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

271–280 of 359 posts

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#271

Post by calny »

Slow_Hand wrote: post #246
summarybot wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a musician I can definitely tell when a song has been arranged by AI but performed by humans. There are a couple of chart-toppers done this way. I won't give up the ghost, though ;)

It would be far more interesting if you did. Not sure why you feel need to keep it secret.

I’m also curious! Are you keeping a secret because you don’t want people to try to find work arounds, kind of like prompting LLMs not to say “delve” or “tapestry” in order to make your AI writing sound less like AI? Or is it something else?

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#272

Post by make3 »

summarybot wrote: post #133
calny wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about they will apply the part saying "AI-generated music will not be monetizable." What does AI-generated music mean, exactly? What if you make an AI generated bassline but produce the rest of a track by hand? How about an AI vocal? Or a mix of AI stems and your own recordings? Tidal's terms and conditions ( https://tidal.com/terms ) say that: > “AI-Generated Content” means any audio content, inclusive o…

As a musician I can definitely tell when a song has been arranged by AI but performed by humans. There are a couple of chart-toppers done this way. I won't give up the ghost, though ;)

toupée fallacy

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#273

Post by delis-thumbs-7e »

janalsncm wrote: post #265
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.

What is your response to Tidal’s statement > Artificial intelligence and machine learning are not new to music creation, they have just become more commonplace and advanced In other words, there is no bright line. AI techniques have been a part of music creation from the start. What makes bad AI music hard to detect and remove is the fact that it is a much closer approximation of regular music.

As always, what is AI? I have used algorithmic machine learning tools to help in mixing and mastering tracks years ago. Generative music has existed in some sense as long as electronically amplified music has. These all at heart have some human sensibility directing them to wards communication with other people ac part of rhe socio-cultural language of humanity music and art are.

However, startups providing at massive loss wep applications with which you can prompt with few words some inane crap is completely a new phenomenon and it has as much to do with music as spam emails have with literature. It is pretty clear what the difference is.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#274

Post by recursive »

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.

I went to see an orchestra performance. They literally just only made sound by dragging their bows across the strings on their "instruments". I can confidently say that is not music.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#275

Post by jimt1234 »

tiahura wrote: post #71

Interesting discussion with Jeff Bridges on Suno: https://x.com/adityarao310/status/2071488913630204209/video/...

I think the question Theo asks is the most relevant: Do you think [an AI-generated song] holds as much value? And I think we've been asking this question for years now, in different contexts: recorded music (records), copyable music (dual cassette recorders, CD-burners, mp3s), sampled music (of other artists' songs), AutoTune (basically removing the human singer from the song), etc. I feel like we've been marching toward this for nearly a hundred years now, replacing the human connection to the music with something artificial.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#276

Post by thewebguyd »

gruez wrote: post #269
thewebguyd wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ow…

>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. They don't need to sublicense it because the license was already granted by you. Stackoverflow comments are licen…

Anthropic can decide who gets to use their service. They have complete control over their services and service.

It still breaks down once the output has left the system though. Anthropic cannot tell you what you can and cannot do with the LLM's output, they do not own that, its public domain. Anthropic can pursue breach of contract, maybe, but they can't do anything regarding your use of the model's output. If China can't access Claude directly, they can just pay some other user in the states to run some prompts and paste the output on a public website, and then use that output and there is nothing Anthropic can do about it.

Fair point on StackOverflow, but they are the exception rather than the norm. Most social media doesn't license the content under creative commons.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#277

Post by make3 »

thewebguyd wrote: post #214
Grombobulous wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that the US copyright office/various judges already determined that anything created 100% by AI is not copyrightable. A synthesizer is not AI.

Minor correction, but in the US it's not anything that's 100% by AI, it's LLM output itself is not copyrightable. Human elements injected into LLM output are. Raw LLM output lacks human authorship, and it was ruled cannot be registered for copyright protection. Raw LLM output is automatically public domain (which is also why its silly for Anthropic to be in such a tizzy about China using Claude's output, Claude's out…

That's honestly so dumb, if I use a non AI computerized tool to generate orders of notes or orders of characters, I own the output. AI is just that. It's a fancy computer program that cost billions to build.

This is giving weird independent moral grounding to AI as more than a computer that has never existed before. And what kind of AI does it count for ? Does it also count for image classifiers? For image quality improvers? etc

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#278

Post by make3 »

oasisbob wrote: post #195
p-e-w wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is “created 100% by AI” though, because AIs don’t create things without human instructions.

How much instruction do you need though? What if I prompt Claude to go prompt Suno? What if the same chain happens internally at Suno? Easy to imagine the human input being very dilute and a small part overall.

Claude is a computer program, so is Suno. Someone has to pay Anthropic & to run Claude. AI does not have special moral grounding in our society.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#279

Post by ninglor »

rurp wrote: post #236
MisterTea wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just broke 1000 albums this past weekend. It's delightful to be able to just listen to something then hand the artist money and download the flac files. I also really like the quasi social aspect where users have simple profiles. No messages between users, no likes, no ratings, no BS. About the most you can do is leave a text review. Your profile is an image and text field so you can write a simple bio and provide li…

Do you have any recommendations for casual listening of downloaded music files? I'm pretty done with Spotify and would rather spend money on Bandcamp. The main hurdle is that I'm not enough of a music person to want to spend much time organizing a collection, I just want an easy way to put some music on while I'm working.

[dead]

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#280

Post by lelanthran »

injidup wrote: post #95
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…

Tidal should simply ban AI generated music from upload if they are not willing to pay uploaders should the music become popular. Under these rules an AI generated country and western song that makes it to number 1 on the billboard chart makes Tidal money and the uploader nothing.

> Under these rules an AI generated country and western song that makes it to number 1 on the billboard chart makes Tidal money and the uploader nothing.

Why should the uploader get anything? I can agree that maybe they get a couple of dollars to cover their token cost, but since the uploader isn't paying royalties to the people who were used to train the model, I don't see any moral reason for the uploader to get anything,

Post reply on HN