ago
        > If you start to require such things, then you should also require that labels declare whether the artist indeed sung him/herself, and whether it was their real voice or some autotuned stuff

        How do you complain about regulations, and then insist on more regulations? These seem like two completely orthogonal things to me. One is to prevent unmitigated spam on music platforms. The other corrects your pitch slightly.

        • Rochusan hour ago
          "If *you* start to require such things, then *you* should.."

          > prevent unmitigated spam on music platforms

          That's not the true reason. The reason is that some clever people have found out how to earn money with fake musicians. As a musician myself I can tell you, that such operations make the already completely unjust compensation scheme even worse for real musicians. But even if this scam was avoided, we still would suffer from the exploitative and abhorrent compensation scheme imposed by the record monopolists (who simultaneously claim to represent the interests of artists while primarily lining their own pockets).

          If you are interested instead whether it was a real artist or just an AI (or a "stunt performer" pretending to be an artist, which includes all people who can't sing in tune without autotune), then you should be as consistent as the food industry. Personally, I'm more interested in the music itself. It's nice to know who played it, but that doesn't change the musical quality.

    • kgwxd4 hours ago
      That would require people go outside, and pay for stuff. No one want to go outside, and no one can afford anything.
      • MisterTea3 hours ago
        All you need are screens.
  • jaapz3 hours ago
    If AI is able to write songs that are listened to so much, maybe pop music has just become too generic and derivative?
    • schiffern3 hours ago
      Per the video it seems the songs are not being listened to so much, but rather artificially boosted by fake traffic and/or (less likely imo) Spotify itself.
      • NedF2 hours ago
        [dead]
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
    • thm2 hours ago
      It's bots listening to bots.
  • bogzz3 hours ago
    It is utterly unbelievable to me that these platforms haven't done anything about generated content yet.

    Hell, a music streaming company could make bank with simply a draconian, human-enforced ban on slop. (I understand it's not a simple problem, but there doesn't even seem to be an attempt at fixing it).

    I was a Spotify user for 5 years and a Duolingo paid user for 3 years. When I got recommended slop in a random playlist twice, I unsubscribed and have no intention of ever returning. I cancelled my Duolingo subscription as soon as the imbecile CEO made a big stink about replacing workers with LLMs.

    Fuck those companies, we shouldn't even give them a chance at rehabilitation.

    • firmretention3 hours ago
      A lot of these platforms are actually generating the content themselves to stick into playlists so that when users listen to them, they get 100% of the royalties.
      • bogzz2 hours ago
        I went on a short camping trip with my 60+ year old neighbor a couple months ago. He loves country. He had his Spotify playing songs for him the entire trip, and about 20% of the songs were slop. I felt like I was riding with Jerry listening to Human Music (from Rick&Morty).
  • weare138an hour ago
    If you are sick of AI music just start stealing it. AI generated media is not copyrightable. The people shoveling all this AI music can't claim ownership of it. It's generated from models trained on copyrighted content. Also wholly generated media is not covered under copyright laws to begin with if a human wasn't involved in it's creation.

    So just start reposting and monetizing music from AI generated 'artists. Undermine it's value and the market for it. Eventually the time and cost of producing it would be more than the profits someone could generate monetizing it. Then people will stop wasting their time on it.

  • ducktastic4 hours ago
    I wonder if Spotify's AI Artist push is to break into markets usually defaulted to Muzak Company