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

Tidal AI Policy

tidal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 359 posts

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#181

Post by dkhenry »

JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #169
dkhenry wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go with, if the song could be reasonably performed live by the human publishing it, and have a similar sound to the recording, then its fine to keep in. The issue I have is songs like this one, where there is no way anyone could even try to perform it https://open.spotify.com/track/0jGJtiDfEO9syfSL8AshBF?si=b92...

That doesn't really work for electronic music though. Electronic or not, whether messing with a buchla or producing via vsts and changing knobs around still ends up with a human feel and human choices in a way AI music doesn't. And what about the line between triggers or samples? I can play some impossible AI music if I sample the impossible parts and just say it's a sample played on a synth or whatever.

It would be a shades of gray situation, but I think of this performance by Skrillex where he is mixing live, and thats what I would expect from a live EDM performance. There should be a line between a EDM artist, and a DJ

https://youtu.be/hb0XLX0b4Y4

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#182

Post by visarga »

keiferski wrote: post #116
someguyiguess wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a human behind AI-generated music too. A human writes the prompts. Your distinction seems rather arbitrary.

Typing “make me an electronic guitar song about a bad breakup” is a whole lot different than learning to play the instrument yourself and conveying your own emotions from your real experience into a song that you write and perform. If you can’t see how these are fundamentally different things, I don’t know what to tell you.

Even if you generate the soundtrack, if you set the lyrics it can be great music. At least for one person, who chose the lyrics. I set some poems on music and I absolutely love the results.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#183

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #169
dkhenry wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go with, if the song could be reasonably performed live by the human publishing it, and have a similar sound to the recording, then its fine to keep in. The issue I have is songs like this one, where there is no way anyone could even try to perform it https://open.spotify.com/track/0jGJtiDfEO9syfSL8AshBF?si=b92...

That doesn't really work for electronic music though. Electronic or not, whether messing with a buchla or producing via vsts and changing knobs around still ends up with a human feel and human choices in a way AI music doesn't. And what about the line between triggers or samples? I can play some impossible AI music if I sample the impossible parts and just say it's a sample played on a synth or whatever.

It’s not even limited to “electronic” music. Consider that sound engineers work with hundreds of layers on a single track to engineer a very specific sound. Then a pop star adds vocals. Then those vocals are engineered beyond recognition. Sometimes if the vocalist is talented enough they go on tour and then perform with minimal after-effects, and sometimes they lipsync.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#184

Post by doug_durham »

someguyiguess wrote: post #108
kstrauser wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I learned music production by first learning how to produce house. Because of this, I can confidently say that house is not music. You literally just copy/paste over and over. Just because a human makes something, doesn't make it good or "music" necessarily.

People engage with music in different ways. Some people focus on lyrics and the connection they make. Other people largely ignore lyrics and focus on the rhythms and patterns. Both are valid and both are very human. We do not need gatekeepers coming in and judging what is music and what is not music.

House music can bring me as much joy as listening to Bach performed by a skilled ensemble. It depends on where I am at mentally. Both are valid forms of human expression.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#185

Post by visarga »

keiferski wrote: post #82
observationist wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As of now, you can tell the difference for most AI generated music. There's some where you cannot. There is no Turing Test for taste, and the specific constellation of features that represent your particular interpretation of what things like human, best, goodness, excellence, beauty, and any other label you might apply to abstract qualities will be reproduced at a sufficiently high resolution that you will no longer…

I think most of what you’ve written here only really applies if you listen to music without knowing anything about the musician. That seems pretty uncommon to me, for most people. The most popular musicians in the world are basically celebrity characters, with the music as a key ingredient, not the only one. Do Taylor Swift fans or Kanye fans or [musician] fans just listen to the music and not follow the person? Pret…

> Very different things – an electric guitar doesn’t play music by itself.

And a model does not play good music by itself. Only slop if your contribution is nil. Models are more like pianos than parrots.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#186

Post by fxwin »

mattmatheus wrote: post #39
fxwin wrote: post #8

> 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…

Not sure about the stated principal, but I do think it follows the policy nicely. Yes, you can upload your AI generated music, but it will be tagged as such, and you cannot profit from it.

The issue i have with it will depend heavily on implementation, i can see cases where songs that i would consider "produced and written" by people don't qualify for royalties under Tidal's guidelines. (I intentionally left out the "performed" part, since digital music production is way past the point where this was an easy and/or meaningful distinction)

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#187

Post by JauntyHatAngle »

dkhenry wrote: post #181
JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really work for electronic music though. Electronic or not, whether messing with a buchla or producing via vsts and changing knobs around still ends up with a human feel and human choices in a way AI music doesn't. And what about the line between triggers or samples? I can play some impossible AI music if I sample the impossible parts and just say it's a sample played on a synth or whatever.

It would be a shades of gray situation, but I think of this performance by Skrillex where he is mixing live, and thats what I would expect from a live EDM performance. There should be a line between a EDM artist, and a DJ https://youtu.be/hb0XLX0b4Y4

Sure but a producer has never needed to be able to be a live artist. Making the music is the only requirement and that totally fine.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#188

Post by Forgeties79 »

jdiff wrote: post #157
dcrazy wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t been on Twitter since before Elon took over. Do most users ever interact with Grok?

It waxes and it wanes, but people breathlessly asking Grok "IS THIS TRUE??" is prevalent. People often call on Grok to argue their points for them. The interaction is inflicted.

Then they get upset when grok doesn’t agree with Trump/musk and call a computer “woke”

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#189

Post by fxwin »

vkou wrote: post #154
fxwin wrote: post #8

> 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 difference between AI and artists is that artists are humans, which should grant them more rights and fewer penalties than some fucking software. Artists don't get penalized, but for that reason, we should penalize the hell out of it. If a bunch of hyper intelligent space aliens came in and started squeezing the rest of us out of creative economic activity, they shouldn't be on an equal playing field either. Laws…

> Laws and rules exist to serve humans, not machines.

Machines don't go out on their own to create and upload music, they do so under human instruction, so their output should be policed the same way we police other machine generated output directed by humans.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#190

Post by dawnerd »

obloid wrote: post #50
VladVladikoff wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've encountered AI copies of songs from popular artists, hopefully this will stop or at least slow that down. I suspect the only reason those songs are uploaded is because people will accidentally listen to it and then the up loader gets the streaming revenue.

It’s really bad on smaller artists that had moderate vitality on TikTok. Or at least it’s easier to spot since they have smaller catalogs. Encountered some on Apple Music the other day that outright had the artist listed and according to Apple it was from the artist.

IMO they need to focus on the scam side more than the AI side.

Post reply on HN