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

251–260 of 359 posts

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#251

Post by abenga »

neutronicus wrote: post #159
keiferski wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think a lot of songs about bad break-ups were written by talented musicians without actual experience of a bad break-up, riffing on the corpus of songs they'd heard about bad break-ups. Like, a lot of times you're just engaging with someone's desire to have made a song, and what they felt about some songs that someone else made.

You are describing empathy, a human experience.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#252

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

blehn wrote: post #213
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI music != electronic music. Most AI music is actually country-pop ballads and indie folk. Making electronic music with AI is hard and it isn't very good at it.

YouTube is already recommending tons of AI-generated electronic music. It's pretty easy to spot: It will have millions of views and the "artist's" discography will only go back to 2025 or 2026. It's usually just singles. The cover art is vague atmospheric AI-generated. The "artist" will have no presence online save for a couple instagram account with a couple posts that are also AI-generated.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all, I'm saying electronic music is significantly harder for AI to do than a conventional love ballad or a rock song.

AI can't do "robotic" math music, it's best at sappy generic emotive stuff. (I guess this isn't at all a surprise for those that know how the musical sausage is made.)

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#253

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #212
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is not a tool, it is an oracle. Furthermore, it is an oracle built on copyright infringement. Do you understand the difference between "tool" and "oracle"?

No. Explain.

Tools are things that you 100 percent control based on nothing but your own skill.

Oracles are things that give you free stuff if you've been a good boy and respected the oracle's rituals.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#254

Post by cush »

recursive wrote: post #238
cush wrote: post #89

This is so surprising coming from Tidal - their entire business was built on high-fidelity, crediting artists, and paying them more

It seems consistent to me. I'm not sure if suno represents the state of the art, but the output I've heard from there seems to be noticeably lower fidelity than a skilled amateur recording. In many cases, it's still more than good enough. But Tidal advertises things like "lossless", which is a much higher fidelity threshold than anything suno can produce, at least that I've heard. Crediting artists might be taken to…

I suppose. To me, Tidal was always on the side of artists rather than big faceless studios. Now there's an even bigger, even more faceless entity - and it's surprising to me that Tidal is giving them a platform rather than blocking it entirely

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#255

Post by waffletower »

Given that Tidal will likely, and ironically, utilize AI to determine what music is considered AI, the decision to block monetization of AI categorized music is likely also unfair to artists who use spectral DSP and/or sample from AI generated sources though largely compose music in a manner similar to other common computer mediated music studio workflows. Such music may very well land in the realm of false positives. This is another step by streaming platforms which funnels and restricts musical creativity.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#256

Post by echelon »

keiferski wrote: post #30

I really hope someone makes a music platform in the future that is verified as human-made. Music is about connecting to human emotions, not poor facsimiles of it. Tie it to in-person concerts and it might actually work as a business, as well as logistically – maybe the company can be a record producer in disguise and physically meet every musician they host.

> Music is about connecting to human emotions, not poor facsimiles of it.

Music is about making my brain feel good. I don't care what/who makes it. If I like it, I like it.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#257

Post by gonzalohm »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #253
mapontosevenths wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Explain.

Tools are things that you 100 percent control based on nothing but your own skill. Oracles are things that give you free stuff if you've been a good boy and respected the oracle's rituals.

So if I sample a guitar because I don't know how to play the guitar, is the tool I used to sample it "an oracle"?

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#258

Post by thewebguyd »

gruez wrote: post #250
thewebguyd wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is in licensing. Those platforms are protecting (or rather, monetizing) a database of human authored assets which those humans have given them a license to exploit. Anthropic (and others) are trying to protect a stream of uncopyrightable, public-domain machine outputs.

I don't see how that's relevant. They have a license to redistribute my comments, but that's the extent of their legal rights with respect to my work. They're not my agent or my publisher. Moreover I don't have any say in the matter. If I'm pro AI scraping, I can't tell them "yeah it's fine to scrape my comment, don't put up any captcha walls". Finally, what if I dedicate my comments to the public domain? Does that m…

The license goes beyond redistribution. You are granting a sublicensable and transferable right to your content, giving the platform the legal authority to sell or license it (or to not license it) to AI scrapers and other entities. The platform's right to block said scrapers comes from posession rights.

Its like if you made a painting and put it in a museum. You still technically own the copyright, but the museum owns the building. They can lock the door, charge admissino, kick out anyone they want, prevent anyone they want from seeing it, etc. You licensing it to them makes it their private property to do with what they wish.

> I can't tell them "yeah it's fine to scrape my comment, don't put up any captcha walls".

Correct, because you signed away that control.

> what if I dedicate my comments to the public domain?

That means you forfeit copyright, but you cannot waive the platform's rights regarding their servers.

But, because you still retain copyright (or in the case that its public domain), you can and are welcome to submit it to AI companies yourself. Just because Reddit may not allow a scraper, that doesn't remove my right as the copyright holder to re-submit my comment to another platform that does allow the scraper.

The difference with Anthropic/LLM output is that there are zero intellectual property rights over the outputs once they leave the API endpoint.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#259

Post by devmor »

echelon wrote: post #256
keiferski wrote: post #30

I really hope someone makes a music platform in the future that is verified as human-made. Music is about connecting to human emotions, not poor facsimiles of it. Tie it to in-person concerts and it might actually work as a business, as well as logistically – maybe the company can be a record producer in disguise and physically meet every musician they host.

> Music is about connecting to human emotions, not poor facsimiles of it. Music is about making my brain feel good. I don't care what/who makes it. If I like it, I like it.

Consumption vs. Appreciation in a single pair of comments, what a beautiful dichotomy of the human experience of art.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#260

Post by copperx »

pier25 wrote: post #243
wakamoleguy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is only zero incentive if the filter detects AI music reliably. It's still a race between effective detection and cost to generate content, isn't it?

Suno et al don't really have a incentive to hide the fact that their tracks are generated using AI. Quite the contrary, the only way they won't get sued to death by UMG and the other big labels is to disclose AI generated tracks.

Doesn't Warner Music own Suno?
Post reply on HN