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

Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 329 posts

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#281

Post by maplethorpe »

pesus wrote: post #51
sigmonsays wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually hurts a little. I hope you reconsider, music is an art, and allowing a computer to regurgitate previous works over and over and be ok with it is awful. Art is to be experienced and enjoyed, not just take whatever trash is thrown at you and be ok with it.

The way so many people on HN and elsewhere don't value art at all is pretty depressing. I don't know if it's a side effect of lack of exposure to art and the humanities growing up or something else, but I can't imagine living that way. What a dull experience life would be without art.

HN is an interesting case, because a lot of those types of comments are likely to be either astroturfing, people who work at those companies, or people who are invested in them. I wouldn't extrapolate too much to the rest of humanity based on the people here.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#282

Post by neonstatic »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #279
neonstatic wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my interpretation of "only to find there is none and that the song was AI generated" in this context

The key words are "there is none". It's not the label, it's the lack of the person writing those lyrics.

Which puts the label "AI made" on it and that changes the listener's perspective. In the example given, the listener had a strong emotional reaction to the sound, but after they put the "AI made" label on it, they suddenly convince themselves to not have that emotional response anymore.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#283

Post by Dylan16807 »

neonstatic wrote: post #282
Dylan16807 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key words are "there is none". It's not the label, it's the lack of the person writing those lyrics.

Which puts the label "AI made" on it and that changes the listener's perspective. In the example given, the listener had a strong emotional reaction to the sound, but after they put the "AI made" label on it, they suddenly convince themselves to not have that emotional response anymore.

> and that changes the listener's perspective

No, that's not the causality. They put the AI label on it and they change their perspective, but the bulk of the perspective change is not specifically because AI, it's because the specific person they felt a connection to doesn't exist. You could get a similar reaction with an extremely impersonal but non-AI method of making a song.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#284

Post by hexasquid »

sevenzero wrote: post #190
jameslk wrote: post #140

I might be in the minority, but I think this anti-AI sentiment is going to be generational. The next AI-native generation to grow up creating AI music, photos, videos, literature, code, etc will think it's silly why the older generation is so appalled at what they created and resistant to using AI to do it I'm not placing a value judgement either way, but I do think there will be a divide in the ways things are done…

Anti AI sentiment regarding arts is the only correct sentiment. Art is about human expression which AI can never achieve.

No machine could create the sublime human connection I get from Crazy Frog.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#285

Post by stuaxo »

mjr00 wrote: post #20
reconnecting wrote: post #12

The more appropriate question is why they published a AI artist at all. I think Spotify (or its owners/investors) might actually benefit from recommending AI-generated music by not having to pay real artists. Like Spotify owns distribution, their largest investor Tencent Music Entertainment Group publishes AI-generated music = almost infinite profit. From news: Tencent Music demonstrated strong revenue (1) growth in…

> The more appropriate question is why they published a AI artist at all. Because they allow anyone to upload to Spotify. There's nothing stopping me, you, or anyone from generating AI tracks with Suno & friends, downloading them, and using a service like LANDR or Amuse to distribute them to Spotify, all for free. > Like Spotify owns distribution, their largest investor Tencent Music Entertainment Group publishes AI-…

Spotify themselves generate AI music, they prefer that to paying artists.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#286

Post by cromka »

ssl-3 wrote: post #258
cromka wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually not! Lyrics aside, it's a banger.l, especially towards the end. If this was crated by any tech house/electro flash producer, Tiga for example, it would be huge.

But this song is an entire composition that includes lyrics, and there isn't much left of it with those lyrics cast aside. It's got no hook.

Did you listen to the end of that video? That's where i got surprised, the lyrics were just a build up.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#287

Post by gverrilla »

AI helped me escape from my Spotify kidnap. The stack I use now: Docker, Lidarr, slskd, Tubifarry, Prowlarr, qBittorrent, Blissful and Soulmate. And Strawberry for playlists/playback. Shoutout to MusicBrainz.

Very happy to be rebuilding my music library. And this time no song will ever become unavailable out of the blue again.

I'm never going to repeat the mistake of migrating to streaming.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#288

Post by arcfour »

xingped wrote: post #257
upmind wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why does it matter to you if it's AI or not? if you enjoy a song you shouldn't resent it just because it's AI generated. Me personally there's many AI songs that I like and enjoy listening to.

Because I care about art being a human endeavor. AI doesn't create art, it regurgitates an unidentifiable goop churned together in its stomach by all the crap its eaten. There is no thought. There is no feeling. There is no meaning. If you only care about the sound, that's cool, enjoy it, but I don't.

It is debatable what thoughts and feelings went into the music of Wesley Willis, of "Whip The Llama's Ass" fame, despite him being human.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#289

Post by delbronski »

I recently used Suno to generate a whole album for myself. I was after a specific style. I had this one song in my head and could not find anything else like it. So I tried Suno, very skeptical of it, but was completely surprised by what it could do.

So I spent a whole day making an album for myself. Completely mesmerised and blown away. Even thinking… I should publish this, this is amazing music. The next day I was listening to it, and after a little while the magic had faded. It felt like just a very generic, average crappy album. It didn’t have the lasting effect and replay value that my favorite albums have.

Maybe it’s because I knew it was AI. Or maybe the magic came from the tech and not the actual music. Anyways, I gave up my music production dreams after that.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#290

Post by djhn »

torben-friis wrote: post #247
userbinator wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if there is no person on the other end, why should I care? There are countless people "on the other end" --- everyone who contributed training data, and of course the one who prompted the AI to generate the result. It's odd that this debate always ends up with one side thinking there's a machine autonomously generating music, when in fact AI-generated music comes from humans using AI to create what they want.

Suppose I ask my tattoo artist for a dragon. Would you agree that I created the tattoo? If not, why then would asking the AI qualify as creation?

This is a fun analogy, even if it’s just novel to me.

With any kind of creative work for hire, from architecture to advertising, from jingles to commisioned sculptures, the client’s taste and budget, more than almost anything else, determine the outcome.

Take Cannes Lions as an example of a competition and awards ceremony that essentially exists to define what ’good taste’ means within that industry. The client’s team is prominently credited alongside the creative agency. They get to climb onto the stage for the speech and they have a voice on whatever video clip is made about the project.

Partly this is to encourage more ambitious and spendy work for the industry at large. But everyone involved certainly knows, that the same creative team, with the same creative idea, could have ended up making something much worse working with a different client team.

I can’t stand AI slop, yet I think I’ve unintentionally argued in favour of people creating it, as long as it’s… good by some measure?

Post reply on HN