Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An odd discovery on Spotify

robinsloan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 442 posts

Re: An odd discovery on Spotify

#231

Post by hakanensari »

adamauckland wrote: post #215
midasz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a father of a young child, Spotify's algo's are completely useless to me. If their ML is so smart it should be able to determine that Row row row your boat doesn't mix well with Anthrax. Wish I'd be able to toggle 'don't recommend kids music' somewhere.

Can't really complain if they offer Spotify Family which gives you 6 separate premium accounts, I think it's only double the cost of a normal Spotify account.

That unfortunately doesn't solve it. There will always be moments where kids will want to ask for songs on your Spotify, like you're renting a car and have your phone hooked up.

Re: An odd discovery on Spotify

#232

Post by hakanensari »

midasz wrote: post #160
merijnv wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Happens to me a lot on Youtube too - you watch just one thing - and now your recommendations are full of things like that one thing. Spotify's recommendation system is much better than youtube's (at least for me). I frequently "joke" that it is one of the few applications of ML that actively make my life as a consumer better. Having been following Spotify's "Discover Weekly" for several years now, I'm actually real…

As a father of a young child, Spotify's algo's are completely useless to me. If their ML is so smart it should be able to determine that Row row row your boat doesn't mix well with Anthrax. Wish I'd be able to toggle 'don't recommend kids music' somewhere.

Don't these end up in separate mixes, though? My 13 year old makes a lot of grime requests on road trips etc. and now I have a separate grime mix under my top mixes.

Re: An odd discovery on Spotify

#234

Post by duckmysick »

rightbyte wrote: post #190
merijnv wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Happens to me a lot on Youtube too - you watch just one thing - and now your recommendations are full of things like that one thing. Spotify's recommendation system is much better than youtube's (at least for me). I frequently "joke" that it is one of the few applications of ML that actively make my life as a consumer better. Having been following Spotify's "Discover Weekly" for several years now, I'm actually real…

Spotify's algorithm works really well until you let someone else use the account. I wish there was a "child mode", "party mode" or whatever to disable updating recommendations.

Perhaps Private listening is what you're looking for, assuming it's working as advertised.

https://support.spotify.com/us/article/private-listening/

Re: An odd discovery on Spotify

#235

Post by mrtksn »

caseyross wrote: post #20

With the success of AI content generation for text (GPT-3 etc.) and images (DALL-E etc.), it seems inevitable that music will soon be targeted as well, if not already. What's particularly interesting in the music sphere is that there are already well-established trends towards building a sort of ambient, atmospheric, generated soundscape. (For example, the famous "Lo-Fi girl" stream.) AI-generated content is a very n…

Considering that significant portion of the pop music produced in the last 30 years is made by a few people like Max Martin, one can assume that there's a formula for writing music that people love. Seems promising for AI to be honest.

Re: An odd discovery on Spotify

#236

Post by lizardactivist »

usednet wrote: post #28

People have been noticing this a lot recently but what nobody seems to know is that this is a form of money laundering/“scamming.” I know because I used to be active on crime forums and talked to some of the people who engineered this scheme. People will set up fake Spotify artist accounts with stolen identities and bank accounts, pay a musician for songs that pass as music, and then bot millions of streams on them.…

How do the scammers get the money if they use someone else's (stolen) identity and bank account?

Also, how do they succeed in keeping this scheme for more than a few days after the identity theft is noticed and reported to the police?

And why would they not just take the very music they just bought and paid for, and publish that as any other artist do? There's no crime in buying the rights from another artist -- that's exactly what all music labels do.

Re: An odd discovery on Spotify

#237

Post by [deleted] »

objclxt wrote: post #116
netsharc wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a shitton of crap movies in Hollywood. I wonder... Of course Hollywood accounting is already "This movie took $100 million at the box office, we spent $98 million on 'marketing', using our own internal marketing company.". I guess making crap Hollywood movies loses you money rather than laundering it...

> There is a shitton of crap movies in Hollywood. I wonder... The movie doesn't need to be crap to be a product of money laundering! The Wolf of Wall Street[1] was infamously funded by money laundering (from the Malaysian Sovereign Wealth Fund), [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_of_Wall_Street_(2013_...

[deleted]

Re: An odd discovery on Spotify

#238

Post by smarx007 »

gernb wrote: post #9
dangrossman wrote: post #6

> A single kitchen operating under many names to increase its algorithmic “surface area”; another shape of things to come. I find this infuriating. There's one dominican restaurant in my city that's listed on DoorDash, Grubhub and UberEats under over 20 different names with different subsets of their menu. All of these duplicate listings for the same place make it harder to search or browse the actual restaurant opti…

And this is why the semantic web will never work.

No, they will just all be marked "owl:sameAs" (though it's not as smooth as one would think [1]) in semantic web.

[1]: https://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws21

Re: An odd discovery on Spotify

#239

Post by lizardactivist »

dizhn wrote: post #216

It sounds like the Fake Artists thing which is designed to make sure Spotify gets all the money and does not have to pay royalties. They basically either have salaried/contracted musicians or pay a one time fee without royalties to make passable songs in every genre. Then they push their own songs in lists so people will listen to them more than "real" artists. https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/fake-artists-h…

Obviously not. A scheme like that would never stand up to scrutiny or an actual investigation.

Re: An odd discovery on Spotify

#240

Post by rightbyte »

dento wrote: post #210
rightbyte wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify's algorithm works really well until you let someone else use the account. I wish there was a "child mode", "party mode" or whatever to disable updating recommendations.

There is. Called "private session" in the settings.

Oh ... today I learned. Awesome.

It is cryptically called "hide activity" in my translation of Spotify.

Post reply on HN