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

301–310 of 329 posts

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

#301

Post by scragz »

arcfour wrote: post #288
xingped wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

rock over london rock on chicago! pontiac we build driving excitement

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

#302

Post by tim333 »

grokys wrote: post #95

I do wonder why AI music is so lame. Every previous technological advancement in music produced amazing new sounds and styles but AI music seems to just be emulating lowest common denominator pop sludge. Where's the Bruce Haack or Kraftwerk of AI? Surely there's a previously unimaginable sound palette out there that we could be pulling from. Why is it all so BAD?

There's something about the transformer model where you stick a lot of data in and output tokens that kicks out stuff which is kind of average without much underlying understanding. I'm looking forward to AI that goes beyond that but so far it's kind of bland.

As a classical music fan there's a kind of variation in depth and complexity that probably peaks with late Bach and Beethoven and I always thought it would be interesting if tech could go beyond that but so far it's not close to equaling it.

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

#303

Post by taegee »

Bender wrote: post #155

This is a good start. I would like to see a standardized browser client header that could tell a site that if I see anything AI related I will block their domain and to disable all AI related crud. Similar in concept to the useless DNT header but instead NOAI so I do not have to be logged in to disable AI content on Youtube for example. For the record I do not dislike all AI content. I enjoy the YT channels that non-…

It's impossible to label AI content in general. Actually, I'm quite sick of all the "label AI" mumble. The only thing you can reliably do is to prove that someone is a human.

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

#304

Post by torben-friis »

djhn wrote: post #290
torben-friis wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tea…

>the client’s taste and budget, more than almost anything else, determine the outcome.

That's a curious take. So we should change history books to declare Sixtus IV as author of the Sistine chapel, since Michelangelo was but a vessel or his taste and budget.

Sarcasm aside, I can accept some agency and curation in the act of choosing what to ask for. But I think appropriating the act of creation without being required to even have a passing idea on how to actually execute it, that I can only conceive as an undescribable act of ego and entitlement.

I can't take seriously the people who want to claim the title of musician without learning to play, be writers without having faced a blank sheet or even read others that much, etc.

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

#305

Post by torben-friis »

troosevelt wrote: post #249
torben-friis wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is absolutely some form of creation there. The most basic models now are just prompts but somebody has to prompt them, there is a human being there prompting the song and then deciding to share it (a form of curation). I'd imagine these will get more and more granular to where you're not just prompting but you are gradually building up songs and at that point I'd be surprised if people were still making this ar…

Some form of creation, maybe. In the same sense that choosing what restaurant to go to and what to order is an act of creation. Going ahead and declaring yourself the chef is, however, ridiculous.

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

#306

Post by Bender »

taegee wrote: post #303
Bender wrote: post #155

This is a good start. I would like to see a standardized browser client header that could tell a site that if I see anything AI related I will block their domain and to disable all AI related crud. Similar in concept to the useless DNT header but instead NOAI so I do not have to be logged in to disable AI content on Youtube for example. For the record I do not dislike all AI content. I enjoy the YT channels that non-…

It's impossible to label AI content in general. Actually, I'm quite sick of all the "label AI" mumble. The only thing you can reliably do is to prove that someone is a human.

The only thing you can reliably do is to prove that someone is a human.

And even that is nearly impossible on the internet. If I can arm wrestle them in person I may vouch that they are human but I could still be wrong.

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

#307

Post by Kye »

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-…

LANDR and Amuse dropped their free options.

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

#308

Post by djhn »

torben-friis wrote: post #304
djhn wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tea…

>the client’s taste and budget, more than almost anything else, determine the outcome. That's a curious take. So we should change history books to declare Sixtus IV as author of the Sistine chapel, since Michelangelo was but a vessel or his taste and budget. Sarcasm aside, I can accept some agency and curation in the act of choosing what to ask for. But I think appropriating the act of creation without being required…

I agree with the sentiment. And I think we’ve accidentally stumbled upon how the prompt-writer should be viewed: the buyer, or sponsor of the output. A punter, if you will, would be even more appropriate. The financial commitment is minor amd the process is largely a gamble.

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

#309

Post by layman51 »

hacker161 wrote: post #273
mathgladiator wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I basically only listen to AI music now... https://www.youtube.com/@EndlessTaverns

You couldn’t waterboard this sort of confession out of me. Imagine proclaiming publicly that you have zero-taste and only consume AI slop

I think it can sort of make sense for some people who sort of listen to music as a background noise. But for me, when I am listening to a new song, I get curious about who the artist(s) is/are. Do they sound better in a live performance? What other music or artists inspired them? What other artists sound like them?

I don’t think it would be easy for a “AI” artist to not be suspicious to me unless they were like some kind of character that is made up by a record label or another artist.

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

#310

Post by troosevelt »

customguy wrote: post #292
troosevelt wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People generally listen to music because they enjoy it. Is it because somebody is on the other end? I mean it's possible, but I think just liking the song is just as much if not more important. You pretty regularly see comments by people that say they enjoy a song until they find out it was generated. That tells me it's not about the music but about something they believe about generated music. Why do you suggest tha…

> That tells me it's not about the music but about something they believe about generated music. Or it's something they know , namely there being nobody at the other end. By your logic, a love letter you get from a real person and one that was generated would be the same thing, because "only the words should matter". To me it doesn't make sense to say that about music in precisely the same sense I assume you agree it…

> Or it's something they know, namely there being nobody at the other end.

But until they were told otherwise, they did not know and did not care.

> Why this push to somehow "overcome" that? Why can't generated stuff be for people who like it, and the people who don't like it say that once, and that's the end of the discussion and simply gets respected as boundaries humans set for themselves?

I'm not sure. I think it's close-minded but I understand and can respect the feeling. What I don't respect is when people start saying that people who like this music are somehow listening to something less human or other variatations that you can see in this very thread. For some reason, we as humans care about this, though you're right, we should just be able to accept both sides.

Post reply on HN