311–320 of 359 posts
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.
So why not just disallow it entirely, if that’s the goal?
People who like to write lyrics, but can't afford to pay a vocalist still deserve to get their art materialized and distributed.
Everything in-between seems to me to be extremely fair game for the problem of music production. We can hold our nuanced debates about what constitutes "AI generated" while listening to some minimal EDM tracks to remind ourselves how fine a line we must walk.
I do have a music recommendation from a live person. After check was not a real person, it was quite a popular ai artist doing funk music. Here we are. music is great, people do not suspect it's ai, artist behind AI is making money. Real work, real people are happy. It's just the voice and instruments are not real. How is it different from club music made in fruity loops? This music is just more complicated, hence no…
> artist behind AI is making money. Real work, real people are happy. I would not call someone typing words into a prompt an "artist" doing "real work", and they definitely should not be monetizing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What connection to morality is there from taking action and earning less money? I can think of many morally positive situations that would match this odd vague phrasing you're presenting.
I think the parent poster is saying that if there's a "this is AI, don't give me any money" checkbox, most people will lie and not check it, because they do not have the amount of morality it takes to accept demonetization.
> 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…
Really don't mean any offence to your comment because you probably mean well but I have little tolerance for the "reasonable"/fence-sitting kind of comments on this kind of issues. If they really cared to much about empowering people creating things for other people, like others have pointed out, they should just ban it. Sure, in reality it's not so easy to just ban AI content because there is a spectrum of it and it…
- I think there are good and useful ways to use AI in art creation
- I also think that AI (especially end to end creation of full songs) is a massive problem for both content moderation and business model aspects of this type of platform
- I don't think a blanket ban on AI in is a good idea (even a bad idea in almost all cases)
You can disagree with these three points and that's fine, but it's not fence sitting when someones position isnt 100% one way or the other
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 think the flood is also due to people in general finding AI generated music passable. I may be in the minority but I like AI generated music. Do you ever really like a song in the current moment and want one almost exactly like that? Mostly for background music. I like to listen to synthwave while working and since I may listen for 10-20h a week, I hear the same songs over and over. Maybe I should be more selective…
dozens if not hundreds of synthwave channels and internet radio stations. but sure, listen to your ai slop muzak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> artist behind AI is making money. Real work, real people are happy. I would not call someone typing words into a prompt an "artist" doing "real work", and they definitely should not be monetizing it.
why person typing prompt to coding agent called developer vs music artist can't be treated as a professional ?
Speak for yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow this rule strictly, but for most of my adult life I've limited most of my book reading to books > 10 years old. If it still seems remotely relevant and worth reading ten years later, it is far less likely to be a waste of my time. Now sure I'm a bit less prepared for water cooler conversations, but overall the policy has served me well. > having trouble finding anything actually good to read on Kindle…
> reading to books > 10 years old I've found myself applying this rule, sometimes unintentionally, to almost all media I consume. It's now a very rare occasion that there's something new that I want to read, watch, or listen to. It just isn't that good, tbh. My music library is full of music from ~2018 and older, most books I enjoy are even older than that, and I can't remember the last time a movie came out that I w…
However, while I mostly agree with the sentiment, in my opinion there is some new good stuff (books, music, movies, etc.) still being created, even if it's harder to find in the sea of mediocrity.
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…
There was an interesting study recently which showed that if you put a human-written short story up against an AI-written short story, the AI wins. But if you put an anthology of AI-written short stories up against an anthology of human-written stories, the human-written anthology wins. I see the same thing in music. I accidentally clicked on a couple of AI albums in YouTube. On a minute-by-minute basis they aren't n…