101–110 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is also a reason why X has gotten worse. They pay people for engagement.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is also a reason why X has gotten worse. They pay people for engagement.
[flagged]
Accounts pushing white supremacy, the reversion of women's rights, hatred towards other on the basis of their race or religion, climate change denial, denial of science and promotion of pseudoscience, etc etc. are heavily promoted across the platform and get millions of engagements.
If you create a new account, the majority of the accounts you are shown and suggested to follow will be those pushing the above.
They've switched to a model of paying their users for engagement, which naturally encourages users to post the most engagement bait they can, which tends to be inflammatory and utterly lacking in depth or nuance.
Some of this is sensible. The copyright authority (can't recall right this moment what it is called in the US) has said only works by human beings are copyrightable. A good argument is that therefore there is no reason to pay royalties on AI generated work as it is the equivalent to public domain. Take away the attraction to the grifters and you reduce the issue. Of course this does not eliminate the problem of the s…
That has some different second order consequences that I don't think you're seeing. It's not that they will be free to you as a user, it's more that they will be free from the platform perspective to do whatever they want with the revenue they get from it.
Say for example you have a platform with Spotify monetization scheme for instance, which is already very unfair to small artists. But now imagine you have to compete to be included on auto play or playlists against something that's basically free for Spotify, what's your chance of getting any money out of it? Say Spotify changes their algorithm and starts pushing 20% of all auto play playlists to consist of AI songs, that's basically a 20% bump on their profit basis.
Why demonetize? What if people wants to pay for AI music? What about the long tail? There is a market for everything, just label it and let it be.
The other aspect that's missing from the discussion here is LEGAL. If Tidal is making money from stolen music -- although arguably they still are by offering it on a subscription basis -- then that opens them up to litigation. From that perspective, this may double both as risk-mitigation and also a marketing opportunity for them, would love an attorney to weigh in there.
(From the comments here, Spotify is the market leader and already pays out for AI generated music. But I can't say that independently.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is also a reason why X has gotten worse. They pay people for engagement.
[flagged]
> I don't know anyone that's paid to engage, including myself.
Anecdotal; people get paid / pay to post and promote certain content. But that's nothing new on social media.
That said, escaping or avoiding bubbles is good, just be sure you're actually out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Music is about connecting to human emotions, not poor facsimiles of it "art is in the eye of the beholder." I listen to a lot of EDM, which can be very mechanical, but I personally have strong emotional connection to. I personally would welcome AI-generated music as an alternative to human-made. To be clear: I do agree a "human-verified" system would be great, but I don't think it would be black and white. And I wo…
I made (what would eventually get called) EDM in high school and a lot of what I enjoyed was dismissed as “not real music”. It’s not a musician playing it, but a computer! Unless a guitarist was plucking strings or a pianist hitting the keys, it wasn’t “real”. Doesn’t matter how carefully crafted it was: it’s only real if you couldn’t hit “play”. Sorry, Mike Oldfield. Hate to break it to you that you’re a fake musici…
> Tidal will accept AI-generated music. > Tidal will hold AI-generated music to a higher standard of content integrity. We will not tolerate AI-generated music that exploits an individual’s or group’s music, name or likeness, deceives listeners, or diminishes the quality of our service. I think this is a very reasonable approach, and probably also the best way to treat AI-powered copyright infringement as a whole. Ju…
The flood of AI music on their platform is becuase people can make money off it. If you turn off that faucet you stop the flooding.
Similar feelings about Nebula vs YouTube, although Nebula straight up doesn’t have entire genres, or videos in languages other than English, so it doesn’t really work as a general recommendation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
junk food is a common misconception about electronic music with ppl who have only listened to trash versions of it on social media.
I don’t mean electronic music writ large, I mean AI generated music. Electronic music is probably my favorite genre, broadly. But there’s a human behind the machine, not a random collection of patterns. To use a concrete example: NIN is about 1000% more interesting because of who Trent Reznor is, and not because it’s merely good music. This disconnect is much more of an issue with say, country or bluegrass or jazz. T…