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

351–359 of 359 posts

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#351

Post by horsawlarway »

intrikate wrote: post #158
horsawlarway wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, this is also how I mostly listen to music - I set a song or two I like, then I let auto-discovery keep adding to the list. If I happen to like it, I hit thumbs up/like. Otherwise I ignore it. I sometimes go through and browse musicians, mainly to see if they have other songs I might like, but generally speaking... it's not high on my list of priorities. Then again, I don't give a shit about the "pop" aspect…

> Samplers and grooveboxes absolutely play music by themselves. I disagree. You cannot take your Akai MPC out of the box and ask it to play music. You have to load samples, you have to arrange them and you have to instruct it to play. That seems like a far cry to me from "playing themselves." You still have to... write the music.

Real question, have you actually used any of the llm based media generation tooling?

Because "load samples, arrange them, and instruct it to do a thing" are basically the required steps.

Arguably, if you don't care much about the result, you can skip loading samples.

> You still have to... write the music.

When? When you load up other folk's samples? When you press a play button? When you arrange other folk's samples?

It's a recording device that plays samples. It doesn't give a flying flip about who wrote them.

You might choose to write samples, lots of people using them don't.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#352

Post by red-iron-pine »

JAlexoid wrote: post #311
paxys wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why not just disallow it entirely, if that’s the goal?

Because AI music can be still valuable. People who like to write lyrics, but can't afford to pay a vocalist still deserve to get their art materialized and distributed.

those people are called poets, or songwriters.

and they can pay someone who can play an instrument to make it happen, or do it themselves.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#353

Post by summarybot »

ozzmotik wrote: post #328
Foreignborn wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are there tells beyond the lyrics? I swear there are a number of songs using out of “human distribution” words, trigrams, etc. Is it overall song structure?

as someone who extensively uses generative AI in my creative process, I personally have not found any reliable tells in my output to distinguish it from traditionally produced music, with the exception of when suno goes off the rails and just generates a 7:59 piece that is just randomly averaging across latent space. but even that sounds less like AI generated slop and more like a plunderphonics adjacent sound collag…

thank you for your thoughts as disheveled and unorganized as they may be ;)

can you tell me more about what "genres" you work in primarily? for example , when you prompt suno , what are the typical keywords you use to describe the atmosphere, rhythm, key/mood ? as chart-toppers typically fall into a narrow band of genre types.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#354

Post by huxley »

bunderbunder wrote: post #338
nerdsniper wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much, much more difficult to enforce / obtain remedy, but it’s also against the law in the USA as well.

In the USA you could possibly just contact your credit card company and have them issue a chargeback. And then Kobo might just let it go because it costs more to contest it.

Take care. In North America some services will ban you for doing a chargeback and that can be a big problem if you have a lot of content on the service

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#355

Post by thewebguyd »

make3 wrote: post #326
thewebguyd wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USCO's decision hinges on whether or not a human has predictive, mechanical control over the final output. The ruling applies to Generative AI, the USCO made a separate distinction for assistive AI, which image classifiers would fall under. > “Authors have long used such tools to create their works or to recast, transform, or adapt their expressive authorship. … what matters is the extent to which the human had c…

AI cost companies billions of dollars to make the time of hundreds of expert researchers. You're saying that my tool became too good so I can't make money from it anymore? What about protein language models that create new protein drugs, can pharmaceutical companies not protect them too? That's straight up the same time of model as LLMs and image models.

"I'm" not saying anything, I didn't make the ruling, the US Copyright office did.

Copyright is a human concept, to protect the exclusive licensing of a human creation. We don't grant copyright to machine output.

Your later example would be more than likely protected via patent, not copyright.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#356

Post by kombookcha »

signatoremo wrote: post #337
a_bonobo wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I pay 10 dollars per month for music I can AI-generate myself for free?

That's right. Why would you? Other people seem to be fine with it. Why wouldn't they?

Are they paying for the AI music, or for the human music on the platform that is now being thinned out with the AI music?

They're fine with it now, but at what does the bread taste more like sawdust than flour to these same customers? 20%? 40%? Half? 70%?

You can only deteriorate your core product so much before people start going somewhere else.

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#357

Post by JAlexoid »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #352
JAlexoid wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because AI music can be still valuable. People who like to write lyrics, but can't afford to pay a vocalist still deserve to get their art materialized and distributed.

those people are called poets, or songwriters. and they can pay someone who can play an instrument to make it happen, or do it themselves.

You're absolutely right.

They can just come up with a few thousand dollars per hour for a few hours per song. Everyone has a few thousand dollars just lying around

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#358

Post by JAlexoid »

mvdtnz wrote: post #304
JAlexoid wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI generated music is good, the singing (vocals and lyrics) is typically very bad. AI generated music is also not at all original. Which scares all of the "artists" who lack originality.

> AI generated music is good, the singing (vocals and lyrics) is typically very bad. This is a musicaly illterate position. You only find the instruments passable because you're not familiar enough with music. You hear vocals and because you have a decent understanding of what a human should sound like you can tell how bad it sounds. Anyone with a musical ear hears the same thing of the horrible AI generated instrume…

We're talking about a layman. Not to mention that different genres have different quality of AI music.

I would easily recognize AI generated orchestra, while I can bet a lot of money that AI generated EDM is hard to distinguish from something created in a DAW

Re: Tidal AI Policy

#359

Post by oasisbob »

make3 wrote: post #278
oasisbob wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wasn't speaking to morality, but copyright law, especially in the US, cares about the fixing of a creative act in a specific medium.

Like a monkey at a camera, the automated output from an LLM does not automatically afford protection.

Post reply on HN